| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The life and times of George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, Volume 2 (of 3) - From original and authentic sources
Author: Thomson, A. T., Mrs.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The life and times of George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, Volume 2 (of 3) - From original and authentic sources" ***
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note:
This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.
Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as ‘_italic_’.
The footnotes have been moved to follow the paragraphs in which they are
referenced.
Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please
see the transcriber’s note at the end of this text for details regarding
the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.
THE LIFE AND TIMES
OF
GEORGE VILLIERS
DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
FROM ORIGINAL AND AUTHENTIC SOURCES.
BY MRS. THOMSON,
AUTHOR OF
“MEMOIRS OF THE COURT OF HENRY THE EIGHTH,”
“LIFE OF SIR WALTER RALEGH,”
“MEMOIRS OF SARAH, DUCHESS OF MARLBOROUGH,”
&c., &c.
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. II.
LONDON:
HURST AND BLACKETT, PUBLISHERS,
SUCCESSORS TO HENRY COLBURN,
13, GREAT MARLBOROUGH STREET.
1860.
_The right of Translation is reserved._
LONDON:
PRINTED BY R. BORN, GLOUCESTER STREET,
REGENT’S PARK.
CONTENTS OF VOL II.
CHAPTER I.
Anxiety felt in England about the Spanish Treaty--Charles I.
the first Male Heir for whom a Treaty of Marriage had been
set on foot since Henry VIII.--Qualities of the
Infanta--Called the Rare Infanta--Charles’s Personal
Excellence and Elegance--Alliance received with Interest
as Concerning the Palatinate--Question of the
Dispensation--The Obstacles--Difficulty in fitting out a
Fleet to bring the Prince back--James’s
Apprehensions--Letter from Lord Kensington--Preparations
at Southampton for the Reception of the Prince and
Infanta--Attempts made in Spain to Convert Charles--His
Firmness, and that of the Duke--Buckingham’s Impatience to
return to England--Letters of Endymion Porter from
Spain--The Romantic Adventure of Prince Charles in a
Garden--His Short Interview with the Infanta accompanied
by Endymion Porter--Hopes of the Treaty being
fulfilled--The Betrothal fixed for St. James’s Day, but
not accomplished--The Fool Archy’s Speech--Buckingham’s
Pecuniary Difficulties--His
Boldness--Unpopularity--Insanity of his Brother, Lord
Purbeck--Amiable Conduct of the Duchess of
Buckingham--Grand Entertainment given at Madrid--The Fuego
de Cannas--Quarrels between Buckingham and
Olivares--Bristol’s Despatches Unfavourable to the
Prince--Preparations for the Prince’s Departure--The
Infanta’s Marriage Deferred--Original Letter from
Bristol--Leave-Taking at the Escurial--The Prince reaches
Segovia--Valladolid--St. Andero--Perils in Returning from
the Fleet to the Shore--Voyage Home--Touches at the Scilly
Isles--Arrives at Portsmouth--At York House--At
Royston--Public Rejoicings--Charles termed "England’s Joy" 1
CHAPTER II.
Indisposition of the Duchess of Buckingham--The King’s
Regard for her and her Child--Archbishop Laud’s Encomium
on her Character--Queen Anne’s Chain presented to the
Duchess of Lennox--Effrontery of the Countess of
Buckingham--The Duke’s Deportment on his Return from
Spain--More dignities conferred upon him--King James and
the Clergy--The Royal Instructions for the Performance of
Divine Service in Spain--Public Prejudice against the
Spanish Match--The Wallingford House Cabal pronounce in
Favour of a French Alliance--Popular Indignation against
the Spanish Ambassador--Competition for Precedence between
the Ambassadors of France and Spain--Character of the Lord
Keeper Williams--His Opposition to the Proceedings of
Buckingham--The Countess of Buckingham embraces the
Catholic Faith--Controversy between the Dean of Carlisle
and the Jesuit Fisher--Breach between Buckingham and
Williams--The King manifests his Displeasure with
Buckingham--The Spanish Court and the English
Alliance--Conduct of the Infanta after the Departure of
Charles--Preparations for the Marriage--A Commission
appointed to inquire into the Conditions of the Spanish
Treaty--The Lord Keeper in Favour with the
King--Parliament counsels James to break the Treaty with
Spain--Popular Rejoicings, and Disappointment of the
Catholic Party--The Illness of Buckingham--Painful
Illustration of the Bigoted Spirit of the Age--Inojosa
accuses Buckingham of Treachery against the King--The
Prophecy of Gamaliel Gruys--General Desire for War with
Spain--Proposed Alliance of Prince Charles with Henrietta
Maria of France--Restoration of Buckingham to the King’s
Favour 55
CHAPTER III.
Decline of the King’s Health--Case of Lord
Middlesex--Proceedings in both Houses--Sir Edward Coke’s
Exaggeration--Buckingham’s Participation in the
Affair--Middlesex steals away to Theobald’s, and is
followed by Charles--Found Guilty--Confined--Buckingham’s
Dangerous Illness--Arthur Brett--Death of the
King--Ascribed to Buckingham 133
CHAPTER IV.
1624-1625.
The Remarks of Sir Henry Wotton upon Buckingham’s
Uninterrupted Prosperity during the Reign of James--His
Most Perilous Time yet to Come--The Character of Charles
Difficult to Manage--His Affections Divided--Request of
the Privy Council Regarding the Late King’s Funeral and
the Young King’s Marriage--Good Taste displayed by Charles
in his Conduct at the Funeral--The Influence of Buckingham
still Paramount--Roger Coke’s Remark upon King James’s
Regret on observing that his Son was overruled by the
Duke--The Three Great Kingdoms of Europe at this Period
ruled by Favourites--The Marriage of Charles and Henrietta
Maria--Motive attributed to Buckingham--Preliminary
Steps--Letter from Lord Kensington to the Duke of
Buckingham detailing his Interview with the
Queen-Mother--Description of the Young Princess--The Duke
prepares for his Journey into France to fetch home the
Bride--The Expense of his Mission objected to by the
Nation--The Two Ambassadors Described--Rich--Lord
Kensington, First Earl of Holland--His Beauty of Person,
Address, and Early Favour at the Court of James--His
resting solely upon Buckingham--His Marriage with the
Daughter of Sir Walter Coke, the Owner of the Manor of
Kensington--The Earl of Holland regarded by some as a
Rival to Buckingham--James Relied more on the Earl of
Carlisle--Character of the Two Noblemen by Bishop
Hacket--Successful Interviews on the Part of Lord Holland
with Mary de Medici--Her Disposition to favour Charles as
a Suitor to her Daughter--Anecdote of Henrietta Maria and
of Charles’s Portrait--Encomiums on Henrietta--The Duchess
de Chevreuse--Her Influence over Anne of Austria--Her
Splendour--Resentment of the Count de Soissons on Account
of the Marriage Treaty with England--The Willingness
evinced by Henrietta Maria to the Marriage--Lord
Kensington’s Flattery of the Queen-Mother--Their
Conversations on the Subject of the Spanish Match--The
Marriage Finally Concluded--Charles’s Conduct to the
Recusants regarded as a Proof of his Aversion to Catholic
Hopes 161
CHAPTER V.
Buckingham’s Embassy to Paris--He despatches Balthazar
Gerbier to select and purchase Pictures--Letter of the
Painter to him--The Magnificence of the French
Court--Buckingham’s Appearance at the Parisian Court--His
Aspiring to the Favour of Anne of Austria--The Manner in
which his Homage was received by Anne, as stated by Madame
de Motteville--The Freedom of Manners, termed by Anne
"L’Honnête Galanterie," permitted by the Queen--The
Dazzling Appearance of Buckingham--Anecdote of the
Jealousy of the French--Point of Etiquette between
Buckingham and the Cardinal Richelieu--Buckingham attends
Henrietta Maria to the Coast--Anne of Austria accompanies
her Sister-in-law to Amiens--Incident there in which
Buckingham betrayed his Mad Passion--He receives a Rebuff
from the Queen--His Love-Suit not checked by her
Reproof--He sheds Tears on parting from Anne--Journeys on
to Boulogne and returns to Amiens--His Interview there
with Anne--He then pursues his Journey to
England--Letters, and Affecting Conduct of his Wife--The
Meeting of Charles and Henrietta Maria--Buckingham retains
his Influence over Charles I. 203
CHAPTER VI.
Unjust Appreciation of Buckingham’s Character--His Energy in
respect to the Navy--Sir Walter Ralegh’s Works on Maritime
Affairs--Prince Henry’s Predilection for them--His
Miniature Ship--His Death--Lord Nottingham’s Neglect and
Venality--His Powers--60,000_l._ yearly allotted for the
Navy--Buckingham’s Efforts--Example set by
Richelieu--Ignorance of Ship-Building in those
Days--Buckingham draws up a Plan of Defence--Fear of the
Spanish Armada--The Duke proposes to form a Company for
the West as well as the East Indies--Plan of
Taxation--Also of Defence on Shore 243
CHAPTER VII.
Unfortunate Result of the Principles early instilled into
Charles I. by his Father--The Affair of the
Palatinate--Its Connection with the Spanish Marriage--Mad
Desire of Charles and Buckingham for a War with
Spain--Letter from the Earl of Bristol--The First
Unfortunate Expedition to Cadiz--Resentment of the
People--Charles assembles a Parliament--The Supplies
Refused--Impeachment of Bristol--Impeachment of
Buckingham--His Thirteen Answers--Rash Conduct of the
King--His Expression of Contempt for the House of
Commons--Sir John Elliot and Sir Dudley Digges sent to the
Tower--The Intolerant Spirit of the Day--Influence of
Laud--Sermon of the Vicar of Brackley--"Tuning the
Pulpits" 273
CHAPTER I.
ANXIETY FELT IN ENGLAND ABOUT THE SPANISH TREATY--CHARLES I. THE FIRST
MALE HEIR FOR WHOM A TREATY OF MARRIAGE HAD BEEN SET ON FOOT SINCE
HENRY VIII.--QUALITIES OF THE INFANTA--CALLED THE RARE
INFANTA--CHARLES’S PERSONAL EXCELLENCE AND ELEGANCE--ALLIANCE
RECEIVED WITH INTEREST AS CONCERNING THE PALATINATE--QUESTION OF THE
DISPENSATION--THE OBSTACLES--DIFFICULTY IN FITTING OUT A FLEET TO
BRING THE PRINCE BACK--JAMES’S APPREHENSIONS--LETTER FROM LORD
KENSINGTON--PREPARATIONS AT SOUTHAMPTON FOR THE RECEPTION OF THE
PRINCE AND INFANTA--ATTEMPTS MADE IN SPAIN TO CONVERT CHARLES--HIS
FIRMNESS, AND THAT OF THE DUKE--BUCKINGHAM’S IMPATIENCE TO RETURN TO
ENGLAND--LETTERS OF ENDYMION PORTER FROM SPAIN--THE ROMANTIC
ADVENTURE OF PRINCE CHARLES IN A GARDEN--HIS SHORT INTERVIEW WITH
THE INFANTA, ACCOMPANIED BY ENDYMION PORTER--HOPES OF THE TREATY
BEING FULFILLED--THE BETROTHAL FIXED FOR ST. JAMES’S DAY, BUT NOT
ACCOMPLISHED--THE FOOL ARCHY’S SPEECH--BUCKINGHAM’S PECUNIARY
DIFFICULTIES--HIS BOLDNESS--UNPOPULARITY--INSANITY OF HIS BROTHER,
LORD PURBECK--AMIABLE CONDUCT OF THE DUCHESS OF BUCKINGHAM--GRAND
ENTERTAINMENT GIVEN AT MADRID--THE FUEGO DE CANNAS--QUARRELS BETWEEN
BUCKINGHAM AND OLIVARES--BRISTOL’S DESPATCHES UNFAVOURABLE TO THE
PRINCE--PREPARATIONS FOR THE PRINCE’S DEPARTURE--THE INFANTA’S
MARRIAGE DEFERRED--ORIGINAL LETTER FROM BRISTOL--LEAVE-TAKING AT THE
ESCURIAL--THE PRINCE REACHES SEGOVIA--VALLADOLID--ST. ANDERO--PERILS
IN RETURNING FROM THE FLEET TO THE SHORE--VOYAGE HOME--TOUCHES AT
THE SCILLY ISLES--ARRIVES AT PORTSMOUTH--AT YORK HOUSE--AT
ROYSTON--PUBLIC REJOICINGS--CHARLES TERMED "ENGLAND’S JOY."
LIFE AND TIMES OF
GEORGE VILLIERS.
----------
=CHAPTER I.=
The English nation continued, during the spring and summer of the year
1623, in anxious expectation of decisive news from Spain. Nothing could
exceed the universal interest which this famous treaty of marriage
between Charles and the Infanta inspired; nor had any subject so
completely engrossed the public mind since the time of Henry the Eighth,
when the ill-omened marriage of that prince with a daughter of Spain was
first concerted. For England, be it observed, had known no male
unmarried heir-apparent since that period, except the youthful and
estimable Edward the Sixth, whose career was closed before he could be
made the subject of political alliances.
There were many who looked with sentiments which state matters did not
influence upon the proposed marriage of two individuals whose rank was
their least merit. According to report, the Infanta was possessed of
qualities not inferior in excellence to those of Katherine of Arragon,
whilst in other attributes she was infinitely more attractive than that
ill-starred princess. Her beauty, her accomplishments, her piety, had
acquired for her the appellation of the “Rare Infanta;” and hence she
was esteemed to be a fitting consort for one whose elegance of mind,
whose courtesy, and princely grace were transcended by the purity of his
moral conduct, the firmness of his religious opinions, and the
affectionate disposition of his heart.
In his position as a private individual, Charles was pre-eminently
amiable; and, at that period, the public could only judge of him as they
would of any other irresponsible youth of great expectations. The vital
faults of his heart, and the real weakness of his character, soft and
infirm, yet incrusted with obstinacy and prejudice, were not only not
apparent, but unsuspected.
The majority of the nation, however, viewed the Spanish alliance with
interest, chiefly as affecting the long agitated question of the
Palatinate, which James pretended, and, perhaps, believed, it was
destined to settle to the satisfaction of the people.
It was therefore with something like consternation at first, although
the event was afterwards hailed with joy, that the rupture of the treaty
was seen afar off, by signs which appeared at first gradually, and
afterwards plainly, upon the political horizon.
The question of the dispensation was the first known impediment; and the
news from Spain were inauspicious. To the surprise of everyone, almost
the next letter from the Prince and Duke announced their intention to
return home, even should the expected dispensation not arrive before
they could sail; “wherefore,” they wrote, “it was fitting that no time
nor charge should be spared” in sending out the fleet which was to
convey them to England; and begged that it might “be well chosen,”
because they thought that the King, Queen, and all the Court of Spain
would see it.
This letter was dated on the twenty-third of March, the anniversary of
King James’s coronation.
“My sweete boyes,” the King wrote, on the following day, “God bless you
both, and reward you for the comfortable news I resaived from you
yesterday[1] (quhiche was my coronation daye), in place of a tilting. My
shippe is readdie to make saile, and onlie stayes for a faire winde; God
send it her! But I have, for the honour of Englande, curtailed the
traine that goes by sea of a number of raskalls.”[2]
Footnote 1:
Referring to a former letter, dated the 10th of March.
Footnote 2:
Nichols, vol. iv., p. 839.
There was, meantime, much difficulty, from the inefficient state of the
navy, in furnishing even a small fleet to fetch home the heir-apparent.
Not only ships, but mariners, were wanting; the sailors had gone away,
and hidden themselves. In vain were two proclamations issued to call
them home; for proclamations and commissions had become so frequent that
no one attended to their purport. At length, on the twenty-eighth of
June, a small fleet of ten or twelve ships was equipped, and appeared in
the Downs, ready to depart; but the expense of supporting them, which
exceeded three hundred pounds a day, was loudly complained of by those
at the head of affairs.
The King, meantime, was harassed with debts, and disturbed by
apprehensions. He begged “his babie” to be as sparing as possible, since
his agents had great difficulty in raising the five thousand pounds
required for his use. The Prince’s “tilting stuff” was to come to three
thousand pounds more, and those employed to get that sum knew not how to
procure it. “God knows,” wrote the King, “how my coffers are alreadie
drained.” He could think of no remedy, he added, except to obtain in
advance the payment of the hundred and fifty thousand pounds promised as
the Infanta’s dower, which he thought “his sweete gossepe, that is now
turned Spaniarde, with his golden keye,”[3] would be able to get, and
then he should have a fine ship speedily to bring him home to his “deare
dade.”
The tender father was too full of fears lest his “babie” should be hurt
in tilting. He also begged of his “sweete boyes to keep themselfs in use
of dawincing privatlie, though they showlde quhaffsell and sing one to
another, like Gakke (Jack) and Tom, for faulte of bettir musike.”
Finally, James desired them, even should the dispensation not arrive, to
press the Prince’s suit bravely, and to get him married without it,
since numbers of "Catholic Romans and Protestants married in the worlde
without the Pope’s dispensation," as he had been informed by the
Austrian ambassador.
Footnote 3:
Referring to the key presented to the Duke by the King of Spain.
Meantime, the university of Oxford was vying with the metropolis in
demonstrations of joy for the Prince’s safe arrival in Spain. In the
beautiful church of St. Mary’s, now chiefly appropriated to deep
theological discourses, a sermon was preached in honour of that event,
and an oration to the same effect delivered in the schools.[4] Yet, even
now, the feeling of the country began to appear. It was rumoured, and
only too truly, that things were not going well in Spain; whilst the
enormous sums of money taken out of the treasury and regalia in jewels
excited general indignation. As everything familiar, as well as
important, became, in those times, the theme of preachers, even from
pulpits, the draining of the kingdom of money was blamed. Dr. Everard,
the rector of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, was committed for “saying too
much;” and another preacher was, in the midst of his unpleasant
strictures on the same subject, “sung down with a psalm before he had
half done his sermon.”
Footnote 4:
State Papers, vol. cxi., No. 13.
On the twenty-sixth of May, the Earl of Rutland, Buckingham’s
father-in-law, received James’s private instructions to have the “ships
sweet, and well provided with victuals, to chuse good captains, and to
defer to the authority of Buckingham as Lord Admiral, should he come on
board; to avoid quarrels, which the King thought very dangerous when
persons were crowded together on shipboard;--in going, to make for the
Groyne, in returning to land at in returning to land at Southampton,”[5]
the high-ways of which were even then being repaired for the reception
and convenience of the expected bride. Yet still the fleet was
unaccountably detained in port, and nothing was really done.
The Court, at this time, was gratified by a letter from Lady Kensington,
commending the resistance of the Prince and Duke to proposals made by
the Spanish Court, derogatory to them; and stating, after extravagant
encomiums on the newly-made Duke, that Buckingham “shed tears” on
account of his absence from the King.[6] Complaints, however, were made
at home, not only of the export of so many valuables to Spain, but of
the expense of supporting the table of the Spanish ambassador, who was
treated here as a guest, during Charles’s sojourn in Spain. Eighty
pounds a day was the charge to which the ambassador’s table at first
amounted. His repasts were eventually cut down to thirty dishes--all
that King James permitted himself to display on his own table--and the
cost was thus reduced to twenty pounds daily.[7]
Footnote 5:
State Papers, vol. cxlvi., No. 23.
Footnote 6:
Ibid, No. 39.
Footnote 7:
Ibid, No. 49.
Reports, indeed, came to console the anxious minds at home, stating that
the Prince and Duke were “royally treated,” but it was soon surmised
that Charles was becoming weary of his detention. June had arrived; the
Duke of Richmond, and six other noblemen, as commissioners, had already
gone to Southampton to prepare a reception, with pageants, for the
Prince; yet still Lord Rochford, who was expected to arrive with news of
the wedding-day being fixed, did not make his appearance.
The Duke of Richmond was accompanied to Southampton by Inigo Jones and
old Alleyn, the player, who were to employ their talents for the
occasion; but who could, as the great news-teller writer of that period,
Chamberlain, observes, “have done just as well without so many Privy
Counsellors;” “but we must,” he adds, “shew our obsequiousness in all
that concerns her” (the Infanta). At Gravesend, Lord Kelly, in the
King’s barge, went to meet the new Spanish ambassador, the Marquis
Inojosa, to whom cloths of estate, an honour never permitted to
ambassadors in Queen Elizabeth’s time, were conceded, and when the
haughty grandee landed at Dover, and was saluted with shot from the
castle, he vouchsafed a nod from his coach, but, Spaniard-like, gave not
one penny of money.[8]
Footnote 8:
State Papers, vol. cxlvii., No. 40.
In spite of all the journeyings to and from Spain, nothing was done,
whilst the Prince, whose firmness met with the highest commendations,
was written to by the Pope, and “nibbed at with orations by the English
seminaries in Spain, in order to effect his conversion.” The expenses at
home and abroad could now only be supported by extraordinary devices,
such as knighting a thousand gentlemen at a hundred pounds a-piece; ten
or twelve serjeants-at-law at five hundred pounds a-piece; but the fees
arising from the elevation of these luminaries were to be given to the
Lord Keeper or to Sir Francis Crane, to further his tapestry works at
Mortlake, or to pay off some scores owed him by Buckingham.[9]
Footnote 9:
State Papers, vol. cxlvii., No. 80.
Whilst all these minor difficulties were harassing the King at home,
Charles was beset with a far greater difficulty. When the Puritans were
blaming him for answering in a polite and conciliatory tone the Pope’s
letters, without the permission of his royal father, he was displaying
the firmness which could only be the result of a careful and learned
education; for faith in those times was, as in ours, feeble without
sound knowledge; and it was requisite for him to repel zealous efforts
to convert him at all convenient times. Between the dazzling scenes of
splendid shows and diversions, made at such times and intervals of
repose, Olivares was attacking the Prince with the argument best suited
to the character of the romantic youth, telling him how sure a way to
the Infanta’s heart his conversion would be; and by hinting that
difference of creed could not but be a great obstacle to their union.
And when answered that such an apostasy would raise a rebellion in
Protestant England, the embarrassed but steadfast Prince was assured
that if such were the case, he should have an army from Spain to quell
such an insurrection. Even Lord Bristol, who was a great friend and
favourite of Charles’s, “strove, with a gentle hand, to allure him that
way,” by the specious argument that none but Roman Catholic monarchs had
ever been great as sovereigns; whilst the Pope, encouraged by all this
subtle working of a hidden machinery, wrote a letter to the Bishop of
Conchen, Inquisitor-General of Spain, desiring him not to let such an
opportunity of conversion slip out of his hands.[10]
Footnote 10:
Kennet’s History of England, vol. ii., p. 765.
Buckingham did not, it appears, escape the zeal of the Jesuits, but
acquitted himself, in reply to the energetic attacks upon his faith,
with a prompt decision; and, as far as he was concerned, the attempt
seems to have ceased, although he was afterwards incessantly reproached
with a leaning to Romanism.
Like others, Buckingham became, at length, weary of the subject of the
Palatinate, and not only still more weary of his long residence in
Spain, but anxious to leave the political management of the affairs to
those who best understood those intricate matters.[11] To his
precipitate conduct, and his impatience of delay, it was said the whole
failure might be ascribed; and that, had it not been for his impetuous
temper, Charles and the Infanta would have been married before the
Christmas of 1623.
Footnote 11:
Letter from Madrid, August, 1623.
Whilst all went smooth, or appeared to do so, with the treaty, the
diplomatists were at variance among themselves.
“When we were here in the heighth of discontents,” wrote Simon
Digby,[12] “nothing so much spoken of as the Prince, his sudden
departure, _reinfectâ_, all our wranglings and disputes were, when no
man suspected and expected any such matter,[13] shut up like a comedy,
and the match declared and published for concluded.”
Footnote 12:
A cousin of the Earl of Bristol’s.
Footnote 13:
Letter from Simon Digby. State Papers for 1623, July 25.
At home, the Marquis Inojosa was making representations which he was
ordered to lay before the King, through Don Carlos Colonna, complaining
of the East India Company’s ships at the taking of Ormus. In the ship
called the _London_, were, it was alleged, goods stolen from the King of
Spain to the amount of five hundred thousand pounds. The very dishes
used by the lowest men in that ship were of silver, taken from some of
the very best families in Portugal, whom the English had plundered and
slain, and had then stamped their plate with their own arms. Jewels of
inestimable value had also been seized. It was therefore demanded that
these ships should be put into sequestration. It is a curious proof how
completely a feeling against the Spanish marriage had, by this time,
possessed every class, that, upon the arrival of these vessels in port,
the crews, hearing a report that the marriage with the Infanta was to be
broken off, shot off their artillery, and threw their caps into the sea
for joy.[14]
Footnote 14:
Letter from Madrid, State Papers, August 21, 1623.
Whilst the wooer, as the Prince was still styled, was murmuring at
delays and obstacles, others less lofty were sending complaints to
England, coupled with assurances of conjugal fidelity, which were more
suspicious than satisfactory. Amongst Buckingham’s most confidential
servants was Endymion Porter, who generally acted as his interpreter.
Porter, according to Arthur Wilson, "had been bred up in Spain when he
was a boy, and had the language, but found no other fortune there than
brought him to be Mr. Edward Villiers’s man in Fleet Street, before
either his master or the Marquis was acceptable at Whitehall." “It is
not intended,” adds the historian, "to vilify the persons, being men (in
this world’s lottery) as capable of advancement as others; but to shew
in how poor a bark the King ventured the right freight his son, having
only the Marquis to steer his course."
It was, indeed, remarkable that the agents most employed in the Duke’s
service were men who had raised themselves from all but menial stations.
Sir Robert Graham, whose name so often occurs in the correspondence of
this period, was “an underling of low degree” in Buckingham’s stable.
Cottington was originally a clerk to Sir Charles’s Cornwallis’s
secretary, when Cornwallis was ambassador in Spain. The letters of
Endymion Porter, also raised from mediocrity, are very characteristic of
the confidential servant of a great man, who, like himself, was of easy
principles. Among expressions of affection and grief for absence from
his wife, Olive, and allusions to their little son George, are mingled a
protestation that Endymion did not kiss the innkeeper’s daughter at
Boulogne. “Alas! alas! sweet Olive!” thus he writes, "why should you go
about to afflict me! Know that I live like a dying man, and as one that
cannot live long without you. My eyes grow weary in looking upon
anything, as wanting that rest they take in thy company and sight of
thee.
"We live very honest, and think of nothing but our wives. I thought to
have sent you a token of some value, but find my purse and my goodwill
could not agree, and considering that my letter would be welcome to you,
I leave to do it only this ring, which I hope you will esteem, if it be
not for love, I think for charity. The conceit is that it seems two as
you turn it, and ’tis but one.
“Sweet Olive! remember what it is to be sad, and forget not home. In our
poverty, we will live as richly as they that have the greatest plenty,
and bread with thy company shall please me better than the greatest
dainties in the world without it.”[15]
Footnote 15:
State Papers, May 28, 1623.
Olive Porter was, it seems, a humble relation of the Duchess of
Buckingham, who addresses her as “Cousin,” and who appears, by
Endymion’s letters, to have provided for Mistress Porter, since, in one
of his singular epistles, after hoping that there may be nothing more
said of any unkindness between them, Endymion sends his wife a jewel
worth some hundred pounds, telling her that “she might pawn it if she
had no more credit, but that Lady Buckingham had promised to supply her
wants.” Certain conduct of Mrs. Porter’s prompts jealousy, and Endymion
hints that, in his absence, “his wife has been merry with other young
men,” a charge which not even the most scandalous could adduce against
the pensive and irreproachable Duchess of Buckingham.
It was the lot of Endymion Porter to accompany Prince Charles on a very
interesting occasion; in the month of July, whilst the dispensation was
daily expected, Charles grew weary of the uniform Court gaieties, during
which he saw nothing but the Infanta, on whom his eyes were incessantly
fastened, as the inquisitive courtiers remarked.
“I have seen,” James Howell wrote from Madrid to Captain Porter, the
brother of Endymion, “the Prince have his eyes immovably fixed upon the
Infanta half an hour together, in a thoughtful, speculative posture,
which sure would needs be tedious, if affection did not succeed it.”
Lord Bristol, not very elegantly, remarked that Charles “watched her as
a cat does a mouse.” Still the royal pair were not allowed to be on the
terms of lovers; and the possibility, even at this last stage, of the
treaty never being concluded, kept these young persons apart. Nothing
could exceed the magnificence and courtly hospitality continually shown
to the “wooer;” everything was done to satisfy the Prince and his suite.
Nevertheless, whilst King Philip’s own servants waited upon the royal
guest at the palace, there were some among the English “who did jeer at
the Spanish fare, and use other slighting speeches and demeanour,”
which, of course, were reported, and occasioned ill will. Once a week
comedians came to the palace where the Prince was lodged, and Charles,
seated, with Don Carlos, on the right hand of the Queen, the Infanta
being in the middle, between her brother and his consort, taking the
chief place as Prince of England, feasted his eyes upon that fair but
soon forgotten face. The youthful King Philip was then under twenty, and
his brother, Don Fernando, a boy of twelve, nevertheless Archbishop of
Toledo and a Cardinal, was of all this royal family the only one who had
the true Spanish complexion; and seems to have been, on that account,
more beloved by the people, who were often heard to sigh and say:--"Oh,
when shall we have a king again of our own colour?"
Marked out thus for popularity by the true Spanish type, Don Carlos was
endowed with no office, dignity, nor title; he was only the King’s
“individual companion, dressed in similar garments, from top to toe,”
with the King, and when the King had new robes, others were always
provided for him; he was, in short, His Spanish Majesty’s shadow.[16]
Footnote 16:
Epistolæ Hoelianæ.
Thus fenced round with guardians and etiquette, the Infanta could only
publicly converse with Charles, and that through an interpreter, the
Earl of Bristol, “Our cousin, Archy” (King James’s fool) “hath,” says
the writer in Howell’s letters, “more privilege than any, for he goes
with his fool’s coat where the Infanta is with her meninas and maidens
of honour, and keeps a blowing and a blustering, and flirts out what he
lists. One day they were discoursing what a marvellous thing it was that
the Duke of Bavaria, with less than 15,000 men, after a long toylsome
march, should dare to encounter the Palsgower’s army, consisting of
about 25,000, and give them an utter discomfiture, and take Prague
presently after; wherefore he archly answered, that he would tell them a
stranger thing than that. ‘Was it not a stranger thing,’ quoth he, ‘that
in the year eighty-eight, there should come a fleet of one hundred and
forty sails from Spain to invade England, and that ten of these should
not go back to tell what became of the rest.’”[17]
Footnote 17:
Epistolæ Hoelianæ.
At last Charles was resolved to gain a private interview with her whom
he supposed to be his destined wife. Understanding that the Infanta was
in the habit of going early in the morning to the Caso del Campo, on the
other side of the river, to gather May-dew, he rose early, and went
thither, accompanied by Endymion Porter. “They were,” says Howell, “let
into the house, and into the garden, but the Infanta was in the orchard,
and there being a high partition wall between, and the door doubly
bolted, the Prince got on the top of the wall, and sprung down a great
height, and so made towards her; but she, spying him first of all the
rest, gave a shriek, and ran back. The old Marquis that was then her
guardian, came towards the Prince and fell on his knees, conjuring him
to retire, in regard he hazarded his head if he admitted him to her
company; so the door was opened, and he came out under that wall under
which he had got in.”
Often did the Prince watch “a long hour together,” in a close coach in
an open street, to see the Infanta, as she went abroad; and this conduct
appears to have been either the curiosity felt by a young man who
earnestly desires to love the individual chosen to be his wife, or a
gallantry natural to the age, and then the fashion in both nations, for
Charles soon either forgot the Infanta, or became indifferent to the
marriage. His affections were destined to rest ultimately upon one of a
very different character, as far as we can gather from the perhaps too
flattering accounts given by historians of the Infanta, to that of the
Spanish Princess.
Still, both the Prince and Buckingham sent encouraging accounts of the
progress of the treaty, and even inspired the poor King with a hope that
they should bring the Infanta over to England at Michaelmas. This was
almost the last letter in which such expectations were held out: it was
dated on the fifteenth of July. On that very day, the Archbishop Laud
stated in his diary of a violent and destructive tempest, which many,
says Camden, “took occasion to interpret as an ill-omen, but God
forbid.” It was a “very fair day,” the Archbishop records, "till towards
five at night; then great extremity of thunder and lightning, and much
hurt done; the lanthorn at St. James’s House blasted, the vane heading
the Prince’s arms beaten to pieces."
The Prince was then in Spain. It was Tuesday, and St. James’s day
(N.S.)[18]
Footnote 18:
Nichols, vol. iii., p. 227.
It appears, however, from Mr. Chamberlain’s letters,[19] that although
“Spanish tidings” were kept “very close,” the Prince had even then
written to the Duke of Richmond to procure him the King’s permission to
return home, as he was anxious to leave Spain.[20] About the same time a
letter from Endymion Porter, dated July twelfth, to his wife Olive,
intimated that the Prince was to be contracted in three weeks, but the
Infanta, than whom, he added, there never was a better creature, was to
follow in the following March.[21]
Footnote 19:
Dated July 12.
Footnote 20:
State Papers, vol. cxlviii., No. 12.
Footnote 21:
Ibid, No. 125.
Meantime the articles of agreement for the marriage were read publicly
by Secretary Calvert at Court, when the King of Spain swore to observe
them. The Infanta was to have an Archbishop and twenty-four priests in
her suite, and a chapel for her Spanish household, but no English were
to attend it. She was to be allowed the training of her children only
until they were ten years old. The Prince and Infanta were to sign the
contract of marriage on St. James’s day; that day which Laud had noted
in his Diary as one of storms and destruction.[22] At the same time that
a Romanist Archbishop and twenty-four priests were to be admitted into
the very heart of the Court, three Jesuits were imprisoned at Dover for
bringing over pictures and books; a subject of the British crown was
prosecuted in the Ecclesiastical court for not standing up at the creed,
or kneeling down at the Lord’s Prayer, in church; and a poor woman,
passing over from Calais, was brought up before the Commissioners of
Passage for having beads, which, she said, were bought to make
bracelets, and Popish books in her possession,[23] which, she asserted,
were for the use of the Spanish ambassador.
Footnote 22:
Ibid, vol. clix., No. 80.
Footnote 23:
State Papers, vol. xlix., Nos. 20 and 22.
When the articles of the Spanish match were read at the English Court,
then at Theobald’s, it was the Scottish lords who “stuck most” on points
of religion, but they were silenced by being told that there "must be no
disputing, the Prince being in the hands of the Spaniards, and the
restoration of the King’s children to be effected either by them or by a
war which would set all Christendom by the ears." Then the articles were
sworn to. The Archbishop of Spalato’s Jesuit confessor put on his hat
whilst the prayer for King James was being read. There was afterwards a
“gay and plentiful banquet;” but the Court had become very “rude,” as
Secretary Conway wrote to Sir George Goring, “for want of its ornaments,
which are in Spain; and but for the Earl of Carlisle, wearing of ruffs
and gartering of silk stockings would be forgotten.”
King James now began to be painfully eager for the fleet, which was to
fetch back his son and the Duke, to sail. “No impediment in the power of
man,” he decreed, should detain it. Every letter written by his
Secretaries of State to Lord Middlesex was to end with, “His Majesty
cries, haste away the ships, as you tender the life of himself and his
son.” Good tidings still arrived from Madrid; more liberty of
communication between the Prince and the Infanta was allowed; but the
contract, fixed for St. James’s Day, was not fulfilled, and the ill-omen
was, in the minds of the superstitious, confirmed.[24]
Footnote 24:
State Papers, vol. xlix., No. 69.
Meantime, whilst such was the state of things at the Spanish Court,
their ambassadors here were in vain endeavouring to obtain indulgence
for recusants. Whilst these conflicting interests were thus impeding a
speedy settlement of the Spanish match, Buckingham had other reasons,
besides weariness of foreign life, to induce him to wish to return home.
His affairs were greatly involved, and he found it, indeed, necessary,
at this time, to employ several of his friends, among whom was Sir John
Suckling, to examine into them. Their answers were far from
satisfactory. His revenue, they stated in reply, from land, offices,
&c., was 15,213_l._ 6_s._ 8_d._ a year. His expenditure was 14,700_l._
Out of this, 3,000_l._ was allowed to the Duchess for housekeeping,
2,000_l._ was allowed to his mother, the Countess of Buckingham; the
costly diversion of tilting cost 1,000_l._ a year, about as much as a
yacht in modern times. Then his friends gave him no very pleasant
intelligence about his debts; they had amounted, when the Duke went to
Spain, to 24,000_l._, and were now increased by 29,400_l._--money having
been advanced to him whilst shining at the Court of Madrid. His friends
had cleared off 17,300_l._ by selling land, and were to apply 2,500_l._
to be paid from his Irish revenues, and they now proposed similar means
of discharging the remainder, which, they said, would otherwise ruin his
estate. His income, they gravely told him, but little exceeded his
expenditure; whereas, those who wish to leave a patrimony behind them do
not spend more than two-thirds of their income[25]--an excellent rule,
but not much better observed in those days than in ours. Half the
nobility appear to have been deeply involved in debt, and hence their
tendency to corrupt practices. Even the honest-hearted Sir Edward Coke
was, we are told, “half-crazied” by his debts, which amounted to
26,000_l._[26] In consequence, it may be presumed, of these
embarrassments, the King, at this time, wrote to his “sweete Steenie,”
announcing a present to him of 2,000_l._ from the East India Company by
way of consolation.[27]
Footnote 25:
State Papers, vol. cxlix., No. 91.
Footnote 26:
Nichols, p. 887.
Footnote 27:
Ibid, p. 887; from Birch’s MSS., Brit. Museum, 4174.
The Duke was also made now fully aware of the responsibility he had
incurred in taking the Prince to Spain. Reports were often circulated
that he had been made a prisoner there. Shortly afterwards James, being
agitated with this fear, was assured that, “if there be trust on earth,”
the Prince and Infanta were to be moving home on the twenty-eighth of
August.
The King, meantime, wrote plaintively to his “sweete boyes.” He kept
what he called the “feaste,” on the anniversary of the Gowry plot, at
Salisbury, on the fifth of August, where the Spanish ambassador and all
the _corps diplomatique_ were conveyed, at the King’s expense, in
coaches, which cost twenty pounds a day; and here, besides a brace of
bucks and a stag every day, the provision made for these Spanish
grandees was so plentiful that, not being able to use it, they were
stated to have buried it under dunghills, rather than bestow it upon
heretics. “And though,” says Mr. Chamberlain, referring to this report,
“I took it for a scandal or slander, yet I have heard it verified more
than once; and that the neighbours were forced to complain, though to
little purpose, for, I know not how, the Spaniard hath got such a hand
everywhere, that he carries more away, when he comes, than all other
ambassadors together.”[28]
Footnote 28:
It seems that this expensive allowance to the ambassadors was suffered
to go on till after the 14th of August, when Secretary Conway wrote to
Secretary Calvert to complain that it had not then been discontinued,
and that the delay in doing so put the King out of all patience,
fearing that the letters written on the subject were lost. The post,
Conway remarks, travels slowly, taking ten hours from London to
Staines. He recommends reformation therein.--State Papers, vol. cl.,
No. 98.
Buckingham, we are told, “lay at home under a million of
maledictions.”[29] The poor King, indifferent to public opinion, and now
visibly declining in health, was nevertheless constantly writing to
Madrid in such terms as these:--"If ye haisten not hoame, I apprehende I
shale never see you, for my longing will kill mee." To the Prince
individually, he expressed himself in terms which left Charles no
alternative but to return. “The necessitie of my affaires,” the King
wrote, “enforced me to tell you that ye must preferre the obedience to a
father to the love ye carrie to a mistresse.” Eager to do away with
every possible impediment to the marriage, the King, on the seventh of
August, signed, whilst at Salisbury, the “declaration, touching the
pardons, suspensions, and dispensations of the Roman Catholics.”[30]
Footnote 29:
Sir H. Wotton, p. 218.
Footnote 30:
Nichols, p. 888.
The Prince had, it appears, at this very time, “been packed up,” and
ready to depart, leaving matters to be arranged afterwards. Yet the
Spanish ambassadors at home expressed themselves contented, and ready to
fulfil all promises. Sir Edward Herbert, speaking to the Marquis
Inojosa, of a report in France that the Prince was detained a prisoner
in Spain, received an answer that it was the Prince whose virtues had
captivated the King of Spain;[31] and for some time compliments and
assurances continued to be exchanged.
Footnote 31:
State Papers, cxlix., No. 107.
On the twenty-first of August, the King visited the ships which were to
go to Spain, under the command of the Earl of Rutland, who was
unfortunately absent, upon the earnest entreaty of his daughter, the
Duchess of Buckingham, and of his grandchild, Lady Mary, that he would
remain with them. At the end of that month, nevertheless, the fleet was
still detained for fifteen days, in the vain hope of receiving news of
the Prince’s marriage. The Pope’s illness, it was now said, was delaying
the dispensation; but Buckingham’s conduct was, according to a letter
from Sir Francis Woolley to Carleton, “much commended.” He was,
nevertheless, more impatient than ever to return, and that eagerness was
sure, it was thought, to hinder rather than accelerate the wished-for
nuptials. In addition to his other troubles, Buckingham had now a very
grievous one in the visitation which had fallen, during his absence,
upon Lord Purbeck, his favourite brother, who became insane. As usual,
under every circumstance, the greatest good sense was shown by the
Duchess of Buckingham. She wrote to Secretary Conway to inform him that
the unfortunate Viscount’s “distemper now inclined to his usual
melancholy fit,” during which he was gentle, and “could be removed
anywhere, but that at present he would be outrageous were it attempted;”
she suggests, therefore, that Sir John Keysley, and a few other friends,
had better remain with him in London.
The King, replying through his secretary, said that he admired the
Duchess’s gentleness, but that Purbeck’s malady, exciting him to public
acts, in public places, which dishonoured himself and his brothers, made
it necessary to place him under some restraint, and to remove him into
the country.[32] Lord Purbeck, it seems, was therefore put under
restraint. Such was the end of that ambitious career which the Duke had
hoped to witness, and so pave the way to which he had promoted the
marriage with Sir Edward Coke’s unhappy daughter.
Footnote 32:
State Papers, vol. cli., Nos. 86, 87.
Whilst a degree of gloom and anxiety thus overspread his home,
Buckingham was witnessing, in the festivities given to honour the
expected espousals, one of the most characteristic diversions of the
Spanish nation. This was the “Fuego de Caunas,”--borrowed from the
Moors, and still practised by Eastern nations, under the name of El
Djerid. “It is,” says Sir Walter Scott, “a sort of rehearsal of the
encounter of their light horsemen, armed with darts, as the Tourney
represented the charge of the feudal cavaliers with their lances. In
both cases, the difference between sport and reality only consisted in
the weapons being sharp or pointless.”[33]
Footnote 33:
Somers’s Tracts, vol. ii., p. 352.
This entertainment was ordered by the King of Spain, who was not
contented with the festivities hitherto given in honour of the Prince of
Wales, and was held at Madrid, in the Market Place, containing
scaffolding for a great concourse of strangers, who were present. The
Infanta appeared on this occasion in white, as an unspotted dove, “after
the Majesty of England;” the manes of her coach horses were twisted with
blue ribbands, in compliment to her future consort; and there
accompanied the Lady Infanta, says the Spanish annalist, “Don Fernando,
her brother, clothed in Romane purple, that radiant sunne of the church,
even as his sister is the resplendent beames of true beauty,”[34] this
“radiant sunne of the church;” being, as it has been before stated, a
boy of twelve years of age. The Queen was carried in a chair of state,
followed by her meninas (or minions) and ladies. The King, about two
o’clock, arrived in a coach with the Prince of Wales, and his brothers,
“brave with gravity,” says the chronicler, and “grave in bravery.”
Philip was in black, Prince Charles in white, their dresses divided in
fashion, half after the English, and half after the Spanish manner;
Charles being placed on the right hand of the King.
Footnote 34:
A Relation of the Royal Festivities and Fuego Canad. By Don Antonio de
la Penna, from a translation in the British Museum.--Nichols, p. 889.
Then came four and twenty movable fountains, with a supply of beverages;
and next entered into the Market Place His Majesty’s four and twenty
musicians, and servants in satin liveries, carnation colour, guarded
with silver lace, interspersed with folds of black velvet in large
cassocks, with black hats and carnation plumes, mounted on goodly
horses. Next appeared the King’s equerries, leading the way, uncovered,
before a noble courser on which His Majesty was to run: and, amongst the
numerous retinue that followed, were four farriers with pouches of
crimson velvet, in which all that was requisite for shoeing horses was
contained. Sixty horses of brown bay, in white and black trappings, with
muzzles of silver, and covered with crimson velvet, embroidered with the
arms of Philip IV., were led by lacqueys in carnation satin, their hose
and jacket decorated with black and silver lace. Next came forty
“youngsters of the stables,” dressed in the Turkish fashion, and lastly,
twelve mules, laden with bunches of canes, and caparisoned in similar
fashion with the horses. To add to the convenience of the equestrians,
steps of fine wood, inlaid with ebony, and covered with carnation
taffeta, with fringes of gold, were also brought into the Market Place.
The livery of the town was of orange colour, relieved with silver; and
it may easily be conceived how splendid was the effect of these gorgeous
dresses, set off by the badges worked in silver, beneath a cloudless
sky, with the far-famed Spanish coursers prancing under their gorgeous
caparisons, and all the beauty and rank of the city ranged as beholders.
Mingled with these retainers, were those of the great Spanish grandees.
First came Don Duarte, the Duke of Infantado, with forty horses, in
white and black caparisons, with the glorious blazon of the Ave Maria
upon them; and after the last horse, came the Rider, as he was called on
this occasion.
Next followed Don Pedro of Toledo, the pride of Castilian knights, with
a troop of sorrel horses. Next, that of the Admiral of Castile, whose
retainers wore long coats of black satin, and yellow and white plumes,
and were followed by the farrier--a functionary attached to each troop.
Presently, the Condé de Monterey, the Duke of Sessa and the Duke of
Cea’s horse, all in liveries of various colours, made up the number of
five hundred and eighty-six cavaliers; augmented by muleteers, farriers,
and grooms, in number a hundred and forty-four. This unrivalled troop,
glittering with silver plumes and emblazonments, took an hour to make
their entrance. After “baiting but a few bulls,” says the chronicler,
the running with the canes commenced.
King Philip, followed by his thaclow, Don Carlos, then went to mask
himself for the sport, at the house of the Condessa Miranda, who had
been previously apprised of the intended honour. Her reception of the
young monarch is characteristic of the minute, though stately,
hospitality of that period. She whitened her house all over for the
occasion; she hung round the courts with draperies; in the portals of
the King’s apartment these were of white damask, with gold fringe. Beds
were prepared for the King and Infant Carlos; and these were brought
from the royal palace; the rooms were washed with sweet powder and water
mingled with ambar, and were replete with fragrance. Next to the
apartment of His Majesty, there was one provided for the Condé Olivares,
with a bed of rich needle-work. The Condessa Miranda also provided for
the King and Don Carlos each a shirt to change, which they put on; she
gave each of her royal guests boxes of relics, of inestimable value: to
the King, one of St. Philip the Apostle; to the Infant, one of St.
Lawrence, given to the Condessa by Pope Sixtus V., when she was at
Naples; and these reliques were the more valuable because the vessel in
which they had been sent was sunk, but the trunk in which they came was
seen in the water, and was sent to the Condé of Miranda, by the famous
John Andrea Dorea, which miraculous incident proves, says the Spanish
historian, “the certainty of reliques;” this gift was esteemed a “pious
and discreet present, on such occasions, to such persons.” The Condessa
had also gloves and handkerchiefs, for her royal guests, in cabinets of
rock crystal, set in gold; sweet cake to be eaten, in crystal glasses;
and crystal apples, filled with sweet waters. All these carefully
arranged courtesies must have seemed indeed singular to Prince Charles
and Buckingham, when they, who had come from a Court in which people had
almost begun to show outward disrespect to the King, by leaving off
ruffs and plumes, witnessed these refinements of hospitality.
More than all, it must have astonished them, considering the festive
nature of the occasion, had they not been accustomed now to Spanish
modes, that the Condessa, being most “wise and discreet,” had procured
that the Holy Sacrament, in the Monastery of the Holy Trinity, should be
exhibited before her window, with great solemnity of lights and
ornaments. On bended knees, the two young Princes humbly and devoutly
worshipped the sacred elements, previous to returning to their
apartments to put on their masks. In that room they found about forty
plates of silver, with all manner of conserves on them, and rose-sugar
confections. The honour shown to the Condessa in thus selecting her to
be the hostess, was, it was alleged, only a renewal of the favour
exhibited by Philip the Second, the grandfather of the King, to that
illustrious lady when she was vice-Queen of Barcelona.
After this preparation, the running commenced. The canes were
distributed to each runner, and, according to ancient custom, the King
chose the Condé Olivares for his own encounter, and the Infant Carlos,
the Marquis of Carpio. The palm of skill and bravery was, of course,
accorded to these royal brothers, and on the Duke of Cea’s delivering to
the King the canes, the place rang with shouts of “Long live their
Majesties,” a cry which London doubtless would re-echo as this
“triumpant show,” says the annalist, “was made to honour her Prince, and
in a time of such vehement heate, though now it was qualified.”[35]
Footnote 35:
Nichols, 901.
This grand festivity was probably the cause of a serious illness to
Buckingham, for, a day afterwards, Charles wrote to his father that his
“dog” was not to be troubled with writing, having taken cold, which had
ended in an ague. The Duke had been bled, and was recovered; the Prince
concluded by warning the King that in spite of his efforts to keep his
letters private, they had been seen in London, by the French
ambassador’s means, by the Spanish ambassador, and that His Majesty was
“betrayed in his bedchamber.”
Buckingham added in a postscript:--"Sir, I have bine the willinger to
let your sone play the secretary at this time of little neade, that you
may see the extraordinary care he hath of me, for which I will not
intreat you not to love him the wors--nor him that thretens you that
when he once getts hould of your bed-post againe never to quitt it."
The period for Charles’s return home with the Princess was now at
hand.[36] It was arranged with the King of Spain that, upon the arrival
of the Pope’s approbation of some articles that had lately been sent to
him, he should be empowered to have the Infanta married by proxy; and
that, meantime, she should be styled “Princessa de Inglatierra,” and be
considered in every respect as the betrothed wife of Prince Charles.
“This day we take our leaves,” the Prince, on the twenty-fifth of
August, wrote to his father; his letter was accompanied by one from the
Earl of Bristol, stating that the King of Spain and his ministers had
grown “to have so high a dislike of the Duke of Buckingham,” and
considered him to be so adverse to the treaty, and to exercise so great
an influence over Prince Charles, that they hoped it might not be in his
power to make the Infanta’s life less happy there (in England), or to
embroil the two kingdoms. “Suspicions and distastes betwixt them here
and my Lord of Buckingham,” Bristol said, “could not be at a greater
height.” This was the first letter that Bristol wrote prejudicial to
Buckingham.
Footnote 36:
Nichols, 903.
Nevertheless, at the very same moment, the Duke wrote to his master
thus:--"Sir,--He bring all things with me you have desired, except the
Infanta, which hath almost broken my heart, because yours, your sone’s,
and the nation’s honour is touched by the miss of it; but since it’s
there falt (their fault) here, and not ours, wee will bere it the
better; and when I shall have the happiness to lie at your feete, you
shall then knowe the truth of it, and no more."[37]
Footnote 37:
Nichols, 905.
In another letter from Bristol, James was given to understand that the
compact entered into by his son was a solemn and formal promise; but
that an afterthought impelled him to make the powers with which he had
entrusted Bristol contingent:
"May it please your Majesty,
"By my cosen, Simon Digby, I gave your Majesty an account of all
that passed here upon the Prince his departure, and that according to
what was capitulated. His Highness had left powers for the marrying of
the Infanta, _per verba de presenti_, which powers were made unto the
King and his brother, Don Carlos, but left with me to be delivered upon
the arrival of the Pope’s approbation, and so declared to be His
Highnesse’ pleasure before all this King’s Ministers that were present
at the solemne act of passing the Prince his powers unto the King. Since
His Highnesse’ departure, I have receaved commandement from His Highness
not to make deliverie of the said powers untill His Highness shall be
satisfied what securitie may be given him that the Infanta may not
become a religious woman[38] after the betroathing; and that I expect
his further pleasure therein, as y^r Majestie will see by the coppie of
His Highnesse’ letter unto me, which I presume to send your Majestie, as
likewise the answer which in that point I make unto His Highnesse, to
the end your Majestie may have perfect information of the whole estate
of the businesse. For that I conceave the temporal articles are so farr
agreed that I have to give your Majestie an account of them within a few
daies, and to youre content, and the businesse, after so manie rubbs,
brought to that estate that I am confident there will not be any failing
in any pointe capitulated betwixt your Majesty and His Highnesse, but
all will be punctuallie performed. I conceave your Majestie, continuing
your desire of the match, would be loath to have the faire way it is now
in to be clogged or interrupted with any new jealousie that may now be
raised, for questionlesse there is no securitie in that particular, that
can on His Highnesse’ part be required, that they will refuse him."[39]
Footnote 38:
A professed nun.
Footnote 39:
State Papers, 1623. Foreign.
The character of Charles, composed, as Hume remarks, “of decency,
reserve, modesty, sobriety, virtues so agreeable to the manners of the
Spaniards;”[40] the reliance he had placed on their honour, his romantic
gallantry, the invariable courtesy of his demeanour to every person,
whether prince, or peer, or the lowest groom of his household; a
courtesy springing from a gentle nature, elevated and refined by careful
culture; these attributes were strongly contrasted with the impetuous
temper of Buckingham. There are moments when sincerity becomes
insolence; and when Buckingham, at his last interview with Olivares,
told him that his attachment to the Spanish nation, and to the King, was
extreme, and that he should use every endeavour in his power to cement
the friendship between England and Spain, but that, as for him, the
Condé Olivares, “he need never consider him as a friend, but must ever
expect from him every possible opposition and enmity,” he was well
reproved by the grave and lofty answer, “that Olivares very willingly
accepted what was offered him.” Thus they parted.[41]
Footnote 40:
Confirmed by State Papers, vol. cliii., No. 44.
Footnote 41:
Hume, from Rushworth’s Collection’s, vol i., p. 103.
There were, however, many who approved this defiant manner, and called
the conduct of the Duke “brave and resolute;” and certainly there was
much in the character of Olivares to extenuate the bitterness of
Buckingham’s dislike. Lord Bristol, however, imputed all the mistrust
and failure that ensued to Buckingham. “The Prince,” he said, "had left
men’s hearts set upon him." “And the leave-taking,” adds the ambassador,
“betwixt him and the King, was with as great profession of love and
affection as could be, of which I was a witness, being interpreter
betwixt them.”[42]
Footnote 42:
Nichols, p. 913. From Haddwicke State Papers, vol. i, p. 476.
Every possible demonstration of honour was proffered to the Prince and
Duke at their departure. To the last, the pages of the Condé Olivares
attended, as they had done all along, on Buckingham--there was no
apparent change of feeling, nor diminution of respect.
The farewell presents, too numerous to be fully recited, were
magnificent. Among them were, given to the Prince by the King, eighteen
Spanish jennets, six Barbary horses, six mares, and twenty foals. These
superb animals were covered with cloths of crimson velvet, guarded with
gold lace; one of them being distinguished by a saddle of fine
lamb-skin, the other “furniture” being set with rich pearl; among a
number of cross-bows which were given, those used by the Dukes of Medina
Sidonia and Ossunia, in the wars, were peculiarly valuable to the
Prince.
To Buckingham’s share, among others, were several Spanish jennets, and
Barbary or Arabian horses, and a splendid diamond girdle, worth thirty
thousand crowns.
Thu Queen presented the young Prince with linen, and skins of ambar and
of kids, their scent and perfume amounting in value to many thousand
crowns.
Twice, before his leaving for ever the Spanish capital, did Charles, in
company with the King, visit the Infanta. She had retreated to the
monastery of the Descallas, or bare-legged friars; and it was, perhaps,
her extreme piety that inspired the Prince with the fear that she might,
after her betrothal, become a nun, and in that way avoid espousing a
heretic. She received him with “tears of joy,” and gave the Prince many
boxes of scents, flowers, and curiosites of great value. The Prince’s
gifts to the Infanta consisted of a string of two hundred and fifty
great pear-shaped pearls, one of them with a diamond which could not be
valued, and two pairs of pearl-shaped ear-rings, marvellous great.”
Amongst the officers and retainers of the Court, the Prince gave, in
various ways, the sum of twelve thousand pounds.
At their last interview in Madrid, the King of Spain wore black, as a
token of mourning at their departure; but the final parting was in a
field near the Escurial, the place appointed for their adieus. Philip
had been desirous of showing to the English that wonder of Europe, with
its thirteen courts, its grand marble structure, its statue of St.
Lawrence over the gate, with his gridiron in his hand. Here Philip, the
Queen, the Infant, and his brothers pointed out, with just pride, the
fine cloisters, three stories high, the libraries, sepulchres, chapels,
and graves. About a hundred friars were resident at this time in the
house, which it required half a day to go over. That part appropriated
to royal residence was wholly unsuitable to the purpose. It is a
remarkable fact that, when Charles the First was in Spain, there was
only one kitchen in the Escurial; neither was there a hall, nor offices
below stairs fit for a royal abode; so that, as Sir Richard Wynn
remarked, "it was never intended for a king’s palace, but for the
goodliest monastery in the world, which it is."[43]
Footnote 43:
Narrative of the journey of the Prince’s servants into Spain; printed
at the end of the Life of Richard II., by Hearne.
The church, with its twenty altars, and enormous silver candlesticks,
higher and heavier than a man; the wonderful chapel at the extremity,
with curiously painted roofs and desks of silver; the marble fountains
playing in every court; the invaluable paintings in the churches and
chapels, collected in all parts of the world, were then in undisturbed
freshness; the convulsions of war and revolutions, and the hand of time,
have since dimmed their splendour, but the Escurial stands unscathed on
the side of a mountain. Stern in cloistral gloom rather than beautiful,
it had then a narrow strip of garden round two sides, with walks and
“knots of flowers,” and a pond at one extremity, in which the friars
were accustomed to fish. Most of them had their apartments provided with
a chapel; all had mules for riding, for walking was forbidden to these
monks, even to a short distance.[44]
Footnote 44:
It was improved before the time of the Commonwealth, when Lady
Fanshawe describes it as approached by a double row of elms, and
having a large park well stored with wood and water; she speaks of
seventeen courts, with gardens in each, and of a very fine palace; the
walls of the building were of marble, so polished that Titian had
painted them “all over.” She says also that the palace is “royally
furnished.”--See Miss Costello’s Life of Lady Fanshawe, p. 389.
In a field near this grand building, the King and Prince sat and
conversed an hour; a pillar, it was afterwards decided, was to be
erected on the spot where this last interview took place; “wherein,”
wrote Mr. Chamberlain, “the Duke of Buckingham is quite forgotten, as if
he had been none of the company.” The Queen, the Infanta, and her
brothers, embraced the Prince who so soon became their foe. The English
lords and gentlemen kissed the King’s hands, the Spaniards those of the
Prince, “returning,” says the chronicler, “to embrace us again with
wonderful demonstrations of love.” Then the Prince took his final
departure, attended by the Condé de Monterey, Gondomar, Buckingham, and
Lord Bristol, and pursued his journey to Segovia, which had been
recommended to him, according to Sir Richard Wynn, as the only thing
worth seeing after the Escurial. “It was then,” says Wynn, “a large
town, but much ruinous, having a great castle, kept in very good repair,
in which there be two goodly rooms, whose roofes are the richest, done
with gold, and incrusting, of an old manner, but wonderful costly.” Here
Charles was welcomed with a salute of artillery, and alighting, he went
over the palace, extolling the memory of Philip the Second, who had
rebuilt it, and expressing great pleasure at seeing his arms quartered
with the Spanish scutcheons in the great hall,--Henry the Third of
Spain, having married Catherine, daughter of John of Gaunt, in right of
whom Philip the Second pretended to derive his claim to the crown of
England after the death of Mary. In this palace, Charles was
magnificently entertained; and in the evening, whilst fireworks and
torches threw their light upon the scene, the Alcayd of that royal house
presented him with a gallant mask of thirty-two-knights, and proposed to
honour him by a bull-fight on the ensuing day; but he declined the
terrible amusement, being in haste to depart.
Charles--and doubtless Buckingham (although in this decline of favour in
Spain, he is rarely alluded to by the chroniclers)--in stopping at
Valladolid, had great delight in seeing some of the finest productions
of Michael Angelo and of Raphael. Before the Prince entered the city, an
individual who was the object of dread and jealousy, and who was still
more hated by Olivares than even Buckingham, was withdrawn from amid
those who vied in offering their homage to the Prince. This was the
Cardinal Duke of Lerma, the disgraced minister and favourite of Philip,
who was ordered to leave Valladolid before Charles entered it. The
affront sank deep into the old man’s heart, as he had greatly wished to
see the Prince. The Duke of Lerma was considered to be more favourable
to the English alliance than Olivares, and he had formerly projected a
union between Anne of Austria, then Infanta, and Henry, the last Prince
of Wales. He lived generally at Valladolid, retiring, as was the custom
with the Spaniards of rank, after sixty, to a place of quiet and
devotion; officiating, and singing mass, and passing his days in charity
and piety. “This,” as Howell remarks, “doth not suit well with the
genius of an Englishman, who loves not to pull off his clothes till he
goes to bed.” The remark shows that our countrymen were then, as now,
the last in Europe to give up the intellectual or military career to
which their youth had been devoted, and which, during their middle life,
had been their source of pride and prosperity.
The conduct of Olivares to the Cardinal Duke seems to betray a rancorous
spirit, which may somewhat extenuate the haughty bearing of Buckingham
to the ruling favourite. Lerma’s fall was signal; he had been the
greatest favourite, save one, ever known in the Spanish Court; and he
was, as a grandee of Spain, privileged to stand covered before the King.
Had it not, however, been for his ecclesiastical dignity, which
protected him, the Duke of Lerma would have sunk, under the persecutions
of Olivares, into utter ruin.
Meantime, whilst the Prince was thus journeying to the coast, Sir John
Finet, the assistant Master of the Ceremonies to King James, being also
a naval commander, had set sail in May with certain ships, now in the
port of St. Andero, in Biscay. They had been three months in their
voyage from England, and Finet had been ordered to apprize the Prince of
the Earl of Rutland’s arrival in the same port; but that event not
having taken place, he rowed ashore, and crossing several mountains in
the darkness of a tempestuous night, met the Prince and Duke at about
six leagues distance from the town. Charles was beside himself with joy
on seeing Finet, and told him that he looked upon him “as one that had
the face of an angel,” for bringing such good news. Buckingham, when he
afterwards beheld him, was equally enraptured, and drawing from his
finger a ring worth a hundred pounds, gave it to Finet.
Prince Charles arrived at St. Andero on St. Matthew’s day. Whilst at
dinner outside of the town, he heard that the whole fleet, under the
command of the Earl of Rutland, lay at anchor near the harbour. Charles
hastened to the port, and hurrying through the town amid volleys of
musketry and the firing of cannon in his honour, went on board that very
afternoon. The _Prince_, a vessel which was a source of great pride to
the English, contained the admiral of the fleet. In returning that night
in his own barge, rowed by watermen, well accustomed to the Thames, but
little fitted to cope with a swelling sea, the Prince was in imminent
peril. In the hurry of the moment, neither master, pilot, nor mariner of
experience were sent in his barge; the town was, at least, at the
distance of a Spanish league from the ships, and before the boat could
near the shore, a storm arose. The Prince’s watermen were, says the
chroniclers, “strong, cunning, and courageous, but the furious waves
taught their oares another manner of practice than ever they were put to
on the Thames.” They soon found it impossible to reach the town. Not
only did the tempest rage, but there lay at the very mouth of the
harbour a barque, which was there for refuge, so that it was dangerous
to approach it; neither did the dismayed boatmen dare to make for the
shore; it was studded with rocks; almost equally perilous would it have
been to return to the ships, for the night was dark, and, in case of
missing them, the boat, with its precious freight, might be carried out
into the main seas, the channel where the fleet anchored running with an
impetuous and irresistible torrent.
It was a singular and critical situation. Here was the heir to a great
kingdom, close, on the one hand, to a city which was ringing with
acclamations at his arrival; on the other, near to a fleet which the
most anxious precautions had sent for his service--and yet, scarcely
would a peasant in his father’s dominions have been placed in such a
plight for want of ordinary care, or, perhaps, owing to the jealousy of
the boatmen and their dislike to foreign aid.
“In this full sea of horrors,” to borrow the somewhat flowery language
of the narrator, the Prince resolved to turn back towards the ships, and
to fall upon the first that could be fastened on, rather than to run the
risk of being wrecked on one of the rocks, which threatened immediate
destruction.
The storm continued to rage, and the night became darker and darker.
Charles and Buckingham could, at this moment, see the lights streaming
from the town, and dimly, perhaps, discern the track of the English
fleet. Soon all was enveloped in the deepest gloom. At such a moment the
mind can only turn to one source of help, and to that, doubtless, the
young and reflective Prince, who afterwards met the sternest trials of
life with a lofty resignation, did revert, whatever may have been the
case with his spoiled, impetuous favourite.
“At last,” as the chronicler observes, “that Omnipotent arm, which can
tear up rocks from their center, and that voyce which can call in the
winds, and still them with the moving of His finger, sent a dove with an
olive branch in her bill, as an assurance of comfort.”
Sir Sackwill Trevor, the commander of the _Defiance_, perceived at this
crisis the peril of the Prince; by his order, casks and buoys, with
lights fastened to them by some ropes, were thrown out, and the watermen
seized hold of these, though at the risk of their lives. A light was now
discerned in the ship _Defiance_, and the Prince was soon safely
received on board, where he spent the night, by no means, as it is said,
daunted by these terrors.
On the ensuing day Charles went on shore, but returned on the same
evening to the fleet. On Sunday, the fourteenth of September, he
entertained Gondomar and the other grandees who had been commissioned to
attend him to the coast on board the _Prince_.
The dinner consisted, according to Phineas Pette, who was in the ship,
“of no other than we brought from England with us.” Stalled oxen, fatted
sheep, venison, and all manner of fowl were presented to those who
would, perhaps, never see such a repast spread before them again. A long
table for persons of inferior quality was set in the great cabin, and
across this another was placed, where Charles and the chief personages
sat. Healths were drunk; the Spaniards were delighted with the ships,
but still more with the graceful and courteous manners of Charles.
Never, it is said, had a stranger so won upon the affections of a
people, as this young Prince had done in Spain, independently of his
generosity and liberality at parting, when he ordered that the gifts and
rewards of all those who had attended him in his journey, should be
double in value to what he had before specified. “We have found some
difficulty,” Lord Bristol wrote to Calvert, "in taking up the monies,
but I shall, God willing, see it perfectly performed to his highness’s
honour."[45]
Footnote 45:
Nichols, p. 923, from Haddwicke Papers, vol. i., p. 475.
Some days elapsed before the _Prince_ weighed anchor. At last, on the
eighteenth of September, Charles bade adieu to Spain, and with it,
probably, to the sunshine of his youth. For James was now visibly
declining, and his son was soon to be called upon to fulfil duties which
he comprehended not in their just spirit, and to contend with bold,
intelligent, indignant subjects, whom he also imperfectly understood.
As the sails were swelling with the breeze, the Prince and the other
English gentlemen stood on deck taking leave, in dumb show, of the
throng of Spaniards who saluted them from the shore. The wind was now
prosperous, but a voyage of nine days awaited the impatient Prince
before he could touch English ground.
The fleet consisted of ten ships of the line; that styled the _Prince_
was of twelve hundred tons burthen, the others considerably less. In
eight days they arrived within twelve miles of the Scilly Islands. The
Council who were entrusted with the convoy of Charles debated on the
propriety of his landing on this remote point, and were unanimous
against it. Several pilots had come on board, but were dismissed. After
supper, however, Charles suddenly ordered out the long boat and the
ketch, and announced his intention of landing, accompanied by
Buckingham.
About one o’clock at night they got into the long boat, and being
saluted with a volley from the ship, made for St Mary’s Island, where
the Prince and all his companions landed about seven in the morning. In
the castle the Prince and Buckingham remained four days, and were taken
again on board of the fleet on the third of October; and on the fifth of
the same month, in the afternoon, arrived at Portsmouth,[46] having been
in all seventeen days at sea. Charles proceeded at once to the house of
Lord Annandale, near Guildford, and reached York House at eight the next
morning; thus paying Buckingham the honour of going first to his house
in London. Here he met the Privy Council, and refused an unreasonable
request by the Spanish ambassador for a prior audience. [47]
Footnote 46:
Nichols, p. 926, from the Diary of Phineas Pette. There were four
narratives of persons who had their voyage to Spain printed--Lord
Carey of Leppington, Sir Richard Wynn, Sir John Finet and Phineas
Pette.
Footnote 47:
State Papers, Calendar, vol. cliii., p. 44.
Never was there more general or more enthusiastic joy expressed than on
this occasion, and, amongst other demonstrations, a bonfire, which cost
a hundred pounds, was kindled at Guildhall. It is supposed to have been
composed of forfeited logwood, prohibited to the dyers, which had been
seized. Shops were closed; the streets were spread with tables of
provisions, and with hogsheads of wine and butts of sack; the people
were mad with joy. If they met a cart full of wood, they took out the
horse, and set the wood and the cart on fire. At St. Paul’s a new anthem
was sung, the words being taken from the 114th psalm:--"When shall I
come out of Egypt, and the house of Jacob from among the barbarous
people?"
The battlements of St. Paul’s Cross displayed as many burning torches as
the years of the young Prince in age; two enormous bonfires lighted up
the enclosure around the cross, whilst fireworks, squibs, crackers, and
rockets added to the general illumination of the city, in which, between
St. Paul’s and London Bridge, no fewer than a hundred and eight bonfires
were kindled. But the most interesting of all the incidents of that day
was the reprieve of six men and two women, whom the Prince met on their
road to Tyburn, where they were being taken for execution. At Royston,
the King came down on the stairs to receive the travellers. The Prince
and Duke kneeled down as they beheld the infirm monarch hastening to
them; but the King fell on their necks, and they all wept together. A
post was despatched to the Duchess and Countess of Buckingham, and to
the Countess of Denbigh, to come to Royston.[48]
Footnote 48:
State Papers, vol. cliii., No. 44.
Whilst the public rejoicings in almost every town in the kingdom did
honour to "England’s Joy," as Charles was then called, Buckingham
gleaned some good from this safe return. The confidence of the people
appeared to be restored to him. There was a general impression that even
before Charles had quitted Spain, the match with the Infanta was
virtually at an end; and this was partially confirmed when the Spanish
ambassadors, having set out towards Royston, to congratulate the Prince,
were met at Buntingford by Secretary Conway, to say that Royston being
“a place of ill reception,” they were not to sleep there that night, but
must return to Buntingford the same evening. This was by no means an
agreeable intimation to the Marquis Inojosa, since it was but a week
before that the French ambassador had both supped and lodged at Royston,
though going unexpectedly; nevertheless, the Marquis proceeded to
Royston, and had apparently a gracious reception from the King and
Prince; neither did they “speak amiss” of the Duke’s manner on the
awkward occasion. “Welcome home!” was for a long time the burden of the
Court and country. One amongst the least meritorious of Buckingham’s
dependants, Tobie Mathew, was knighted at Royston, where James and his
favourite kept their intentions with regard to Spain profoundly secret.
Mathew owed, indeed, his very presence at Court to Buckingham, who had
interceded for him when banished on account of his conversion to Popery
by the Jesuit Parsons. Mathew, when at Madrid with the Duke, had written
a description of the Infanta, which he styled a picture “drawn in black
and whyte,” for James’s amusement. “We pray you,” Buckingham wrote to
the King, “let none laugh at it but yourselfe and honneste Kate; he
thinks he hath hitt the naill on the head, but you will find it the
foolishest thing you ever saw.” Amongst the many impertinences of the
fool, Archy, some, directed against Tobie Mathew, were so cutting as to
drive the newly-made knight from the dinner-table at Royston.[49]
Footnote 49:
Tobie died at Ghent, in 1665, having become a Jesuit. Lord Orford has,
according to Nichols, placed Tobie Mathew erroneously on the list of
painters, and misled Grainger and others, owing to the reference to
the Infanta’s picture above stated.--Nichols p. 931, note.
Whilst all these matters, great and small, were discussed at Court, the
poor Infanta, under the tuition of Mr. Wadsworth and Father Boniface,
was studying English “apace.” Wherever she went, she was treated as
Princess of England, the English ambassadors standing uncovered before
her; whilst she occupied herself in having several embroidered suits of
ambar-leather prepared for the Prince, and in the choice and arrangement
of the attendants who were to accompany her to England. “We want,”
Howell wrote, “nothing but one more dispatch from home, and then the
marriage will be solemnized, and all things consummated.”[50]
Footnote 50:
Epistolæ Hoelianæ.
This was the last lingering hope, which was soon to be abandoned, and
fresh schemes substituted to amuse the fancy of the Prince, to gratify
the caprice of his favourite, and to divert the decline of the King.
CHAPTER II.
INDISPOSITION OF THE DUCHESS OF BUCKINGHAM--THE KING’S REGARD FOR
HER AND HER CHILD--ARCHBISHOP LAUD’S ENCOMIUM ON HER
CHARACTER--QUEEN ANNE’S CHAIN PRESENTED TO THE DUCHESS OF
LENNOX--EFFRONTERY OF THE COUNTESS OF BUCKINGHAM--THE DUKE’S
DEPORTMENT ON HIS RETURN FROM SPAIN--MORE DIGNITIES CONFERRED
UPON HIM--KING JAMES AND THE CLERGY--THE ROYAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR
THE PERFORMANCE OF DIVINE SERVICE IN SPAIN--PUBLIC PREJUDICE
AGAINST THE SPANISH MATCH--THE WALLINGFORD HOUSE CABAL PRONOUNCE
IN FAVOUR OF A FRENCH ALLIANCE--POPULAR INDIGNATION AGAINST THE
SPANISH AMBASSADOR--COMPETITION FOR PRECEDENCE BETWEEN THE
AMBASSADORS OF FRANCE AND SPAIN--CHARACTER OF THE LORD KEEPER
WILLIAMS--HIS OPPOSITION TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF BUCKINGHAM--THE
COUNTESS OF BUCKINGHAM EMBRACES THE CATHOLIC FAITH--CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN THE DEAN OF CARLISLE AND THE JESUIT FISHER--BREACH
BETWEEN BUCKINGHAM AND WILLIAMS--THE KING MANIFESTS HIS
DISPLEASURE WITH BUCKINGHAM--THE SPANISH COURT AND THE ENGLISH
ALLIANCE--CONDUCT OF THE INFANTA AFTER THE DEPARTURE OF
CHARLES--PREPARATIONS FOR THE MARRIAGE--A COMMISSION APPOINTED
TO INQUIRE INTO THE CONDITIONS OF THE SPANISH TREATY--THE LORD
KEEPER IN FAVOUR WITH THE KING--PARLIAMENT COUNSELS JAMES TO
BREAK THE TREATY WITH SPAIN--POPULAR REJOICINGS, AND
DISAPPOINTMENT OF THE CATHOLIC PARTY--THE ILLNESS OF
BUCKINGHAM--PAINFUL ILLUSTRATION OF THE BIGOTED SPIRIT OF THE
AGE--INOJOSA ACCUSES BUCKINGHAM OF TREACHERY AGAINST THE
KING--THE PROPHECY OF GAMALIEL GRUYS--GENERAL DESIRE FOR WAR
WITH SPAIN--PROPOSED ALLIANCE OF PRINCE CHARLES WITH HENRIETTA
MARIA OF FRANCE--RESTORATION OF BUCKINGHAM TO THE KING’S FAVOUR.
=CHAPTER II.=
Buckingham had now returned to a house where more sources of real
happiness awaited him than fall usually to the lot of the busy courtier
and statesman. One drawback to his felicity, one stimulant to his
return, had been the serious indisposition of the Duchess of Buckingham.
Her uneasiness during her husband’s absence, her vexation at the rumours
which prevailed to his disadvantage, and, above all, the doubts of his
fidelity which embittered their separation, had produced that condition
which the physicians of the day generalized under the name of
“melancholy.”
Under these circumstances, the kindness of heart which formed part of
King James’s character, unaccompanied as it was with dignity or
judgment, was manifested, and, at the same time, he evinced his lively
and unabated regard for Buckingham. An affection cannot be deemed wholly
selfish which shows itself to those who are beloved by its object.
James’s compassion for the Duchess, the fatherly interest he took in
her, and his continual acts of favour to her child, elevate the
character of his preference for Buckingham. It has been the practice of
historians to ridicule as a weakness the good-nature of this monarch;
but those who felt its effect forgot, probably, the absurdity of its
mode of manifestation in the benevolent impulses of the royal heart.
The “poor fool Kate,” as the King entitled the Duchess of Buckingham,
met with incessant consideration on small and great points from His
Majesty. During the year previous to the journey into Spain, the Duchess
(then Marchioness) had given birth to another daughter; the King stood
sponsor to the infant, and gave her the name of Jacobina. During the
young mother’s illness, James testified the greatest anxiety, and
“prayed heartily” for her; calling at Wallingford House, where she was,
several times a day to inquire after her health.[51] The child
eventually died; and James was the more confirmed in his parental
fondness for the Lady Mary Villiers, whom he usually denominated his
grandchild, on the principle that her father was to him as a son. And
now “my sweete Steenie” was the chief object of the King’s interest and
gossip; he wrote from Whitehall to the Duke, in Spain:--"I must give
thee a short account of many things. First, Kate and thy sister (the
Countess of Denbigh) supped with me on Saturday last, and yesterday
bothe dined and supped with me, and so shall do still, with God’s grace,
as long as I am here; and my little grandchild, with her four teeth, is,
God be thanked, well weaned, and they are all very merry." [52]
Footnote 51:
State Papers. Domestic. March 30, 1622, vol. cxxviii., No. 96.
Footnote 52:
Birches’s MSS., 4174.
The Marchioness dined, during her convalescence, in the bed-chamber of
the King, who gave a diamond chain, worth 3,500_l._, with his picture,
to the Duchess of Lennox, for having “made broths and caudles” for the
Marchioness during her illness.[53]
Footnote 53:
State Papers, vol. cxxix., No. 92.
The Duchess had, it appeared, informed His Majesty of a domestic
arrangement, all important to the mother and infant, but not usually
deemed an affair such as royalty might condescend to take account of, or
be a matter for an elderly pedant, like King James, to decide. “I hope
my Lord Arran,” she wrote to the King, “has told your Majesty that I
mean to wean Moll very shortly. I would not by any means do it till I
had made your Majesty acquainted with it; so I intend to make trial this
very night how she will endure it.”[54] “Little Moll,” who afterwards
married successively three times, is mentioned frequently in the
domestic correspondence of the day.[55]
Footnote 54:
Nichols, p. 843; from papers in the Advocate’s Library, Edinburgh.
Footnote 55:
Harleian, vol. 6987.
James’s regard for the Duchess was also shown in another way. When the
Duke applied to His Majesty for jewels, his young wife, scarcely twenty
years of age, was eager to part with baubles which were so precious in
the eyes of others, in order to advance Buckingham’s interest, and
enhance his splendour at the Spanish Court. The King could hardly bear
that his favourite should accept her generosity. “And now,” he wrote,
"my sweet Steenie gossip, that the poor fool Kate hath also sent thee
her pearl chain, which, by chance, I saw in a box in Frank Steward’s
hand, I hope I need not to conjure thee not to give any of her jewels
away there, for thou knowest what necessary use she will have of them at
your return here, besides that it is not lucky to give away anything
that I have given her."[56] In his correspondence, James never forgot
the Duchess. “This,” he says, addressing Buckingham, “is the sixt time I
have written to you two, five to Kate, two to Su (the Countess of
Denbigh), and one to thy mother, Steenie, all with my own hands.”[57] In
presents of provisions he was considerate of her comfort, and so lavish
that the Duke was wont to call his Majesty his “man-purveyor.”
Footnote 56:
Nichols, 850.
Footnote 57:
Nichols, from Harleian MSS., 6987.
Like a good wife, the Duchess appears to have occupied herself, during
the absence of her husband, in maintaining and improving Newhall and
Burleigh, places in which the Duke felt a lively interest, and his
mother participated in these exertions without any of that petty
jealousy of interference being exhibited, which a less amiable mind than
that of the Duchess might have disturbed.
“For Burley,” she writes word, “I hear the wall is not very forward yet,
and my lady” (the Countess) “bid me send you word that she is gone down
to look how things are there. She says she is about making a littel
river to run through the park. It will be about sixteen feet broad; but
she says she wants money.”[58]
Footnote 58:
State Papers, vol. cxi., No. 13.
In all her letters to the Duke, the warmest affection is expressed by
his wife; and she seems to have justified the encomiums of Archbishop
Laud, who enters her name in his diary, as “that excellent lady, who is
goodness itself.”[59]
Footnote 59:
Laud’s Diary.
In the concerns of his mother, the Duke found much dissatisfaction. In
June, 1622, the Countess of Buckingham received a hint to stay away from
Court on account of the Progress, but really on account of her
professing the Roman Catholic faith, or rather, perhaps, as a punishment
for a little Court intrigue, relative to the Duchess of Lennox. When the
ambassador from the Emperor of Austria took leave, it was thought
necessary to bestow some jewel upon him as a mark of royal favour. James
commanded one to be brought to him; it proved to be a chain which had
belonged to Queen Anne, and which was worth three thousand pounds. James
thought it too valuable for the ambassador, and refused to give it,
saying, “wherein hath he deserved so much at my hands?” Prince Charles,
hearing this, suggested that the chain should be bestowed on the Duchess
of Lennox, who had received no present since her marriage. An assent was
given; and the Prince undertook to carry the gift to her Grace. He put
it round his own neck, and, taking it thence, presented it to the
Duchess. This was regarded as so unusual an act of respect, that the
Countess of Buckingham could not hear of it unmoved. Relying upon the
unbounded favour of the King to her son, she took upon herself to send
for the jewel back again the next day, saying it was required for a
particular purpose, and that it should be requited with a gift equally
costly. The Duchess of Lennox, astonished, questioned the messenger, who
confessed that the Countess had sent him. The truth was then disclosed;
of course, the Duchess was highly indignant; she sent back the messenger
with this answer, that since the Prince had brought it to her, it should
be taken back by no hand but her own; accordingly, on the following day,
she went with the chain in her hand to the King, desiring to know how
she had offended His Majesty. The King, when he comprehended the matter,
swore that he was abused, and the Prince burst into a passion of anger,
and declared that if the Countess of Buckingham stayed in the Court he
would leave it. This story has been in some particulars, however,
discredited, for several good reasons; but it may be regarded as
characteristic of those to whom it refers; and as exemplifying the
unbounded effrontery attributed to the mother of the Favourite.[60]
Footnote 60:
Harleian MSS., 389.--See Nichols, 1113, note.
A change was observed to have taken place in the deportment of
Buckingham almost immediately on his return from Spain. He became
affable, and, therefore, “suddenly and strangely gracious among the
multitude,” so that, as Sir Henry Wotton expresses it, “he did seem for
a time to have overcome that natural incompatibility which, in the
experience of all ages, hath ever been noted between the vulgar and the
sovereign favour. But this was no more than a meer bubble or blast, and
like an ephemeral bit of applause, as eftsoon will appear in the sequel
and train of his life.”[61]
Footnote 61:
Reliquiæ Wottonianæ, 219.
Shortly after his return from Spain, fresh honours were added to those
with which Buckingham had been so richly endowed. The King, it was
observed, had now grown into “an habitual and confirmed custom” of
loading his favourite with benefits; and the Duke was, accordingly, made
Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, and Steward of the Manor of Hampton
Court; “dignities and offices,” says Sir Henry Wotton, “still growing
out of trust and profit.”
But this apparent prosperity was alloyed by many difficulties, and
shaken by cabals, some stimulated by direst foes, others induced by
hollow allies; and the career of the Favourite, like that of all the
fortunate, began to be embittered and precarious.
There required, indeed, much condescension and courtesy to soften the
exasperated feeling of the people against the promoter of the Spanish
match. The pulpits, far from being “tuned” to its praise, were
continually clamouring against the alliance.
There were strange signs of the times when, notwithstanding the almost
absolute dominion of the Crown, it was found necessary to issue orders
that the sanctity of the royal presence, and the dignity of the Privy
Council should not be lowered by persons coming in booted and
spurred--forbidding them also to go into chapel in that guise, and
ordering them to remain uncovered during the services.[62] In former
days, James, as well as Elizabeth, had demanded an almost degrading
respect; but the habits of the monarch had long since brought even
royalty into contempt.
Footnote 62:
State Papers, Domestic, vol. cxxxvii., p. 5.
Accordingly, his influence over the pulpits had also decreased. James
could not now control his impatience and petulance; even when listening
to a sermon on Christmas-day, from the Bishop of London, the King,
displeased at its length, talked so loud that the prelate was obliged to
end abruptly. Urgent measures were taken to curb the taste for
controversial sermons; and none below bachelors of divinity were
henceforth to be allowed to preach them; for the Spanish match, and
favour to recusants, were the great themes, especially when the King, on
the plea that Protestants might find more freedom abroad, if there were
more toleration here, released all Jesuits, priests, and persons
refusing the oath of supremacy, who happened then to be in prison.[63]
“Wise men,” wrote one courtier to another, his kinsman, “are troubled,
and betake themselves to prayers, rather than inquiry.”[64] The clergy,
meantime, had been ordered to pray for the Prince’s prosperous journey
and safe return; but one stiff-necked preacher prayed “that God would be
merciful to him now that he was going to the House of Rinmon.”[65]
Footnote 63:
State Papers, vol. cxxxix., No. 91.
Footnote 64:
Ibid, vol. cxxxviii., No. 9; Dudley Carleton to Sir Dudley Carleton.
Footnote 65:
Ibid, vol. cxxxii., No. 64.
The King had, however, before Charles’s departure, given sensible and
stringent instructions to the two chaplains who were to attend on the
Prince, with regard to the reverential performance of divine service
whilst in Spain. They were to preach “Christ crucified, and the
doctrines of the English Church,” but not to indulge in polemical
discourses or in controversy. They might take with them Prayer-books,
articles of religion, and the King’s works.[66] At a later period,
however, this was altered, and the Prince’s “servants and chaplains”
were ordered to follow him with chapel furniture and Prayer-books in
Latin; the service was to be in Latin, and the communion celebrated with
wafer-cakes and wine and water; “but it will be to no purpose,” adds the
writer of this news, “as the Spaniards will not go near them.” Dr.
Hakluyt, the Prince’s former chaplain, had written a work against the
Spanish match, calling the Spaniards idolaters, and had presented it to
the Princes,[67] so that he was, it may be concluded, not among the
“servants and chaplains,” who were thus, according to the spirit of the
day, coupled together as forming a part of the Prince’s household.
Footnote 66:
State Papers, vol. cxxxix., No. 71.
Footnote 67:
Ibid, vol. cxxii., No. 88.
The prejudice against the Infanta, as a future Queen of England,
continued to increase, nor was it confined to uneducated or bigoted
persons. It was supposed that, whilst Buckingham was in Spain, he
received secret advices, which convinced him that to steer his course in
safety, it would be necessary to break off a treaty which the
Puritanical party regarded as a compact with Popery. “There were those
who,” says Bishop Hacket, “sent instructions into Spain, to adjure the
Duke to do his best to prevent the espousals.” The reasons assigned were
"God’s glory, and his own safety." "For God’s sake, keep our orthodox
religion from the admixture of that superstition which threatened
against the soundness of it. And no corrosive so good to eat out the
corruption of Romish rottenness creeping on, as to give the Spaniard the
dodge, and leave the daughter of Spain behind." Such were the counsels
despatched by friends to the Duke.
Consultations of his adherents were now held at Wallingford House, to
consider what would be the best way of promoting, not the interests of
the nation, but his own personal advancement. James had, of late, become
partial to parliaments, and was resolved to close the next very
graciously. “Therefore,” observes Hacket, "the cabinet men at
Wallingford House set upon it to consider by what exploit their lord
should commence to be the ‘Darling of the Commons,’ and, as it were, to
republicate his lordship, and to be precious to those who had the vogue
to be lovers of their country." It was, therefore, determined to abandon
the Spanish marriage, and to direct the attention of the country, and
more especially the regard of the Prince, towards a daughter of France;
and it was agreed that it would be for Buckingham’s interests that he
should have the full credit of the newly projected alliance. From these
considerations was the Spanish alliance thrown aside, with, it must be
confessed, little regard to honour. Whether the evident disgust of the
nation to the marriage formed sufficient plea for the crooked and
complicated means which were taken to do away with a contract which had
been so nearly brought to a conclusion, it remains for posterity to
decide; contemporaries were divided by faction, not reason.
It was in vain, by the arbitrary acts employed, to suppress public
opinion. The Earl of Oxford had been committed to the Tower for saying
that he hoped the time would come when justice would be free, and not
come only through Buckingham’s hands. This committal was an instance of
the resolution at Court to crush all discussion. Gondomar, smooth to the
great, was a perfect fury towards the small. The people had been
indignant with him for having, before his return to Spain, struck a
Scotsman with his fists, for saying that he had been ill-treated in
Spain. The Scotsman, though he took the insult patiently, had been sent
to prison.[68] These were but scanty specimens of the petty oppressions
by which the voice of an aroused people was to be stopped. It was
therefore time, Buckingham thought, to save himself, at all events, from
the storm. Public hatred had been already shown when Don Diego, as
Gondomar was called, passed through the city. The mob insulted him, and
even threatened violence, “but none was used.” Three apprentices were,
nevertheless, whipped at the cart’s tail for this slight to the Spanish
ambassador, whilst the people looked, pitying, on; and those who
executed the sentence incurred much popular abuse. James, who was at
that time angry with all who differed from him, came from Theobald’s to
London in a rage to reprove such disorders. He was pacified by the
Recorder, and contented himself with private admonition to the Aldermen
to punish such offenders. Another man was then whipped, and those who
murmured at the sentence arrested.[69]
Footnote 68:
State Papers, vol. cxxix., No. 50. Domestic.
Footnote 69:
State Papers, vol. cxx., No. 71.
Steps were immediately taken to mark a difference between the conduct to
be pursued to the Spanish and the French ambassadors; and Charles,
having first proposed an audience to the Marquis of Inojosa, granted it,
under circumstances not very flattering. The Spanish ambassadors, having
repaired to Theobald’s, returned not so well “satisfied as they ought”
to be. They endeavoured, but in vain, to procure an audience of the King
without the presence of the Duke; but finding that impossible, they
became disposed to arraign his conduct in the marriage before his
face.[70]
Footnote 70:
Nichols, 945.
The public, meantime, could not fail to interpret the real temper of the
King’s Council by circumstances apparently trivial. In the course of the
winter, there arrived from France a nobleman skilled in falconry, with a
present of fifteen or sixteen cast-off hawks, some ten or twelve horses,
and the same number of setters. He was accompanied by a numerous train,
splendidly accoutred, and made his entry into London by torchlight. He
was to remain until he had instructed the people in the kind of falconry
in which he excelled, he and his troop costing the King from twenty-five
to thirty pounds daily. Under this guise, probably, some political
mission was couched; for James, although now fast declining, braved the
advice of his physicians, and travelled to Newmarket on purpose to see
these foreign hawks fly. He had put off the masque on Twelfth Night, on
account, as he had assigned, of his indisposition; but actually because
of the competition about precedence between the French and Spanish
ambassadors, who could not be accommodated in his presence.[71]
Footnote 71:
Ibid, 960.
Thus did every variation in Buckingham’s plans appear to prosper. That
he could so work upon James’s mind as to obliterate from it the
cherished scheme of years, seems, indeed, a marvellous effect of his
influence. For his ingratitude in this matter to the King, who had
entrusted to him, as the object next his heart, the completion of the
Spanish treaty, the Duke has justly been blamed. Could he, as Bishop
Hacket asks, be deemed “execrable in point of honour and conscience? Did
he do it the best for the King? Did he think the Spanish alliance would
be fruitful in nothing but miseries, and that it would be a thankful
office to lurch the King in his expectation of it? Evil befall such
double diligence!” “Or did this great lord do it for the best for
himself? I believe it. If the hope of the match died away, he lookt to
get the love of the most in England; but if it were made up, he lookt
for many enemies, for he had lost the love of the best in Spain. Let the
Duke have his deserved praise in other things, great and many, but let
fidelity, loyalty, and thankfulness hide their face, and not look upon
this action.”[72]
Footnote 72:
Life of Keeper Williams, 138.
The blame of this conduct was attributable, according to the same
writer, more to those who worked upon the flexible temper of Buckingham
than to his own wishes. But no one has a right to throw off his own
shoulders, or to place on those of another, the deliberate violation of
solemn engagements. “For it is,” as the Bishop remarks, “not man, God
that made the law: he that kindled the fire, let him make retribution.”
It was not long before James began to suspect that he had been abused by
the favourite whose fidelity ought to have been secured by gratitude.
Among the friends of the Duke, there was one who looked disapprovingly
on his conduct. This was the Lord Keeper Williams; a man of “as deep and
large wisdom,” says Bishop Hacket, “as I did ever speak with.”
Confessing the greatest obligations to Buckingham, Williams had the
courage to oppose him, when conscience dictated a remonstrance.
“His enemies,” says his biographer, “liked nothing worse in him than his
courage, and he pleased himself in nothing more.” Of a stately presence,
and possessing abilities to maintain that lofty demeanour which is
absurd when not supported by real superiority of intellect, Williams
could cope with the haughty Buckingham, whose headstrong will had become
such that none of the King’s ministers could move it. Williams, too, was
of temper somewhat irritable. “Choler and a high stomach were his
faults, the only defects in him.”[73] His manners were, at times, even
supercilious. He was not likely to be daunted by one whose capacity was,
therefore, to his own, as that of the infant to the man, and over whom
he exercised an ascendancy through a very noted channel; namely, the
influence which the Lord Keeper possessed over the Countess of
Buckingham. “Those dangerous and busy flies,” writes Bishop Hacket,
“which the Roman seminaries send abroad, had buzzed about the Countess
of Buckingham, had blown upon her, and infected her. She was mother to
the great favourite, but in religion became a step-mother.” Her
conversion had taken place about a twelvemonth previously. The Countess
doted on her son; but her conversion was certain to be highly injurious
to him, especially at that juncture, just before the Spanish journey.
Complaints were uttered, importing that the mother, who was thought
almost to govern her son, must indirectly sway the monarch who was now
little other than that son’s slave. The part which Laud had taken to
remedy the evil has been already detailed. The Lord Keeper also had
foreseen and endeavoured to prevent the mischief which might arise from
these rumours. “Safety,” he considered, “is easiest purchased by
precaution.” “An instrument that is swung may be used upon a little
warning.” Anxious for the welfare of the Duke, Williams addressed him to
the following effect. “Your mother,”[74] he observed, “is departed from
the bosom of the Church of England, in whose confession of faith she was
baptized;--a strange delusion in any to go astray from that society of
Christians among whom they cannot demonstrate but salvation may be had.
I would we could bring her home so soon that it might not be seen she
had ever wandered.” His concern, he intimates, was, however, not so much
for the Countess’s eternal welfare, as for her son’s temporal security.
It was, he thought, time to inform the Favourite “that clamours were
opened,” “that now the recusants have a potent advocate to plead for
their immunity, and when this should be handed in high and popular court
by tribunitial orators, what a dust it would make!”
Footnote 73:
Hacket’s Life, p. 229.
Footnote 74:
Williams wrote, for the Countess’s especial conversion, “A Manual of
the Elements of the Orthodox Religion, by an Old Prebend of
Westminster,” of which twenty copies only were printed, and all
presented to the Marquis.--Nichols, vol. iii., p. 257.
“But,” pursued the Lord Keeper, “though I have touched a sore with my
finger, I am furnished with an emplaister to lay upon it, which, I
presume, will lenifie. Only measure not the _size_ of good counsel by
the _last_ of success.” After this address, Williams had proposed that
controversies between learned men, in which that age so much delighted,
should be held for the Countess of Buckingham’s edification; that the
King should be present at this; and the “conflux of great persons, as
thick as the place would permit.” Then should Buckingham’s industry and
zeal be manifested to “catch at every twig or advantage,” to give weight
to every solid reason, to bring his mother into a sound mind again. If
successful, the Duke would “save a soul very precious to him;” if
unsuccessful, then the favourite’s “pious endeavours would fill the King
with a good report,” and impart a “sweet savour” to all.
The result had justified the Lord Keeper’s anticipations; the Jesuit
father, Fisher, was the champion in whom the Countess most relied; the
King was the superintendent of the controversy. Dr. Francis White, then
Dean of Carlisle, had gone first into the lists with Fisher, and given
him “foil for foil,” according to the testimony of the Protestant party.
But the lady was still unconvinced. The Lord Keeper engaged, therefore,
in the combat. He managed the disputation with infinite skill, guided by
worldly wisdom, mixed up with Christian charity. He had observed in the
former conflict, that if some of the Jesuit’s arguments were admitted,
“the Church of England, repurging itself from the super-injected errors
of Rome, would stand inculpable.” He laboured, therefore, to show that
if “unnecessary strifes were discreetly waved, little was wanting to a
conclusive unity.” The King greatly commended this conciliatory mode of
disputation, which surprised and baffled Fisher, yet which still failed
to bring back the wanderers to their former path. The third who had
contended for the palm of victory, to bring, as Hacket calls it,
“eye-salve to the dim-sighted lady, was Bishop Laud, who was declared to
have galled Fisher with great acuteness.” But all his labour was vain,
as far as the Countess was concerned; she continued in her new belief.
The conference had, however, effected what was desired for her son. He
had appeared as an antagonist in the field against one whom he honoured,
and whom he had treated with the deepest respect. He was "blazed abroad
as the Red Cross Knight that was Una’s champion against Archinago."[75]
And this scheme, which produced results afterwards, as well as at the
time they were effected, of the utmost importance to Buckingham, had
been accomplished from the suggestions and by the skill of the Lord
Keeper Williams.
Footnote 75:
Hacket’s Life of Williams, pp. 172, 173.
It may therefore be supposed that Buckingham would listen with reverence
to his representations, when the Lord Keeper ventured to warn him from
the course he was pursuing. So far, however, from such being the case,
the Duke never forgave him for a letter addressed to him whilst in
Spain, advising a reconciliation with the Earl of Bristol, whose
knowledge of Spanish affairs, and repeated success in negotiations,
would, it was thought, secure the completion of the marriage treaty.[76]
Even whilst writing the letter, which seemed to alienate Williams from
Buckingham for a time, the Lord Keeper was aware that he had already
incurred the favourite’s displeasure. “What I wrote formerly,” he says,
“may be ill-placed, and offend your grace, but all proceeded from as
true and sincere a heart as you left behind you in all this
kingdom.”[77] The Earl of Bristol, on hearing of this act of mediation,
argued truly when he anticipated that it would produce a quarrel. He
wrote to Williams to the following effect, “that the friendship of the
Duke was a thing he did infinitely desire, that he did infinitely esteem
the good offices that the Lord Keeper had done therein, but that he
conceived that any motion he had made in that kind had been despised
rather than received with thankfulness.”[78]
Footnote 76:
Hacket’s Life of Williams, p. 147.
Footnote 77:
Ibid.
Footnote 78:
Hacket, 148.
Buckingham had formerly been compared to Alcibiades, the Lord Keeper to
Socrates; but all obligations to that supposed Socrates were henceforth
annulled. The interference of Williams, creditable to himself, and due
to the King, was so misinterpreted that Buckingham withdrew from him his
friendship, forgetting not only the axiom of Solon, “never to choose a
friend suddenly, nor to lose him suddenly,” but the still stronger
argument of services which could not be denied. During the Duke’s
absence in Spain, Williams had watched over his welfare with the utmost
care; he had ventured boldly to speak the truth to him; a benefit
scarcely less important; yet Buckingham could not be appeased.
He instantly avowed his determination, expressed with such effrontery
and openness that it was soon conveyed to Williams, that he "would pluck
down the highest roof of the Lord Keeper’s dignity." Williams, however,
remained undaunted. He knew the favourite well. He allowed him to be a
“generous and incorrupt patron, a great exacter of duty from those whom
he served, and a bitter enemy.” But he confided in his own powers of
rhetoric, and in the pliable temper of his former friend. The Earl of
Rutland, Buckingham’s father-in-law, was employed to mediate between
them; and to him the Duke said, referring to Williams, “Whenever I
disagree with him, he will prove himself to be in the right; and though
I could never convict him of being dishonest, I am afraid of his wit.”
Before Buckingham returned, Williams sent another letter, warning him of
the risk he ran, and offering excellent advice on the subject of the
Spanish treaty, and upon the Duke’s demeanour. The Spaniards had
remarked with resentment that when Charles attempted to speak in
Buckingham’s presence, the Duke took the words out of his mouth, or
checked, with an abrupt contradiction, what he had to say; the more
gently Charles endured this presumption, the greater was the general
admiration expressed towards him, and disgust towards his favourite. The
Spaniards, who never address their kings first, were indignant with his
freedom, which constituted one of those points against which Williams
had warned the Duke. It was in vain that the Lord Keeper strove to
conciliate Buckingham, in vain that he praised the Duke’s skill and
energy in the marriage treaty to King James; a breach was made, which
was never entirely repaired, and which is as discreditable to the Duke
of Buckingham as any of those violations of good faith and propriety by
which his career was sullied.
On Tuesday, the thirteenth of January, whilst Buckingham’s disfavour
with the King was suspected, a singular scene took place. The King,
being much disturbed by his affairs, resolved to go to Theobald’s for
change of scene. His health was now completely broken, and the vexatious
and arbitrary conduct of his favourite added greatly to his sufferings.
The morning before he left Whitehall, he received the various foreign
ambassadors--the Venetian was first admitted, the French second, the
Spanish last. They were introduced privately; and, after a full hour’s
audience, the Prince and Buckingham were called in; what passed remained
a secret, but the Prince and Duke were observed to come out looking very
much dejected.
The Duke’s carriage stood at the door, ready to follow that of the King
to London; and the favourite was prepared, as usual, to accompany his
royal master in his own coach. The King and his son were in the coach,
when the Duke received an intimation from His Majesty that he was not to
go. Buckingham, it is related, with tears in his eyes, entreated “his
Master” to inform him how he had offended his gracious sovereign. “I
vow,” he added sternly, “to purge, or confess it.” James, also, shed
tears, and exclaiming that he was the unhappiest man alive, to be
forsaken by those who were dearest to him, ordered his coach to drive
on, and the Duke was left standing, dismayed, and probably indignant.
Charles, who witnessed this scene, behaved with his usual weakness, his
tears, also, expressing his concern and contrition.
Buckingham retired to Wallingford House, where, sometime afterwards, the
Lord Keeper Williams went to him, having with difficulty been admitted.
“He found him,” says Bishop Hacket, “lying on a couch, in that unmovable
posture that he would neither rise up nor speak, though invited twice or
thrice with courteous questions.” But Williams generously consoled him,
admonishing that he believed "God’s directing hand was in it, to stir up
his grace;" he assured him that he came on purpose to bring him out of
his sorrow with the light of the King’s favour. He besought the Duke to
set off instantly for Windsor; not however to show himself to His
Majesty before supper was over, and then to deport himself with all
“amiable addresses;” not “to quit the King night or day, for the danger
was that some would thrust themselves in to push his Majesty on to break
utterly with the Parliament; and the next degree of theirs to be was,
upon that dissolution, to see his grace convicted to the Tower, and God
knows what would follow.”[79]
Footnote 79:
See Hacket’s Life of Williams. Also Mr. Chamberlain’s Letter to Sir
Dudley Carleton, quoted in Nichols, 961, from Birch’s MSS., Brit.
Mus., 417. These separate accounts are here connected; and Mr.
Chamberlain’s date and statement of the place to which the King went,
adopted upon the ground given by Nichols.
The Duke, as if awakening from a dream, aroused himself, and set off, on
the following day, to Theobald’s, where he arrived before he was
expected.
Thus, to Williams’ mediation, did Buckingham owe the avoidance of any
open displeasure on the part of his sovereign; unhappily this obligation
did not cancel in the Duke’s mind that avowal of a difference in
opinion, and that condemnation of the policy pursued towards Spain which
Williams esteemed it his duty to express.
Opinions differed as to the actual obligations of the Prince to complete
the contract with the Infanta.
The Earl of Bristol declared that the King and the Prince stood as much
engaged to it as princes could be; but Charles is said to have styled
himself, as he knelt down before the King, at Royston, to have been “an
absolute free man, but with one limitation--the restitution of the
Palatinate.”[80]
Footnote 80:
Hacket, 164.
These matters, painful and disgraceful as they were, were not concluded
until the end of the year 1624, when the “golden cord,” as Bishop Hacket
terms it, was broken. “Nothing,” adds the same authority, "is more sure
than that the Prince’s heart was removed from the desire of that
marriage after the Duke had brought him away from the object of that
delightful and ravishing beauty."[81] If the report of other historians
be credited, a far greater degree of constancy was shown by the young
Princess whose affections were thus cruelly gained, and then sacrificed.
After an acquaintance of many months, during which every possible
exertion had been made by Charles to win her regard, these young
persons, affianced as they doubtless were, had separated on terms of the
closest affection. “The rare Infanta,” as she was styled, “seemed to
deliver up her own heart at parting in as high expression as that
language, and her learning could, with her honour, set out.” And when
Charles had assured her that “_his_ heart would never be out of anxiety
till she had passed the intended voyage, and were safe on British land,”
she answered with a blush, “that should she happen to be in danger upon
the ocean, or discomposed in health with the rolling, brackish waters,
she would cheer up herself, and remember to whom she was going.”[82]
After his departure the Princess began to study English “a-pace,”[83]
two Englishmen, the one a Mr. Wadsworth, and the other Father Boniface,
being appointed to teach her. The English ambassador, and all the
ambassadors in Madrid from other countries, gave her the title and style
of an English Princess, the Earl of Bristol and Sir Walter Aston
remaining uncovered in her presence. In order to pass the period of
absence, the Infanta employed herself in working “divers suits of rich
cloths” for Charles, of perfumed ambar leather, some embroidered with
pearls, others with gold and silver. Her household was on the eve of
being settled, and nothing but one more despatch from home was expected,
and then the solemnization of the nuptials would take place. In the
midst of these preparations, one circumstance puzzled observers. “There
is,” says Howell, "one Mr. Clerk (with the lame arm), that came hither
from the seaside as soon as the Prince was gone; he is one of the Duke
of Buckingham’s creatures, yet he is at the Earl of Bristol’s house,
which we wonder at, considering the darkness that hapned ’twixt the Duke
and the Earl. We fear that this Clerk hath brought about something that
may puzzle the business."
Footnote 81:
Ibid, 167.
Footnote 82:
Hacket, 161. From Sanderson, p. 552; taken from the Spanish reports of
their conference.
Footnote 83:
Howell’s Letters.
Nevertheless, the preparations for the espousals proceeded; the first
check given to them being a letter from Prince Charles, desiring Lord
Bristol not to deliver up his proxy to the marriage to the King of Spain
until further notice from England. On receiving this intimation, Lord
Bristol observed “that he and Sir Walter Aston had a commission under
the Broad Seal of England to conclude the match, and that there could
not be a better favour for the surrender of the Palatinate than the
Infanta, who would never rest until she had merited the love of the
British nation.” He did not, therefore, relax his preparations; and
provided rich liveries of watered velvet, with silver lace up to the
very capes of the cloaks for his servants; and, in a fortnight
afterwards, the ratification arrived, the marriage-day was fixed, and a
terrace, covered with tapestry, was raised from the King’s Palace to the
next church, a distance about the same as that between Whitehall and
Westminster Abbey. But when she stood thus on the very threshold of her
happiness,as she deemed it, the Infanta was doomed to be rejected and
disappointed. “She had studied,” writes Bishop Hacket, “our language,
our habit, our behaviour, everything but our religion, to make her
English. Her conversation turned continually upon the Prince, and on her
projected voyage to England in the spring. On the other hand, she was
led to suppose that Charles admired her for her beauty; that his
attachment was equal to her own; and that he was worthy of the affection
which she undoubtedly bore him.”[84]
Footnote 84:
Life of Lord Keeper Williams, p. 164.
The young King of Spain, her brother, participated in the sentiments of
personal attachment which Charles appears to have inspired in those who
beheld him, in the prime of his youth, at the Court of Madrid. Philip
was now anxious to conclude the marriage, which he meant to do on the
day on which his infant daughter was christened. Invitations were
actually sent to the principal nobility to attend the espousals by
proxy; ordinance was ordered to be fired off in the port-towns; and all
Spain was prohibited from speaking disadvantageously of the alliance;
when a new commission to Lord Bristol arrived. By this he was forbidden
to deliver up the Prince’s proxy until a full and absolute satisfaction
for the surrender of the Palatinate was given under the hand and seal of
the King of Spain.
This pretext--for the plea of the Palatinate could not in justice be
adduced at this stage of the treaty--was met by the insulted Philip IV.
with spirit. He replied that the “Palatinate was not his to give;” that
he held only a few towns there; but that if the King of Great Britain
would set a treaty on foot, he would send his own ambassador to join in
it.[85] But the final blow was given to the Spanish treaty. Lord Bristol
was prohibited from delivering any more letters to the Infanta, and her
title of Princess of England and Wales was prohibited.
The King, on his return to Whitehall, commissioned a select junto to
inquire, whether, in the treaty with the King of Spain, that monarch had
been sincere to the last in his desire to satisfy the Prince and the
Duke; and whether, in the treaty for the restitution of the Palatinate,
he had violated the league between the two kingdoms, so as to deserve a
war to be proclaimed against him.[86]
Footnote 85:
Nichols, p. 943.
Footnote 86:
Hacket, p. 157.
Some of the proceedings of this junto having been bruited abroad, it was
found that they were divided into three parties, five of their number
being for the Spanish marriage--among whom was the Lord Keeper
Williams--four neutral, and three directly against the alliance. These
were the Duke of Buckingham, who sent his vote, the Earl of Carlisle,
and Secretary Conway. The evident distaste which Charles now showed for
the match had a great influence in the deliberations of the junto. The
Earl of Pembroke, Lord Chamberlain, who was at first neutral, “nobly
spoke out, declaring it as his opinion that, if the Spaniards performed
the conditions, he saw not how the thing could in honour draw back.” It
was supposed that this candid declaration was owing to some pique
between him and Buckingham. Much heart-burning, indeed, existed on the
part of several of the junto towards the favourite, who engrossed, as it
was plainly seen, the regards both of the King and of his son, and
contrived to cut off all access to those whom it was his aim wholly to
govern.[87]
Footnote 87:
Nichols, p. 964.
But the chief object of Buckingham’s wrath was Williams. “The
proceedings in this affair were,” says Bishop Hacket, "so far against
the Lord Keeper’s mind, that he wished, before a friend or two in
private, that a fever in his sick-bed might excuse him." Buckingham was
now become incapable of that generous candour which permits a friend to
differ in opinion. He “was now mortally anti-Spanish,” as Bishop Hacket
observes, “and his anger was headed with steel. He assayed the Lord
Keeper to hale him to his judgment, as an eddy does a small boat,” and
would have persuaded him to influence the King against Spain; but he
found him as “inflexible as a dried bough.” When pressed by the
favourite to advance his views, he declared that, as God was his
protector, he would suffer all the obloquy in the world, rather than be
ungrateful to the Duke. But when the King asked his judgment--he must be
true and faithful--Buckingham, to his discredit be it spoken, had not
the generosity to appreciate Williams. The Duke had been apprized that
James, addressing the Earl of Carlisle, had remarked, "that had he sent
Williams into Spain, he would have kept both heart’s ease and honour,
both of which he lacked at that time." And one day, when Prince Charles
was present, James, looking at Williams, said, “This is the man that
makes us keep merry Christmas.” The Prince, not seeming to understand
his father, the King explained himself. “It is he,” he said, “that
laboured more dexterously than all my servants to bring you safe back
home this Christmas, and I hope you are sensible of it.” A finishing
stroke was put to Buckingham’s mortification when the King announced his
intention of promoting the Lord Keeper to the Archbishopric of York when
next it should be vacant.[88]
Footnote 88:
Hacket, 168.
The decision of the junto exonerated Philip IV. from any hollowness in
his share of the treaty. They blamed the Earl of Bristol for not
revoking the proxy, which was left in his hands sooner, and thus
stopping those preparations for the nuptials which had rendered the King
of Spain ridiculous. But when they voted that that Monarch should be
defied with open war, till amends were made to the Prince Palatine for
the wrongs he had suffered, the majority of the conference hesitated,
and refused to say more than that the “girths of peace were slack, but
not broken.” Buckingham had now become wholly impatient of opposition;
scarcely any of the council had voted to his satisfaction. Sometimes
strange scenes were witnessed in the conference; the fiery Duke would
arise, and “chafe against” those who opposed him from room to room, “as
a hen who has lost her brood, and clucks up and down when there is none
to follow her.” Upon meeting Lord Belfast, one of the party adverse to
his wishes, he asked him contemptuously, “Are you turned too? and flung
from him; upon which Lord Belfast, in a manly and candid letter,
announced his resolution to conform in all things to the pleasure of his
royal master.” But the greatest anger was displayed by Buckingham
against the Lord Keeper, who seldom spoke, but who, when he gave his
opinion, swayed that of the majority.[89]
Footnote 89:
Hacket, p. 69.
Buckingham was not of a character to dissemble his feelings; and his
displeasure was shown, not only in his countenance, but expressed in
angry expostulations. He told Bishop Laud that the Lord Keeper had so
strangely forgotten himself to him that he seemed to be “dead in his
affections.” Laud, who was devotedly attached to the favourite and his
family, meeting Williams in the withdrawing-chamber at Whitehall, “fell
into very hot words with him,” which were reported to the Duke.
Eventually, however, these differences were healed, and, in February,
1624, a reconciliation was effected through the mediation of Laud. From
henceforth, nothing but an appearance of friendship subsisted between
Buckingham and Williams. “The wound,” says Dr. Heylyn, “was only
stunned, not healed, and festered the more dangerously, because the
secret rancour of it could not be discerned.”[90]
Footnote 90:
Heylyn’s Life of Laud, p. 113.
The issue of all this was that the Duke insisted on a parliament, by way
of appeal;[91] and during the heat of these Court cabals, that body was
assembled at Westminster in February.
Footnote 91:
Hacket, p. 169.
Meantime, public aversion to the match was from time to time forcibly
expressed. The pulpits were still profaned by political allusions; a
clergyman named Knight was committed for preaching that tyrannical kings
might be brought to order by their subjects; a doctrine which appeared
so monstrous to James, that he talked of having the sermon burned by the
hangman.[92] This arrest took place at Oxford; the King highly approved
the proceedings, and directions were forthwith sent to the heads of the
colleges, to desire the students to apply themselves to the Scriptures,
to general councils, and the ancient fathers and schoolmen, excluding
the heretical doctrines of both Jesuits and Puritans. The document which
contains these directions is still extant, and is endorsed by Laud.
Sedition seems not to have been the only rank weed that then sprang up
in the universities.[93]
Footnote 92:
State Papers, cxxix., No. 62.
Footnote 93:
Ibid, cxix., No. 68.
The King, in addressing the Parliament, declared that he had called them
together to correct previous misunderstandings; that he would cherish
his people as a husband does his wife; he wished for their advice in
matters of the greatest moment; he had long been engaged in treaties,
hoping to settle the peace of Christendom, but had found treaties
fallacious. With regard to Spain, he referred the houses to the
secretaries, the Prince, and to Buckingham; on their good advice he
conceived the felicity of the kingdom depended. He had never, he said,
neglected religion, nor intended anything but a temporary indulgence to
recusants. He concluded this original and eccentric harangue (rather
different from a modern royal speech) by saying that he knew that never
was there a king more beloved than himself, and that he wished the two
houses to be the mirrors of the people.[94]
Footnote 94:
State Papers, vol. cxix., No. 55.
The Speaker was then elected; and Sir Thomas Crewe, sergeant-at-law, in
his reply, recalled the benefits of the good parliament in the
thirty-second year of Henry VIII., and the thirty-ninth of Elizabeth.
Soon afterwards, More, an attorney, was sentenced to lose both his ears
“for speaking disrespectfully of those two deceased monarchs.” Such was
English liberty. The culprit laughed whilst the sentence was being put
into execution in Cheapside. A proclamation was issued, ordering priests
and Jesuits to leave Ireland within forty days;[95] so instant was the
change from toleration to persecution. James was not more free from
troubles about Ireland than his successors have been. On visiting the
State Paper Office, and seeing a large mass of documents relating to
that island there, he had once remarked that there was “more ado about
Ireland than about any of his dominions.”[96]
Footnote 95:
Ibid, No. 70.
Footnote 96:
State Papers.
The Duke had now so completely regained the love of the people, by his
abandoning the Spanish marriage, that it was proposed in the Lower House
to confirm all his lands and honours to him by act of parliament; but
the reply was that this was no time to commend men, though deserving
well.[97] A few days afterwards, the Prince told the Upper House that
they need not fear “advising a breach, for if we did not begin the war,
Spain would.”
Footnote 97:
Ibid, Nos. 93, 94.--Locke to Carleton.
In the House of Commons, Sir Benjamin Rudyard declared that the King of
Spain had verified the proverb that kings’ daughters are so many ways to
deceive their neighbours; and that since the match was first thought of,
much Papistry had sprung up amongst the people; that Protestantism was
disunited as in Germany; suppressed as in France; threatened as in
Holland. All the speakers on this memorable occasion praised the Prince.
Rudyard declared that he had shown both courage and wisdom in his
journey, which “had matured his excellent parts.” The Lord Keeper
Williams related how the Prince had sent a message to the council, to
say that though he stole to Spain for love, he would not steal back
again for fear; how he had told Grimes, one of his servants, to tell his
father, in case he should hear that he was detained, to think of him no
more as a son, for he would be lost, but to place all his affections on
his sister.[98] On the second of March, Sir Edward Coke was instructed
by the Commons to advise the Lords of their unanimous resolution to
counsel the King to break the treaties with Spain; and was instructed to
request the Lords to join in a petition to make a declaration to that
effect, which should comfort his people and encourage his allies
abroad.[99] Sir Edward answered, that he never knew a petition of both
houses refused; he could not say anything more “for weeping;” and Sir
Thomas Edmondes, treasurer of the household, taking up the pecuniary
part of the question, said that the “mysteries of delusion in the
treaties were now discovered, and that the Spanish, having enticed us
from the match with France, now offered, instead of a dowry of
600,000_l._, only 20,000_l._ yearly with the Infanta, and some jewels;
whilst France would give a wedding portion of 240,000_l._” This,
perhaps, considering the King’s debts, and the almost bankrupt state of
the treasury, was probably a stronger argument with James than the
restitution of the Palatinate, or the security of Protestantism, on
which points his conscience seems to have been conveniently callous.
Footnote 98:
State Papers, clx., Nos. 8 and 10.
Footnote 99:
Ibid, Nos. 1 and 33.
On the twenty-sixth of February, Buckingham, assisted by the Prince,
addressed the houses, beginning from the first negotiation at Brussels,
which had raised doubts of the Spanish King’s sincerity, and induced the
Prince to go himself to Spain; and had disclosed the fact that neither
the marriage, nor the restitution of the Palatinate, was intended. Many
letters were read to and from the chief parties concerned in the treaty,
and the houses were asked whether the King should act on the assurances
given, or “stand on his own feet.” It was soon resolved that the King
should not accept their answer. The houses applauded the Duke’s conduct,
and requested the King to break off the treaties.[100]
Footnote 100:
State Papers, vol. clix., No. 83.
Upon this resolution, the spirits of the anti-Catholics were so much
excited that a request was sent James to order a fast for the happy
deliverance of the Prince; and no member of parliament was henceforth to
be allowed to retain recusant servants.[101] Soon afterwards the Lower
House informed the Upper that the Spanish ambassadors declared that
Buckingham deserved to lose his head for wronging the King of Spain, but
that the Commons had acquitted him, and the Upper House appointed a
committee, who did the same.[102] On the same day, the Duke made a
motion in the House of Peers to “thwart the King of Spain in the
Indies,” by way of a commencement of hostilities. The Upper House,
indeed, cried out loudly for hostilities, more especially the bishops;
and the Bishop of Durham was so excited that he declared he would lay
down his rochet, and gird on a sword if the King would take that course.
This excitement was heightened by the following anecdote. Buckingham,
having been present when the Spanish ambassador told the King that his
master had deprived a bishop for speaking disrespectfully of James, had
answered, “It was true; and he had admired the justice of his Spanish
Majesty therein, but still more his mercy, for in a few days he gave the
man a bishopric worth thrice of his former prelacy.” These particulars
were stated by some members in the debates.[103]
Footnote 101:
State Papers, No. 92.
Footnote 102:
Ibid, No. 85.
Footnote 103:
Latter from Secretary Conway to Carleton.
It is not improbable that the exaggerated fears of the people, on the
one hand, and the expectations of the Catholics, on the other, may have
alarmed Charles, who was firmly attached to the Church of England. Upon
an application being made to Pope Gregory the XV. to grant a
dispensation for the marriage, that Pontiff had replied in a Latin
letter, expressing, first, his regret at the altered state of
Britain;[104] next, his hopes that, as under his predecessor, Gregory
the Great, Apostolical authority had been there established, he might be
permitted to see it reestablished by the conversion of the Prince, “the
flower of the Christian world,” who had proved, by seeking a Catholic
Princess, that he did not hate the see of Rome. He then set before the
Prince the example of his Highness’s ancestors, and concluded with
hoping that Charles would become “the infranshiser of Brittayne.”
Footnote 104:
State Papers, vol. clxiii., No. 59.--April 10, 1623.
Several Catholics who had worn a mask of Protestantism now threw it off,
and in hopes of toleration, avowed themselves Romanists; amongst these
were Sir John Wentworth and Lord Vaughan. “Everyone,” Lady Hatton wrote
to Carleton, “was on the wing for Spain;” but, “in spite of her walks
and talks with Gondomar,” she would ever, she said, oppose his
country.[105]
Footnote 105:
Ibid, vol. clxiii., No. 2.
Nor were the Catholics without reason in their dreams of enjoying a
degree of security and toleration long most unjustly and cruelly
withheld. Even after James had begun to listen to the changed tone
adopted by Buckingham, preparations had been going on, both for the
reception and maintenance of the Infanta, which might well afford hopes
of religious liberty. It was reported that the marriage conditions were
to be, the liberation of the Catholics and the abandonment of the
Hollanders. The Spanish ambassador surveyed Denmark House and St.
James’s, where “lodgings,” as they were styled, were prepared for the
Infanta. At each place, he ordered a new chapel, and Inigo Jones was to
prepare each with great costliness. The Spanish ambassador laid the
stone of a new chapel for the Infanta at St. James’s, whilst the Savoy
chapel was to be given up to the Infanta’s suite.
“After the London bonfires,” adds Mr. Chamberlain, who tells in the same
tone good and bad tidings, “Oxford lit fires and rung bells, and wrote
verses in honour of the match.”[106] It appears, indeed, from a letter
of Lord Treasurer Middlesex to Secretary Conway, that it was even in
contemplation to decorate the chapel with jewels; "Sir Peter Lore’s
jewels, and others of the Countess of Suffolk, now in pawn, should,"
wrote the Lord Treasurer, immediately after referring to his preparing
the chapel, "be submitted to His Majesty’s inspection, though he hoped
the King would not declare which he preferred, as advantage would be
taken of his preference, but leave the Chancellor himself, and others,
to bargain for them, as there was great necessity for frugality."[107]
Footnote 106:
State Papers, vol. cxliv., No. 13.
Footnote 107:
Lord Middlesex to Secretary Conway.--State Papers, vol. cxliii., No.
20.
The King, indeed, up to the very moment of his son’s return, had been
sanguine of the marriage, and delighted to talk over the adventures of
the journey, during which Buckingham had had seven falls, Sir Francis
Cottington twelve, and the Prince not one; but his tone was now
beginning to alter, which seemed strange to those who knew the King’s
circumstances, and who considered how splendid a dower was expected with
the Infanta. Lord Middlesex, who was afterwards discovered to have
embezzled public money, had declared himself “sick at heart” with the
idea of all these extraordinary charges, when the King was so ill able
to meet even his ordinary expenses. Like all servants who rob their
masters, his zeal was laudable; he could not, he wrote, “hold out,
unless some extraordinary reply be thought of, or some large sums come
in from Spain with the fleet; but would pawn his whole estate for the
present.”[108]
Footnote 108:
Lord Middlesex to Secretary Conway.--State Papers, vol. cxliii., No.
60.
It was a gift from a lady that brought first the altered sentiments of
Prince Charles to light. In the course of March, 1624, the Countess of
Olivares had sent him a large present of provisions, comprising gammons
of bacon, vessels of olives, special figs, sweet lemons, capers and
caperons, suchets, and sweet meats; he vouchsafed not even to see them.
They were conveyed into the riding place at St. James’s, and left to the
disposal of Mr. Francis Cottington.[109] On the twenty-third of March,
James informed his Privy Council that he was about to send a messenger
to Spain, to signify to the King that his Parliament had advised him to
break off the treaty, and that he intended proceeding to recover the
Palatinate as he might. “Bonfires were made in the city,” says
Archbishop Laud, “for joy that we should break with Spain.” Prince
Charles gave great satisfaction to the Parliament, where he was a
constant attendant, by declaring that should he choose any one of a
different religion from his own, it would be with a caution that his
consort, and her foreign servants, alone should be permitted the
exercise of their faith.[110] It was not, however, until the tenth of
December in the same year, that a ship was sent to Spain to fetch back
the jewels that had been bestowed on the Infanta and the royal family
there; when, by the proposal of the Spaniards themselves, they were
returned. They were placed under the care of James Howell, whose
familiar letters are so well known, and the news of their arrival was
conveyed by him to the King.[111] The Infanta, as an account from Spain
testified, was greatly distressed by these proceedings. The termination
of this treaty was, as Bishop Hacket remarks, “flat and unfortunate. Not
an inch of the Palatinate better for it, and we the worse from wars in
all countries.” The same writer justly observes that the Spanish as a
nation are preferable to the French; that the Spanish ladies, who have
been united to English princes, have been “virtuous, mild, thrifty, and
beloved of all.”
Footnote 109:
Nichols, p. 962.
Footnote 110:
Nichols, p. 970.
Footnote 111:
Ibid, p. 849.
The conduct of Charles in this affair gave a presage of that vacillating
and insincere policy which, in his after life, stamped a character full
of beautiful indications and gentle qualities, with duplicity. "But to
his life’s end," remarks Hacket, “he had a quality, I will not call it
humility, it is something like, but it is not it, to be easily persuaded
out of his own knowledge and judgment by some whom he permitted to have
power over him, who had not the half of his intellectuals.” The public,
however, remarked that the “brave prince,” as they called him, was
“bettered in his judgment after his return from Spain.”[112]
Footnote 112:
State Papers.
Buckingham’s conduct drew forth still more severe censures. It was
observed that in advising the Prince to break off the treaty, he had
only counselled what he had often done himself; for he was said to have
given promises of marriage to many within the Court, and to have
withdrawn from the fulfilment.[113] Harassed by the censures cast upon
him, Buckingham’s health and spirits sank under the alternate excitement
of his too dazzling career, and the depression of blame and opposition.
“A fever, the jaundice, and I know not what else,” are described, in a
letter from Mr. Chamberlain, as his disease. For this he was “let blood
thrice;” “yet the world,” adds the same writer, “thinks he is more sick
in mind than body, and that he declines apace.” The King in vain
endeavoured to reconcile him to the Earl of Bristol, who had returned
from Spain some time previously. That nobleman was ordered not to leave
his house, although many gracious messages were sent to him from the
King.[114] Buckingham, however, passed much of his time with the King,
“with as much freedom and love as ever.”[115]
Footnote 113:
Ibid, pp. 972, 975.
Footnote 114:
Hacket, from Cabala, p. 223.
Footnote 115:
State Papers.
The Duke of Buckingham was attended in his illness by Sir Theodore
Mayerne, the favourite court physician. From an entry in a journal of
cases kept by that eminent man, and styled by him his “Ephemerides
Anglicæ,” it appears that Buckingham was not unfrequently the subject of
his care and skill. In 1617 he had been troubled with a tumour in the
right ear, owing to riding bareheaded in the winter, when hunting with
the King; and the mode of life pursued in James’s society, the habits of
intemperance prevalent in those days, and the absence of any strict
moral principle, were, as Mayerne’s details are said to prove, highly
injurious to the general health of the Favourite,[116] who is specified,
in Sir Theodore’s voluminous collection, under the name of Palamedes.
Every one remarked that Buckingham had, since his return, become
pensive. “The Prince,” writes Mr. Mead to Sir Martin Stuteville, “hath
got a beard, and is cheerful; the Marquis (some conceive) not so.” The
expenses of the Spanish journey were very considerable; and in the
impoverished state of James’s treasury, they might naturally provoke
difficulties far from agreeable to the main projectors of that
enterprize. They amounted, according to a release given by Prince
Charles to Sir Francis Cottington, to 50,027_l._ Prince Charles, before
he left Spain, had given presents to the amount of 12,000_l._
Footnote 116:
Ellis’s Original Letters, 2nd series, vol. iii., p. 245-46. There are
nineteen volumes in the Sloane MSS., British Museum, consisting of
notes in Latin, in the handwriting of Mayerne, forming a journal of
the cases which he attended from 1611 to 1649. “These,” says Sir Henry
Ellis, “may be styled, for the period they embrace, ‘Medical Annals of
the Court of England.’”
But it appears that the nation, pleased that the heir-apparent of Great
Britain should have an opportunity of seeing two great kingdoms, and
proud of his discretion and princely demeanour, were far from regretting
that the journey had taken place, but rejoiced that he had returned in
health, and without any change in his religious opinions.[117]
Footnote 117:
State Papers. Letter from Edward Herbert to James I., p. 168.
The Prince, it was now said, disliked a Dutch match, and refused a
Spanish one, until full restoration of the Palatinate and Electorals. “A
lady,” Dudley Carleton remarked, “wise in these matters, declared she
saw no symptom of his being in love.”[118] The talk of the Spanish match
became daily cooler, and another was said to be under consideration at
Vienna; whilst the Princes’s safe return was, as many thought, a “marvel
to all;” and a great man told him that he might thank God and his sister
for it.[119]
Footnote 118:
State Papers, vol. cliv., No. 2.
Footnote 119:
Ibid, No. 17.
In the course of these discussions an accident occurred, which too
plainly showed the temper of the times. A house had been hired by the
Roman Catholics, next to that of the French ambassador, in order to
celebrate mass, and to hear Father Drury, a famous Jesuit preacher. The
day chosen for the opening of the tenement was the fifth of November.
That day the roof fell in, whilst these worshippers were assembled, and
ninety-five people, Drury among the number, were killed. It seems
difficult, in the present state of public feeling, to believe that, as
the crashing ruins entombed the victims beneath them, the barbarous
multitude, who might term themselves Protestants, but were not to be
called Christians, “rather railed and taunted the sufferers, than helped
them.” Nor did the bitterness of persecution end there, for the Bishop
of London refused to allow these unfortunate people to be interred in
any churchyard in the City; the dead were therefore buried in two pits
behind the houses which had fallen in, and black crosses were placed
above their graves. This event made a deep impression. It was the first
solemn meeting of recusants for sixty years; the Puritans styled it a
judgment; the Romanists declared that it could not be such, for that
those dying in that way escape purgatory. The preachers in the churches,
however, treated the question “charitably and temperately.”[120] Masses
for the sufferers were said at Ely House, in the presence of all the
Spanish Legation, Sir Tobie Mathew appearing as chief mourner.[121]
Footnote 120:
Letter from Chamberlain to Carleton.
Footnote 121:
State Papers, vol. clxiv., No. 17.
People began to fear Buckingham more than even Prince Charles himself;
he was styled the “dictator, not only of England, Ireland, and of
Scotland, but of the King himself,”[122] and he henceforth courted
popularity, inviting himself to the houses of the influential citizens,
which seemed nevertheless to imply that he dreaded lest some impending
storm should be lowering over his destiny.
Footnote 122:
Coke’s Detections, p. 224.
During the whole of this year, however, Buckingham’s security was being
undermined; and, had it not been for the unfathomable indulgence of
James, he would probably have shared the fate of that great minister,
Wolsey, to whom he has been sometimes compared. During the progress of
the Spanish treaty, as we have already seen, the Marquis of Inojosa had
been sent to England as ambassador. He was a man of truly Spanish
gravity and severity, and a great promoter of the Popish interests in
England. His peculiar distinctions as an ambassador were, however, his
disagreeable, discourteous manners, which marked him as one of the most
unamiable foreigners that had visited the English Court.
This nobleman, in a private audience with James, had, in the spring of
1624, accused Buckingham of conspiring with certain accomplices how to
break off the match with the Infanta, and of having determined, in case
that their plot should not succeed, to send the King to one of his
country houses, and to put all public matters in the hands of the
Prince, whose virtue and discretion were so much worthier of confidence.
Hints were even thrown out by Inojosa that Buckingham plotted treason
against the King, who, until assured by several peers and councillors
that there was no intention of deposing him, was greatly disquieted.
Precedents were now sought to punish Buckingham; and there was an idea
started of calling him before the upper house to answer for his conduct.
But when the council talked to the King of precedents, he said that
"such precedents were found to cut off his mother’s head." Inojosa did
his best, meantime, to obtain a private hearing from the King, and went
to him, whilst Charles was in the House of Lords, at Theobald’s; but the
Prince, hearing of this visit, hurriedly rose, and arrived at the Palace
before the ambassador.
The King, harassed and vacillating, sent for the Lords to Whitehall, and
harangued them, when a strange scene ensued; he told them that he came
to sing a psalm of mercy and justice about the Lord Treasurer,[123]
whose misdeeds had lately come to light--who had done him, he said, some
good, in restraining grants which his own facile disposition led him to
consent to; that a recent imposition on wines was for his service and
profit, and therefore they might as well arraign him as the Lord
Treasurer. Prince Charles, deputed by the lords, said Lord Middlesex was
not questioned for that; but the King “_told him he lied_,” and bade the
house proceed, but give a good account of what they did.[124]
Footnote 123:
Lord Middlesex.
Footnote 124:
State Papers, vol. clxiv., No. 53.
James next did what every open nature is likely to suggest; he sent for
the creature whom he had raised from the dust, and reproached him with
his conduct. “Ah, Steenie, Steenie,” cried the monarch, “wilt thou kill
me?” Steenie, however, found means to justify himself to the King’s
satisfaction, and the Marquis of Inojosa was henceforth prohibited from
any more private interviews with the King. He resolved, however, to
overreach those who were set as spies to prevent his seeing James; and,
whilst Don Carlos de Coloma held the Prince and the Duke in close
conversation, he managed to slip into the King’s hands, with a wink, a
paper which he wished him to see, and made a sign that His Majesty
should thrust it into his pocket, which was quietly effected by the poor
frightened monarch. James had, indeed, for some time perceived that he
was maltreated by the haughty Buckingham. The Prince, though averse to
the alliance with Spain, was gentle and tractable; but, in the Duke, the
King declared that he had noted a turbulent spirit of late, and knew not
how to quell it. It was by the altered expression of James’s
countenance, and by his frequent silence and musings, that the Duke and
the Prince discovered these proceedings, and when they heard that
Inojosa and the Jesuit Maestro had been with the King, their alarm was
considerable. In consequence of this discovery, Buckingham wrote to his
royal master the following ungrateful and unpardonable letter:--
"DEAR DAD AND GOSSIP,
"Notwithstanding this unfavourable interpretation I find made
of a thoughtful and loyal heart, in calling my words ‘cruel Catonic
words,’ in obedience to your commands, I will tell the House of
Parliament that you, having been upon the fields this afternoon, have
taken such a fierce rheum and cough, as, not knowing how you will be
this night, you are not able yet to appoint them a day of hearing; but I
will forbear to tell them that notwithstanding of your cold, you were
able to speak with the King of Spain’s instruments, though not with your
own subjects. All I can say is, you march slowly towards your own safety
(here the words ‘_and happiness_’ are erased), and those that depend of
you. I pray God at last you may attain wit, otherwise I shall take
little comfort in wife or child, though now I am suspected to look more
to the rising son than to my maker. Sir, hitherto, I have tied myself to
a punctuall answer of yours. If I should give myself leave to speak my
own thoughts, they are so many, that though the quality of them should
not grieve you, coming from one you wilfully and unjustly suspect, yet
the number of them are so many, that I should not give over till I had
troubled you. Therefore I shall only tie myself to that which shall be
my last and speedy refuge--to pray, the Almighty to increase your joys
and qualify the sorrows of your Majesty."
Notwithstanding this remonstrance, James continued to give audience to
the Spanish ambassadors, though sometimes disputes ran high, and loud
expostulations were addressed even to his Majesty by Inojosa; at other
times, the Pope’s envoy, the Jesuit Maestro, was admitted whilst
Buckingham was at Newhall, and jealousies were thus fomented.[125] The
Duke was about this time ill of fever and jaundice; and reports were
spread of his having had something given to him in Spain that was
undermining his health; he was, in short, harassed by debts, harassed by
the Spanish treaty, and doubted by the King. Superstitious fears never
seemed to have had much hold on him; yet in James’s time, wiser men than
Buckingham (not to specify the King himself) were agitated by omens and
prophecies. In the spring of this eventful year, one Gamaliel Gruys had
prophesied that two great cedars would fall in England; these were, he
said, the Duke of Buckingham and the Lord Keeper. An hour after this
prophecy was spoken, news arrived of the death of the Duke of Lennox.
The augury, therefore, might be thought to refer to him. This idle
speech was deemed worthy of investigation;[126] and the prognostic was
judged by many to have had special reference to the events which time
too surely disclosed. Nevertheless, in proportion as the favour of the
Monarch declined, that of the people seemed to be restored to the Duke.
Footnote 125:
Nichols, 970.
Footnote 126:
State Papers, vol. clix., Nos. 45, 46.
The King, at this epoch, must have had some difficulties in arranging
his different audiences. The ambassadors from the States, and those from
Spain, were obliged to be conducted by different ways to the presence
chamber, that they might not meet, and the very chamber and bed which
had been prepared for the reception of the Infanta at St. James’s, were
allotted to Count Mansfeld, the ambassador from the Protestant party in
Germany, who, notwithstanding a protest from the Spanish ambassador, was
graciously received, and royally entertained by the King.[127] James
found it impossible long to resist the influence of his favourite, and
accordingly the Duke soon perceived that he was again welcome at court;
and a complete triumph was gained. Thus dishonourably and discourteously
ended the famous treaty with Spain, for the accomplishment of which
James had risked the best interests in Europe, and of his own family,
and upon which so much time, trouble, and money had been expended. The
voice of the people certainly called for the result.
Footnote 127:
Nichols, 790.
The expected rupture of the treaties with Spain was, however, most
acceptable to the nation; and Parliament resolved to assist His Majesty
in maintaining the honour of the nation by proclaiming war. Sir Edward
Coke encouraged the resolution, by saying in the house that “we never
thrived so well as in a war with Spain; and that if the navy was ready,
Ireland secured, and the low countries divided, we need fear neither
Turk, Pope, devil, nor the King of Spain himself, and that the very idea
of the war made him seven years younger.”[128] Sir Thomas Edwards was
authorized to declare also that the Prince “was sensible to the
dishonours put on himself, and condescended to urge speed in the
resolution for avenging them.” “Who,” cried the well-paid courtier, “can
resist such an invitation, the first made by him? He shall have an
answer of thanks, and assurance of tender concern for his
interests.”[129]
Footnote 128:
State Papers, vol. clx., No. 63.
Footnote 129:
Ibid, No. 68.
The King still temporized, nevertheless; and his conduct at this
juncture shows more plainly than at any other his native apathy, and the
indecision of his weak character, faced, as it was, with strong
pretensions. He was truly the “Clerk of Arms,” and said lofty things
whilst the sword was still in the sheath. Prince Charles endeavoured to
keep up appearances, by saying, “The King hath a long sword, and when it
is out it will not easily go in again.” But James confessed, in his
reply to the declaration, that he was old and oppressed with debts, and
had not yet expressed his opinion with regard to the war; “for, where
Jupiter speaks,” he added, “he should have his thunder; and a king
should not speak unless he could act.”[130] In this great business he
must satisfy his conscience, and his honour and he were already _almost_
resolved. The fact was, that he wanted larger subsidies than, he
expected, without this coquetting with his Parliament, would be voted.
Footnote 130:
State Papers, No. 27.
Never had the courtiers been so much at a loss in which way to turn
their customary homage; whether to the failing interest of the Spanish
ambassador, or to the rising but precarious favour of the French, for
James still vacillated.
At this juncture, the unfortunate Charles I. became for a time the
darling of the anti-catholic party, by far the most powerful at all
times in this country. His gentleness, his urbanity, his filial respect,
on the one hand, his endeavours to procure the King’s assent to the
wishes of his people, on the other, were the theme of praise. Still
Parliament was “fitful, and did lettle,” though the Prince and Duke
endeavoured to get it into a better understanding with His Majesty. The
Prince so “bravely and judiciously” exhorted the Houses, that they
resolved to offer life and fortune to His Majesty, if he would declare
the treaties broken. Secretary Calvert knowingly suggested that the
offer should be restricted “to be in a Parliamentary way;” the Treasurer
and Lord Arundel suggested that a general offer of aid from Parliament
would be of no avail; the Archbishop of Canterbury presented the
declaration; the King replied by thanks for their “large offer, which,
he said, was too general to be accepted;” they mistook him “in supposing
that he said Spain had dealt falsely with him; but if they would give
him five subsidies and ten fifteens for the war only, and one subsidy
and two fifteens yearly for himself, till his debts were paid, he would
issue a declaration to make this Parliament a session, and call another
for Michaelmas, and another for Lady-day.” This answer so annoyed the
House that there was not one “God save the King” heard as they went
away. When the Houses met again, the Prince and Duke endeavoured to
disperse these clouds: they said His Majesty was misunderstood; he only
wanted six subsidies and twelve fifteenths for the war. But this did not
convince those who heard him. Many members of Parliament were now again
"so cast down, that they would give the King’s men all for the war, even
to their shirts;" others harped on the poverty of the country, and would
not consent to give at all. At last the house voted three subsidies and
three fifteenths, to be paid within a year after the declaration that
the treaties were broken, and the King “lovingly” accepted their offer,
saying he would not touch a penny of the money himself, but devote it
all to the Palatinate. The general joy was expressed in bonfires; and
one nobleman, Lord Verulam, ran into debt to give four dozen fagots and
twelve gallons of wine. Stones and firebrands were now thrown at the
Spanish ambassador’s house; but the Commons refused to protect him. The
ambassador complained of some expressions used by Buckingham, reflecting
on the King of Spain, but the Houses immediately praised his conduct in
Spain, and the King said the Duke “had set an ill example to
ambassadors, for he had spent 40,000_l._ in his journey, and had asked
no repayment.” Never, adds Sir Edward Conway, whose letter to Carleton
contains these curious details, “was man so beloved of King, Prince, and
people” as Buckingham.
All seemed now to be settled according to the popular wish; but those
who deemed the rupture with Spain secure knew but little of King James.
The motives for his perpetual vacillations seem inexplicable, unless we
could believe that a sincere desire to preserve peace, and a dread of
being involved in continental wars, may have influenced the now feeble
and broken monarch. But sincerity was not one of this King’s attributes;
and his professions with regard to the Palatinate were utterly hollow
and worthless.
Shortly after this apparent understanding with his Parliament, he
“stormed” at a bill reviewing all the acts against Papists; and even
scolded Buckingham for consenting to it. At length, however, matters
seemed to draw to a conclusion.
The Earl of Bristol was recalled; Buckingham was empowered to read to
the Houses a dispatch from the King of Spain, declaring that the
treaties were dissolved. The King, in reply to an address from the
Houses, protested that his heart bled at the increase of Popery; and
that he had desired to hinder it, not by persecution, for that would be
useless; nevertheless, he granted their desire for the banishment of
priests and Jesuits; and promised to advise with council about the
probability of seizing subjects coming out from mass in the ambassador’s
chapel; no priests were in fact allowed to leave the kingdom without
first taking the oaths of allegiance.
So far, all looked well for the Protestant party; but not long
afterwards, the pertinacious Inojosa again seemed on the ascendant. He
resolved to raise, through Padre Maestro, a discord between the King and
Parliament, and, therefore, hinted to the King that there was a design
to confine him in Theobald’s, and to give the Crown to the Prince.[131]
The King was a good deal agitated, and told the Prince and the Duke of
this suspicion. They were resolved to find out who had put this idea
into the Spaniard’s head--some Englishmen they believed had done it, and
they suspected Lord Middlesex. James had heard of this design in the
morning, but had kept it to himself until after dinner, when, with
weeping eyes, in St. James’s Park, he imparted it to Buckingham, who, in
his reply, asked how it was possible he could ever do such a thing
without the Prince’s knowledge, whose filial feeling would rise against
it; and without his knowledge it were sottish to plan it, for the
affection of the people for His Majesty was such that they would tear
anyone to pieces who attempted such baseness. To which the King replied,
that had he believed it, he should never have mentioned it.[132]
Eventually, Inojosa pretended that the accusation was a misunderstanding
on the part of the King, and declared the Prince to be the most dutiful
son, and the Duke to be the most faithful servant, that ever monarch
had.[133]
Footnote 131:
State Papers, vol. clxiv., No. 10.--Locke to Carleton.
Footnote 132:
State Papers, vol. clxiv., No. 12.
Footnote 133:
Ibid, No. 44.
Meantime, the Earl of Bristol arrived in London, bringing with him the
jewels that had been given to the Infanta. He was confined, by the
King’s order, to his house in St. Giles’s Fields, but James sent him
kind messages. “It is thought,” writes Carleton, “that he will not be
much questioned, lest he should reveal too much.”
All hopes of now marrying the Prince to a lady of his own religion were
at an end, for James would not consent to his son’s espousing an
inferior, and there seemed to be no other alternative than to make
proposals to a French Princess. The Earl of Holland was therefore
dispatched into France, to treat with the queen-mother and her ministers
concerning this alliance, Charles, in the casual view which he had
obtained of Henrietta Maria, the posthumous daughter of Henry the Great,
having been struck by her beauty. First it prospered, and the French
ministers seemed disposed not to stand upon any conditions; but when
they found that the breach with Spain and that his inclinations favoured
the negotiation; that the breach with Spain was irreparable, and that a
war was in preparation, they resolved to abate none of the terms which
had been granted to the Spaniards, relative to the exercise of the
Catholic religion, and to these terms James and his son consented. Such
was the infatuation, and such, perhaps, the ignorance of the people,
that, having in November, 1623, celebrated the dissolution of the
Spanish treaty with bells and bonfires, they now, in February,
signalized their joy at the conclusion of a treaty precisely similar.
The conduct of Buckingham to the Earl of Bristol was justly and
generally unpopular. That nobleman had prayed that he might make his
answer in Parliament against any charge that might be preferred against
him; but had been committed to the Tower, in order, it was thought, to
prevent disclosures, and was only released upon his making submission,
and retiring into the country; nevertheless, articles were prepared to
impeach him.
In the course of the autumn, Don Hurtado de Mendoza, as ambassador
extraordinary from the Court of Spain, arrived in England. This nobleman
insisted on his right of precedence, according to the English custom,
which always grants it to the ambassador last arrived. This right was
resisted by Inojosa, as being of higher rank in his own country, and he
was eventually supported by the King of Spain, who ordered Mendoza back
again, and commanded him to remain in his own house as a prisoner when
he arrived in Spain.[134]
Footnote 134:
Note in Nichols, 937, from Finett’s Philoxenis.
During Mendoza’s sojourn in London, Buckingham had given a great feast
in his honour, and in that of Don Diego de Mexia, the Austrian
ambassador. On this occasion, Inojosa, although of course expected,
declined, not choosing, before the point of precedence was arranged, to
walk after Mendoza. On the following evening, Buckingham sent the absent
Inojosa, by Endymion Porter, a “regale of three large flaskets,” full of
the provisions of which the feast had been composed; one of cold meats
for the _custe pasto_, “another filled with uncooked fowl, fat and ready
for the spit;” a third containing the best and rarest sweetmeats; and
with all these, this message,--"that the Duke kissed his hand, and would
have esteemed it an honour and happiness to have had his company; but
since he had not had it, begged him to taste of what he had provided for
him; and on tasting this supper, entreated that the Marquis would be
pleased to drink the health of the King of England, and he would, at the
same time, drink that of the King of Spain."
Inojosa’s immediate answer to this compliment was, “that if my Lord Duke
had wished for his company, he might have had it, if it had pleased him
to command it; adding that it was easy to conceive what the feast must
have been, when a taste of it was so rare and plentiful.” It was,
indeed, one of those ruinous entertainments which were contributing to
impoverish Buckingham. It cost three hundred pounds--a large sum in
those days--and such was the taste and profusion of the times, that
twelve pheasants were piled in a dish, and there were on the table forty
dozen partridges, and all else in proportion.[135]
Footnote 135:
Letter from Chamberlain to Carleton, Nov. 21.
These compliments had passed, of course, before the accusation which
Inojosa had preferred against Buckingham had been insinuated into the
mind of the King by secret and artful proceedings.
“And no wonder it was,” Bishop Hacket remarks, “that His Majesty was
abused awhile, and dim-sighted with the character of jealousie, for the
Parliament was about to land him in a new world, to begin and maintain a
war, who thought that scarce any mischief was so great as was worth a
war to mend it; wherein the Prince did deviate from him, as likewise in
affection to the Spanish alliance: but otherwise promised nothing but
sweetness and obedience.”
On the twenty-second of May, Buckingham came to Court, and was very
welcome and well entertained, the King having previously shown him his
continued favour by his determination to get York House, which
Buckingham had hitherto borrowed, or rented, from Tobias Mathew,
Archbishop of York, transferred to the Duke; and scarcely six weeks had
elapsed, after the quarrel between James and his favourite, before we
find that prelate writing a letter to the King, declaring that he will
submit to His Majesty’s wishes, and give up York House and other
tenements; craving, however, that satisfaction to the see for so large a
property should be cared for; Mathews adding that he “blessed God for a
King who did not require anything from the church without making
abundant recompense.”[136] An act was subsequently passed, giving lands
in Yorkshire to the Archbishop in lieu of York House, which Buckingham
was altering at great expense. On giving his assent to the bill for the
transfer of York House, the King vindicated himself, in his speech to
the Lower House, from any design of allowing the Archbishop of York to
be a loser, and praised the care of the clergy taken by Buckingham, who
was adding to the lands given in exchange a house fit for the
bishop.[137] In another account it is said that the King spoke “very
affectionately of Buckingham;” and on the fourteenth of June the Monarch
granted to the Duke York House, and other messuages in the parish of St.
Martin’s-in-the-Fields, formerly belonging to the Archbishop of York,
but assigned to the King by act of Parliament. On the same day an
annuity of a thousand a year from the Court of Wards was conferred also
on the Duke, and a thousand pounds, arrears from the Court of Wards, in
lieu of a like grant from the Exchequer, surrendered.[138] Thus it
appears that Buckingham’s plan of managing his royal master, sometimes
by flattery, sometimes by insolence, reaped an undeserved success. That
the reconciliation was complete appears from the visit which James paid
during the summer to Burleigh-on-the-Hill, still in an unfinished
condition. Here the King witnessed the masque, by Jonson, entitled
"Pan’s Anniversary, or the Shepherd’s Holiday," containing those
beautiful lines, beginning:--
“Well done, my pretty ones, rain roses still,
Until the last be dropt, then hence, and fill
Your fragrant prickles;[139] for a second shower
Bring corn-flags, tulips, and Adonis flower,” &c.
Footnote 136:
State Papers, vol. clxvi., No. 62.
Footnote 137:
State Papers, vol. clxv., No. 29.
Footnote 138:
Ibid, vol. clxix., No. 14.
Footnote 139:
Light open baskets for flowers, and still so called by
gardeners.--Gifford’s Ben Jonson.
Buckingham, however, did not accompany his royal master in this his last
progress; but, although his separations from the King and Court were
more frequent than formerly, many letters from James to the Favourite,
preserved among the Harleian manuscripts, sufficiently attest the
unchanged character of the King’s devotion, not only to his favourite,
but to his whole family.
CHAPTER III.
DECLINE OF THE KING’S HEALTH--CASE OF LORD MIDDLESEX--PROCEEDINGS IN
BOTH HOUSES--SIR EDWARD COKE’S EXAGGERATION--BUCKINGHAM’S
PARTICIPATION IN THE AFFAIR--MIDDLESEX STEALS AWAY TO THEOBALD’S,
AND IS FOLLOWED BY CHARLES--FOUND GUILTY--CONFINED--BUCKINGHAM’S
DANGEROUS ILLNESS--ARTHUR BRETT--DEATH OF THE KING--ASCRIBED TO
BUCKINGHAM.
=CHAPTER III.=
The health of James the First had long been declining, and the vexations
which troubled his last years contributed, it has been supposed, greatly
to its decline. A mortal internal disease, however, aggravated by an
attack of tertian ague, left, in the spring of the year 1625, little
hope of his recovery. When told, during the access of this disorder, the
proverb, that “ague in the spring was health to a king,” he remarked
that the saying was meant to apply to a young king. The King was, in
truth, only fifty-eight years of age, but, independent of his originally
feeble constitution, he, like other men in those times, was old of his
age. It has been our blessing, under the improvements of science, and in
the habits of the nineteenth century, to retain, if not youth, many of
its greatest advantages, to a period of life far more advanced than that
in which James was styled the “old King,” a term to which he gave his
mournful assent.
Amongst the numerous causes which, with the Spanish treaty, vexed the
royal invalid, the case of the Lord Treasurer Middlesex was prominent.
In this minister James had rested unbounded confidence, which nothing
but the clearest evidence of the Lord Treasurer’s corruption could
undermine.
In April, 1624, Middlesex had been questioned in the House of Lords on
account of his neglect of the fortresses. He was much dejected by this
attack; but the inquiry was ascribed to the jealousy of Buckingham, Lord
Middlesex’s brother-in-law, Arthur Brett, having been put forward to
supplant the Duke in James’s favour.[140] It was thought, however, such
was the low standard of public morality, that the articles produced
against the Treasurer were not worse than “might be found in most men in
his place;” and the attempts to injure him were referred rather to his
harsh and insolent manner, his want of respect to Prince Charles, and
his inclination to the Spanish match, than to his devices for raising
money, and so impoverishing the nation, and to his opposition to the
calling a Parliament. Still he stood high in James’s favour, and boldly
declared his own innocence; James, whatever he might really feel,
“looking on” merely, and leaving his minister to his fate.[141]
Footnote 140:
State Papers, vol. clxii, No. 13.
Footnote 141:
State Papers, clxii., No. 45.
Buckingham, addressing the Peers, read a letter from the Deputy in
Ireland, who complained of neglect to his applications for repairing the
forts, which had become the more necessary as the Irish were in a state
of tumult and rebellion. Prince Charles added that a “member of the
council” had undertaken to answer these letters, and that this was the
Lord Treasurer, “who used to put such letters in his pocket, under
pretence of answering them.” Middlesex was soon after suspended from his
office, till he should clear himself; and it was even reported that his
title, given for services in the royal wardrobe, where he had been
guilty of many abuses, would be taken away; but rewards for services,
acknowledged under the Great Seal, could not, it was found, be
questioned. Even his life would have been in danger, could all have been
proved against him.
The House, desirous to finish the matter, allowed Middlesex to produce
forty witnesses, twelve of whom deposed directly against him; upon this,
Prince Charles sent him a message, ordering him not to appear in the
royal presence again until he had cleared himself. This command was the
more necessary, since, at this very moment, the mind of James had been
impressed by Inojosa with a suspicion that his son and the Duke were
plotting against him; an idea which the King, with weeping, imparted to
his son and the Duke. “The Lord Treasurer,” Sir Dudley Carleton writes,
“is suspected to be at the bottom of it.” Hitherto, James had still
appeared confident of the Lord Treasurer’s innocence,[142] and in a
speech to the Lords, whom he had summoned to Whitehall,[143] he advised
them as to their judgment. “Such a trial,” he observed, “had no
precedent before the last parliament, and then the guilty party, Lord
Bacon, had confessed, now the supposed delinquent denied the charge.”
James, indeed, long clung to the Lord Treasurer, and told the lords he
came to “sing a psalm of mercy and justice about him;” still the trial
went on, and the accused, in spite of alleged ill-health, was examined
both morning and afternoon; his illness was found, however, to be
feigned; and his answers were so audacious, and so manifestly perjured,
that, had it not been for the intercession of the Prince, he would have
been sent to the Tower. Among other speeches, Middlesex said he had been
baited by two mastiffs, Crew and the Attorney General; and he reasoned,
in his defence, “saucily” for five hours, but was found guilty, and
sentenced to pay 50,000_l._ fine, and to lose his office; never to sit
in Parliament again, nor to come within the verge of the Court. “He
would,” Mr. Chamberlain writes, “have been further degraded, but that he
had great, if not _gratis_, friends in the bedchamber. He may live to
crush his enemies, if his brother-in-law, Brett, should get into favour
and marry the Duchess of Richmond, who would do anything to be prime
courtier again.”[144]
Footnote 142:
State Papers, clxiv., No. 12.
Footnote 143:
May 5th, 1624.--State Papers.
Footnote 144:
State Papers, clxiv., No. 86.
Regarding this sentence, Lord Campbell remarks:--"The noble defendant
had done various things, as head of the Treasury, which would now be
considered very scandalous; but he had only imitated his predecessors,
and was imitated by his successors."--A melancholy commentary on the
state of public morality. It must have been galling to Lord Bacon, in
his retirement, to have known that he was coupled with a man so
dishonest, so specious, and so degraded as Middlesex.
Whilst all this was taking place, Buckingham was dangerously ill; so
that on Charles the difficult task of infusing a sense of justice into
the mind of James almost wholly devolved.[145] At length, however,
irritated by the insolent bearing of Middlesex, who conducted himself as
if he had not been expelled from Court, James, with his own hand,
scratched out the culprit’s name from the commission of subsidy for
Middlesex; and sent, through Sir Richard Weston, a message, saying that,
without regarding any other charge, he condemned him merely in his
capacity as Master of the Wardrobe, which Middlesex had “treated as a
fee-farm not to be accounted for, and would not even allow the clerk to
keep accounts, whereby great corruptions arose, and ordinary and mean
stuffs were brought in.”[146]
Footnote 145:
Parl. History, 1411, 1471.--See Lord Campbell, Article Coke.
Footnote 146:
State Papers.
Whilst all this was going on, Arthur Brett, the supposed rival of
Buckingham, was committed to the Fleet. By his examination it appears
that, on the Duke’s going into Spain, he had desired this young man to
retire to France, and he did so; but on Buckingham’s return, he could
not obtain leave to come back to England, and had therefore left France
without it. He was ordered back to France by the King; he pleaded his
right to stay in his own country, as a free-born subject. Then he was
told not to appear within forty miles of London. He had afterwards an
interview with Buckingham, who blamed him for returning; but said he was
the King’s servant, and might live where he pleased. He had therefore
staid in London, and wished to plead for a restoration of favour with
the Duke; failing in this, he went to Wanstead to petition the
King.[147]
Footnote 147:
State Papers, vol cxlii., Nos. 44, 54.
This disclosure of Brett’s, and Buckingham’s wish to keep him from the
Court, certainly throw a doubt on the genuineness of the Duke’s motives
in the prosecution of Middlesex. Brett had imprudently met the King in
Waltham Forest, and had seized hold of his Majesty’s bridle and stirrup,
a liberty which had greatly offended James, and to punish which Brett
was sent to the Fleet Prison, and, though released, was heavily fined.
In the midst of these various harassing affairs, the illness of James
began to assume a formidable appearance. The King had frequently, before
his last illness, been heard to express his belief that he should not
live long. He was a martyr to rheumatism and gout, which he increased by
gross feeding, and the continual use of sweet wines. During the whole of
the Christmas preceding his death he had kept his chambers, not even
going to chapel, or to see the plays, although his known delight in Ben
Jonson’s masques would have induced him to attend the representation of
the last of those performances played in his reign, the masque of the
“Fortunate Isles.” The sole amusement which the dying King permitted
himself was to go abroad in his litter, in fair weather, to see some
flights at the brook; but all enjoyment of his usual diversion was at an
end.
Accounts from the Court became daily worse:--"The King," Chamberlain, on
the twelfth of March, wrote to Carleton, “has a tertian ague, but not
dangerous, if he would be governed by physicians.”[148] His Majesty’s
decline was evidently gradual; nor was he the only person in the realm
sinking under fever or ague, the “spotted fever”[149] being fearfully
prevalent. Buckingham was now on the eve of going to France as
ambassador, to marry by proxy the young Princess, Henrietta Maria; but
so late as the twenty-third of March he was detained by the continued
illness of James.
Footnote 148:
State Papers, vol. clxxxv., No. 48.
Footnote 149:
Probably typhoid, which is characterized by some spots. State Papers,
vol. clxxxv., No. 99.
"The King’s fits," Mr. Chamberlain again writes, “diminish; the Duke
will not leave him till he is perfectly recovered, of which there is
hope, but no assurance.” On the following day, we find, from the same
source, that James performed an act of mercy, almost if not quite his
last, in excusing Lord Middlesex part of his fine, and reducing it from
50,000_l._ to 20,000_l._, which sum was to be repaid to the Crown.
His sickness had now assumed a distinctly intermittent form; even so
late as the middle of the month there had been an apparent abatement; on
the sixteenth of March, he had his seventh fit of this debilitating
disease; but it was, as Mr. Secretary Conway informed the Earl of
Carlisle, “less intense hereto than the rest, and left more clearness
and cheerfulness in his looks than the former.”[150] Yet, in the same
letter, Conway speaks of the “double sadness of every face,” and alludes
to the "extreme grief suffered for the sharp and smart accesses of His
Majesty’s fever."
Footnote 150:
Hardwicke, State Papers, 562, 564.
During the last sufferings of King James, the marriage treaty with
France was still diligently carried on, through the agency of Lord
Carlisle, ambassador at Paris, and was only delayed on the ground that
"it could not be suitable with the good nature of a son, in so dangerous
a state of his father’s health, to entertain such jollity and triumph as
duly belong to so acceptable a marriage." The Duke of Buckingham, who
had entertained some notion of going in person to Paris, and of
concluding the treaty himself, directed Lord Carlisle, in a letter
written on the fifteenth of March, “to have his eyes open, and to state
any course, as much as he could, which might hinder the business of the
Palatinate and of the religion,” until he appeared in the French
capital.
But the increasing illness of his royal master delayed the Duke’s
journey from day to day; and James was not permitted to witness the
conclusion of the long-cherished hopes of the union of his son with a
Princess of birth equal to his own. “All human things,” wrote Conway,
“have something of earth and defect.” Nothing, he added in his letter to
Lord Carlisle,[151] could exceed the contentment of the “excellent
Prince and gracious Duke,” at the sure progress of the treaty, "and
there was now no speech but of the speed of the Duke’s going;"[152] but
in the next letter the journey was spoken of as conditional upon the
restoration of His Majesty to health. On the twenty-fourth of March, the
tenth night of the King’s fever arrived. The attack, as the same
correspondent informed Lord Carlisle, “exercised much violence upon a
weak body, which being so much reverenced, and loved with so much cause
as His Majesty hath given, struck much sense and fear into the hearts of
his servants that looked upon him.” The King, it appeared, nevertheless,
had that day slept well, “and taken broths.” “And more to your comfort,”
added the secretary, “did, with life and cheerfulness, receive the
sacrament in the presence of the Prince and Duke, and many others, and
admitted many to take it with him; and in the action and the
circumstances of it, did deliver himself so answerable to his writings
and his wise and pious professions, and did justly produce much tears
between comfort and grief; and now this day, and now this night, he
recovers temper and gets, in appearance to us, strength, appetite, and
digestion, which gives us great hope of his amendment, grounded not only
upon desire, but upon the method of judicious observation.”[153]
Footnote 151:
Dated March 16, from Theobald’s.
Footnote 152:
Ibid, 563.
Footnote 153:
Letter of Conway to Lord Carlisle; dated March 16, from Theobald’s,
566.
It may here be remarked, before going more fully into the false and
calumnious evidence of poison, afterwards brought forward in this case
of the royal sufferer, that the state of the King, his relapses, and his
rallyings, imply anything but poison, and convey an impression of a
constitution long broken up, and suddenly depressed by the supervening
of an accidental attack of a disease then extremely prevalent in this
country. The Holy Communion was administered to James, over as before
stated, four days before he died: of the King’s professions before that
last sacrament, an account, corresponding with that of Secretary Conway,
but more distinct and instructive, is given by the Lord Keeper Williams.
The monarch, who broke the heart of Arabella Stuart by long imprisonment
and blighted hopes, and who beheaded Ralegh, and denied restitution to
his son, Carew, died well;--so self-deceived is the spirit of the “rich
man,”--so easy is it to substitute professions for practical
Christianity.
“Being asked,” said the Lord Keeper, “if he was prepared in point of
faith and charity for so great a devotion, he said he was, and gave
humble thanks to God for the same.” Being desired to declare his faith,
he repeated the articles of the creed, one by one, and said, “He
believed them all as they were received and expounded by that part of
the Catholic church which was established here in England,” adding that
whatever he had written of this faith in his life he was ready to seal
with his death. Being questioned in “point of charity,” he answered that
he forgave all men that had offended him, and wished to be forgiven by
all whom he had offended. Being told that men in holy orders in the
Church of England can challenge a power, as inherent in their function,
not in their power, to pronounce absolution on such of the penitent as
do call on the same, and that they have a form of absolution in the Book
of Common Prayer, he answered quickly:--
“I have ever believed that there was that power in you that be in orders
in the Church of England, and that, amongst others, was to me an evident
demonstration that the Church of England was the Church of Christ, and
I, therefore, a miserable sinner, desire of Almighty God to absolve me
of my sins, and that you, that are his servants in this high place, do
afford me this heavenly comfort.” And, after that the absolution had
been read, “he received the sacrament,” adds the Lord Keeper, “with that
zeal and devotion as if he had not been a frail man, but a Cherubim
clothed with flesh and blood.” He expressed to his son, and to the Duke,
the inward comfort which he felt after receiving the Communion, and
exclaimed “Oh, that my Lords would but do this when they were visited
with the like sickness! Themselves would be more comforted in their
souls, and the world less troubled with questioning their religion.”
Thus, in perfect composure, and sufficiently collected even to make his
replies to the Lord Keeper in Latin, James met death. Whilst the last
hour was approaching, he was little aware that the two beings whom he
most loved in the world, were, at that very moment, the objects of
suspicions the most cruel and groundless.
At that period, throughout Europe, and “nowhere,” says Lord Macaulay,
“more than in England, the public, both high and low, were in the habit
of ascribing the deaths of princes, and, indeed, of all persons of
importance, to poison. Thus,” he adds, “James the First had been accused
of poisoning Prince Henry. Thus Charles had been accused of poisoning
King James.”[154]
Footnote 154:
Macaulay, vol.i., p.441.
The calumnies, however, were not so distinctly directed to Charles, as
to the Duke; the calumnies circulated respecting Buckingham assumed an
importance, as they formed part of his subsequent impeachment. Those
also which attempted to implicate Charles merit a reference, since they
were repeated to his injury at a very critical period of his life, in
1642, when they were credited by many persons; for there exist those who
will, on a party question, believe, or affect to believe, any absurdity.
An act of kindness on the part of Buckingham gave rise to the rumours to
which some contemporary historians, and even an excellent writer of the
present century, have attached an almost incredible value.[155] Nothing,
perhaps, can really be more unwise, or more unkind, than to interfere in
illnesses with that profession which, admirable as are its
practitioners, is remarkable for the tenacity of its etiquette, and its
just horror of chance remedies. Yet, in other instances, even in the age
of Sydenham and of Mead, Anne of Denmark had imprudently sent to Sir
Walter Ralegh in the Tower for a remedy for her best beloved son, Henry,
in his last agonies; and thus afforded Buckingham a precedent for his
resort to unprescribed, and, therefore, often dangerous remedies.
Footnote 155:
Weldon, in James’s time, which, in a writer wholly without principle,
is not surprising, attaches guilt to Buckingham in this case; but that
Brodie should credit the slanderous statement against Charles and the
Duke, seems to modern readers wonderful.
The Countess of Buckingham, like many ladies of her own time and ours,
had a specific which cured every known distemper; and which, at all
events, was believed in by her son, the Duke; and it is not improbable
that during his own frequent illnesses and attacks of ague he might have
resorted to it himself.
Six days before the King died, the Duke applied, as it is stated by
several historians, plasters to the wrists and body of the sufferer, and
also administered several drinks, although some of the King’s physicians
did, says Roger Coke, “disallow thereof, and refused to meddle further
with the King until the said plasters were removed.”[156]
Footnote 156:
Coke’s Detection, vol. i., p. 126.
The King grew worse after these remedies, and great “droughts, raving,
fainting, and an intermitting pulse followed thereupon.” Twice was the
drink given him by the Duke’s own hand; and the third time refused. The
physicians, to comfort the King, told him that the relapse was from
cold, or from some other accidental cause. Upon which James answered,
“No, no, it was that I had from Buckingham.” “I confess,” adds Coke,
“that this was but a charge upon the Duke upon the Impeachment of the
Commons” (in the next reign), “yet it was next to positive proof, for
King Charles, rather than his charge should come to an issue, dissolved
one Parliament.”[157]
Footnote 157:
Ibid, 177.
It appears, however, that the plasters to which such dire consequences
were ascribed, and which seem to have been suggested by the Countess of
Buckingham, were prepared by an able and honest physician, Dr. John
Remington, of Dunmow, in Essex;[158] and that he had often applied
similar ones with success. One error was in supposing that a remedy
suited to one case had an empirical virtue; another, in using it,
without the knowledge of the physicians in attendance on the King. Their
professional pride was, of course, justly irritated by the discovery;
and one of them, Dr. Craig, having spoken “some plain words” on the
matter, was ordered out of the Court, the Duke himself complaining to
the King of what had been uttered.[159]
Footnote 158:
Fuller’s Church History, b. x. p., 113.
Footnote 159:
Nichols.--From Harleian MSS., 389.
His Majesty, however, grew worse and worse, so that Mr. Hayes, the Court
surgeon, was called out of bed to take off the plasters; a julep was
then prepared by Mr. Baker, the Duke of Buckingham’s servant, for His
Majesty to drink, and was administered by Buckingham himself.
These particulars were all given and sworn to by the physicians, two
years afterwards, before a select committee of Parliament, when the
Duke’s act was voted “transcendant presumption,” though most people
thought that it was done without any ill intention.[160]
Footnote 160:
Ibid.
Whilst the poor King lay expiring, a strange and scandalous scene,
according to Weldon, passed near his death-bed. Buckingham was coming
into the chamber, when one of the servants greeted him with these
words:--"Ah! my lord, you have undone all us poor servants, though you
are so well provided for you need not care:" upon which the Duke kicked
him. The man, enraged, caught hold of the foot which spurned him, and
the Duke fell to the ground. On arising, he ran to the King’s bedside,
and exclaimed, “Justice, for I am an abused man.” At which James is said
to have fixed his eyes mournfully upon him, "as one who would have said,
‘not wrongfully.’"[161]
Footnote 161:
Weldon, p. 39.
Such were the unwarrantable and malignant reports which strove to impute
to Buckingham the foulest treachery and the deepest ingratitude.
The motive for such an action as that which his foes scrupled not to
fasten upon him--and the imputation followed him through life--is
difficult to be discovered. Buckingham had no reason to wish for the
death of his benefactor. Loaded with obligations, omnipotent in the
country, feared, if not respected, abroad, for what purpose he should
destroy the source of all his superabundant blessings, it were
impossible to divine. The sole reason that could be given was a fear
lest the King should promote the Earl of Bristol, and grow weary of the
Duke. Yet Bristol was even then in retirement and disfavour, and had
only recently been in a sort of imprisonment. The charge, cruel and
groundless, tends to justify Buckingham from many minor imputations,
since those who could fabricate such an accusation were not likely to be
fair interpreters of his ordinary conduct. Roger Coke, for instance, as
we have seen, specifies the charge against Buckingham, but gives him no
credit for the actual acquittal of Parliament, and is silent regarding
the general opinion.
The confidence reposed by Charles in Buckingham affords another source
of vindication. Charles had ever been a dutiful son; indulged, indeed,
to excess, yet not spoiled by kindness. On the Friday before the King
died, he had three hours private conversation with his son. Had James
then entertained any suspicion of the Duke, he would, assuredly, have
imparted it as a matter which lay most heavily on his mind, and, as a
precaution to his son, James could not have controlled a grief so
pungent as the suspicion that his favourite, the being, perhaps, the
best beloved in the world, had dealt out to him the potion of death.
Wilson, indeed, relates the circumstance of this last interview thus.
The King, according to his account, sent for the Prince out of his bed.
Charles appeared before him; when James, arousing all his strength and
energy, strove to address him; “but nature being exhausted, he had not
strength to express his intentions.” That a conversation did, however,
take place, rests on the testimony of a private letter addressed by Mr.
Mead to Sir Martin Stuteville, and written shortly after the King’s
death.[162]
Footnote 162:
Brodie’s Con. Hist., vol. ii., p. 128, note.
There was among the Court physicians, one named Eglesham, who had acted
in that capacity for ten years; and this long attendance, in a
responsible post, has been thought a sufficient guarantee for his
character. Upon his evidence, chiefly, the charge against Buckingham
rested; Eglesham was obliged, in consequence of his allegations against
the Duke, to abscond, and remain some years absent from the country. In
the pamphlet which he published, he stated that the plaster was applied
to the King’s heart and chest whilst the physicians in attendance were
absent at dinner: the King, after this application, which was suggested
and carried into execution by the Countess of Buckingham, became faint,
and was in great agony. Some of the physicians, returning after dinner,
and perceiving an offensive smell from the plaster, exclaimed that the
King was poisoned, and then Buckingham, entering, commanded the
physicians to leave the room, sent one of them a prisoner to his own
chamber, and ordered another out of the Court; whilst his mother,
kneeling down, cried out to the King, with a brazen face, “Justice,
sire, I demand justice!” His Majesty asked her “Justice for what?” “For
that which their lives are nowise sufficient to satisfy; for having said
that I have poisoned your Majesty.” “Poisoned me!” cried James, and,
turning round, fainted away. On the following Sunday, Buckingham
entreated two physicians who attended the King to sign a document,
declaring that the powder he had given to the King was a safe and good
remedy; this they refused to do.
After the King’s death, the physician who had been commanded to keep
within his own apartment was set at liberty, with a caution “to hold his
peace,” and the others were threatened, if they kept not “good tongues
in their heads.”[163] The public were also horrified at hearing that the
King’s body and head had swelled beyond measure; but that is by no means
an unusual symptom after death.
Footnote 163:
Brodie’s Con. Hist., vol. ii., p. 128, note.
Now the value of Eglesham’s evidence rests wholly upon his personal
credit. It was stated, by Sanderson the historian, that he afterwards
offered to write a recantation of his pamphlet for four hundred
guineas;[164] but although Brodie does not consider the assertion of
Sanderson, who had the statement direct from Sir Balthazar Gerbier, to
be a good authority, the impression which it conveys against Eglesham is
confirmed from another source. There is a letter in the State Paper
Office, from one Andrew Herriott to Secretary Nicholas, in which "he
marvels that Nicholas and Sir James Bagg should take into their
protection Edward Yeates, who was a pirate with one Captain Herriott, a
poor man’s son in Kent, a mere mountebank, only companion with Dr.
Eglesham, at bed and board for many years together, insomuch as they
coined many double pistolets, and yet unhanged."[165] This letter was
written in 1627, two years after the King’s death; when Eglesham,
probably from a fear of justice, had fled from Court, after he had lost
the protection of the King, who was by no means scrupulous as to the
character of those around him.
Footnote 164:
Ibid, 119.
Footnote 165:
Letter from Andrew Herriott to Nicholas, State Papers. Calendar, by
Mr. Bruce, vol. xliv., No. 27, dated May 27, 1627.
On Eglesham, it appears, it devolved to examine the corpse, and he did
not hesitate to point to Buckingham as the King’s murderer.[166]
Footnote 166:
Oldmixon, 70.
He afterwards presented petitions both to the King and the Parliament,
praying for vengeance on the Duke. These petitions were published in the
form of a pamphlet in Latin, in 1626; and in 1640 the English
translation was printed.[167] In this pamphlet, Eglesham stated that his
motives for the publication were these: that having been patronized from
his youth by the Marquis of Hamilton, the probability there was of that
nobleman’s being poisoned was mentioned to him; he then stated that
about the time of the Duke of Richmond’s death, a list of persons who
were to be poisoned was found in King’s Street, Westminster, and brought
to the Marquis of Hamilton by a relation, a daughter of Lord Oldbarre;
in this list was not only Hamilton’s name specified, but also that of
Dr. Eglesham “to embalm him.” Other titles were contained in the list;
those of the Duke of Lennox and his brother, and the Earl of
Southampton, who died at this time of a fever, being particularized.
These accusations of Eglesham’s, who was doubtless only a tool in the
hands of a party, were, according to Arthur Wilson, hushed up, but they
served the purpose of those by whom they were originated. According to
the account of those historians who have delighted to blacken
Buckingham, James foresaw his doom, and hinted at the probability of
treachery, when, on hearing of the Marquis of Hamilton’s death, he
said--"If the branches are thus cut off, the stock cannot continue
long;" and often was he heard, according to Sir Anthony Weldon, to say,
in his last illness, to the Earl of Montgomery, "For God’s sake, see
that I have fair play."[168]
Footnote 167:
Harleian MSS., 405. It was revived by the disaffected in 1642, with
some alteration of language.--Nichols, 41033.
Footnote 168:
Oldmixon, 70.--From Wilson and Weldon.
Of this improbable story, there is not a hint in any of the
correspondence of the day, although the circumstances of the King’s
death are carefully detailed by Chamberlain and other news-writers.
After his last interview with Charles, the King declined rapidly; and
his tongue was so swollen, that he could either not speak at all, or not
be understood. An hour before the King’s death, the Dean of Hereford,
Dr. Daniel Price, preached before the Prince and Court at Theobald’s; he
prayed earnestly for the King before the sermon, and wept as he prayed
and preached.[169]
Footnote 169:
Nichols, 1032.
James expired on Sunday, the 27th of March, between the hours of eleven
and twelve, aged fifty-seven years and three months. Upon the
examination of his remains, much internal disease was found, but no
appearance of poison. His heart was unusually large, which accounted, in
the opinion of Sir Symonds D’Ewes, for his being “so very considerate,
so extraordinary fearful, which hindered him from attempting any great
action.”[170]
Footnote 170:
Nichols, 1054.
During the Monarch’s last hours, prayers were multiplied more and more
for the benefit of his soul, and certain English and Latin short
sentences of devotion, to elevate his spirit to heaven “before it came
thither,” were recited. James, whose consciousness and memory continued
unimpaired, was so “ravished and solaced” by these religious
ejaculations, that his groans of agony were stilled whilst they were
uttered. “To one of these,” says the Lord Keeper Williams, “Mecum eris
in Paradiso,” he replied presently, “Vox Christi”--that it was the voice
and promise of Christ. Another, “Veni, Domine Jesu, veni cito,” he twice
or thrice articulated. And as his end drew near, that prayer usually
said at the hour of death was repeated. And no sooner had that prayer
been uttered, “In manus tuas, Domine, commendo spiritum meum,” than,
without any convulsion or pangs, he expired,--his son and servants
kneeling on one side the bed, his archbishops, bishops, and all his
chaplains on the other.
Thus closed the responsible career of the first of the Stuart Kings that
had ascended the throne of England.
Immediately after the King’s last sigh was breathed, a letter, not
official, was written by one of his household, without a name, to the
Queen of Bohemia. It is among the foreign inedited papers in the State
Paper Office; and contains, which is remarkable, since it appears to be
written in strict confidence, no allusion whatever to the suspicion of
poisoning.[171]
Footnote 171:
See Inedited State Papers. Foreign, for 1625.
CHAPTER IV.
1624-1625.
THE REMARKS OF SIR HENRY WOTTON UPON BUCKINGHAM’S UNINTERRUPTED
PROSPERITY DURING THE REIGN OF JAMES--HIS MOST PERILOUS TIME YET TO
COME--THE CHARACTER OF CHARLES DIFFICULT TO MANAGE--HIS AFFECTIONS
DIVIDED--REQUEST OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL REGARDING THE LATE KING’S
FUNERAL AND THE YOUNG KING’S MARRIAGE--GOOD TASTE DISPLAYED BY
CHARLES IN HIS CONDUCT AT THE FUNERAL--THE INFLUENCE OF BUCKINGHAM
STILL PARAMOUNT--ROGER COKE’S REMARK UPON KING JAMES’S REGRET ON
OBSERVING THAT HIS SON WAS OVERRULED BY THE DUKE--THE THREE GREAT
KINGDOMS OF EUROPE AT THIS PERIOD RULED BY FAVOURITES--THE MARRIAGE
OF CHARLES AND HENRIETTA MARIA--MOTIVE ATTRIBUTED TO
BUCKINGHAM--PRELIMINARY STEPS--LETTER FROM LORD KENSINGTON TO THE
DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM DETAILING HIS INTERVIEW WITH THE
QUEEN-MOTHER--DESCRIPTION OF THE YOUNG PRINCESS--THE DUKE PREPARES
FOR HIS JOURNEY INTO FRANCE TO FETCH HOME THE BRIDE--THE EXPENSE OF
HIS MISSION OBJECTED TO BY THE NATION--THE TWO AMBASSADORS
DESCRIBED--RICH--LORD KENSINGTON, FIRST EARL OF HOLLAND--HIS BEAUTY
OF PERSON, ADDRESS, AND EARLY FAVOUR AT THE COURT OF JAMES--HIS
RESTING SOLELY UPON BUCKINGHAM--HIS MARRIAGE WITH THE DAUGHTER OF
SIR WALTER COKE, THE OWNER OF THE MANOR OF KENSINGTON--THE EARL OF
HOLLAND REGARDED BY SOME AS A RIVAL TO BUCKINGHAM--JAMES RELIED MORE
ON THE EARL OF CARLISLE--CHARACTER OF THE TWO NOBLEMEN BY BISHOP
HACKET--SUCCESSFUL INTERVIEWS ON THE PART OF LORD HOLLAND WITH MARIE
DE MEDICI--HER DISPOSITION TO FAVOUR CHARLES AS A SUITOR TO HER
DAUGHTER--ANECDOTE OF HENRIETTA MARIA AND OF CHARLES’S
PORTRAIT--ENCOMIUMS ON HENRIETTA--THE DUCHESS DE CHEVREUSE--HER
INFLUENCE OVER ANNE OF AUSTRIA--HER SPLENDOUR--RESENTMENT OF THE
COUNT DE SOISSONS ON ACCOUNT OF THE MARRIAGE TREATY WITH
ENGLAND--THE WILLINGNESS EVINCED BY HENRIETTA MARIA TO THE
MARRIAGE--LORD KENSINGTON’S FLATTERY OF THE QUEEN-MOTHER--THEIR
CONVERSATIONS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE SPANISH MATCH--THE MARRIAGE
FINALLY CONCLUDED--CHARLES’S CONDUCT TO THE RECUSANTS REGARDED AS A
PROOF OF HIS AVERSION TO CATHOLIC HOPES.
=CHAPTER IV.=
1624-1625.
It is remarked by Sir Henry Wotton, that “a long course of calm and
smooth prosperity” had been enjoyed by the Duke of Buckingham under the
sway of James I. “I mean,” adds that writer, “long for the ordinary life
of favour, and the more notable, because it had been without any visible
eclipse or wane in himself, amid divers variations in others.”
Villiers had witnessed the disgrace of Somerset, the degradation of
Bacon, the execution of Ralegh, the fall of Coke, without experiencing,
in his own fortunes, any symptoms of decline, or knowing more than a
temporary displeasure towards himself in the mind of his sovereign.
But the more perilous part of his career was yet to come; when he had to
deal with a young prince, whose affections were not undivided, but were
liable to an influence foreign to that of his early friend and companion
in travel. He had to contend with a character full of generous impulses,
but strongly marked by obstinacy in some points, and by weakness of
purpose in others. He had also to contend with the future bride of his
enamoured sovereign, and that bride a woman of no ordinary
determination, and of a sagacity sufficient, if not to guide her right,
fully to comprehend the assailable points in the conduct of another.
It was soon remarked that the influence which had predominated during
the last reign was hereafter to prevail; for Charles, as an historian
remarks, had been linked to the Duke of Buckingham in his father’s
life-time, “and now continued to receive him into an admired intimacy
and dearness, making him partake of all his counsels and cares, and
chief conductor of his affairs; an example rare in this country, to be
the favourite of two succeeding princes.”[172]
Footnote 172:
Rushworth, vol. i., p. 167.
According to another writer, James had perceived with sorrow the sway
obtained by Buckingham over Charles. “Before he died,” thus writes Roger
Coke, "he saw his son overruled by his favourite, against his
determinate will and pleasure, and the Prince’s own honour and interest,
which was a great mortification to him, and which he often complained
of, but had not courage to redress."[173] To this influence, Coke
attributed all the internal feuds, jealousies, and discords of the
nation, and the fatal catastrophe which closed both the career of the
Favourite and that of his royal master.
Footnote 173:
Coke’s Detection, vol i., p. 182.
It was a singular coincidence that the three great kingdoms of Europe
were governed at this time by young Kings, or rather, virtually, by
their favourites. France, in the reign of Louis the XIII., was governed
by Richelieu; Spain, in that of Philip the IV., by Olivares; England by
Buckingham; “and this,” adds the same historian, “Europe reckoned in
those times amidst its unhappy destiny.” Immediately after the funeral
of the late king, the marriage of Charles to Henrietta Maria--a union
fraught with evils eventually, and replete with early discomfort--was
eagerly anticipated both by the Monarch and his favourite. The
impatience of Charles to welcome the young Princess as his bride was
ascribed to the favourable impression which her youthful loveliness had
produced upon his imagination, when he had seen her himself, incognito,
two years previously in passing through Paris. But when it is remembered
that, after that brief interview, he had been enamoured of the loving
Infanta, it will be readily supposed that the influence of persuasion
was employed in advancing this ill-starred marriage. It was attributed,
indeed, to the rivalry and hatred between Buckingham and Olivares, which
had succeeded their professions of amity, and to the eager desire for an
alliance with France, England being during the first fifteen years of
Charles’s reign, as Coke expressed it, “perfectly French.”
“The Spanish wooing,” observes Miss Strickland, “certainly smoothed the
way for the marriage of Charles and Henrietta. It had accustomed the
English people to the idea of a Catholic Queen.”[174] The prepossessions
of the party mainly interested in the match might indeed easily be
gained over by the reputed graces and acquirements of the French
Princess. Inheriting from her mother’s family a taste for the fine arts,
Henrietta’s musical acquirements were considerable. Her voice was by
nature so sweet and powerful, that if she had not been a queen, she
might have been, as Disraeli observes, “Prima Donna of Europe.” She had
learned to dance with grace, and became, even during her childhood, a
frequent performer in the court ballets, which, with other displays and
festivities, are said to have interrupted the education of the young
Princess, and to have prevented her from receiving a solid course of
instruction.
Footnote 174:
Lives of the Queens of England, vol. viii., p. 13.
Two noblemen, one of them the peculiar favourite and creature of the
Duke of Buckingham, had been sent during the previous year to negotiate
the marriage. Of these the most able and least scrupulous was Henry
Rich, created first Baron Kensington, and afterwards Earl of Holland,
who is described as having been of a lovely and winning presence, and of
gentle conversation. The younger son of a noble house, the obloquy which
was attached to his birth, which was supposed to be illegitimate,[175]
had kept Rich, in early life, humble. He had adopted the profession of
arms, and made several campaigns in the Low Countries. Happening, as was
the custom of English volunteers, to visit England during the winter,
the youth had been introduced at the Court of James in the dawn of
Buckingham’s favour. He shortly made himself acceptable to the
Favourite, for he was subtle, discerning and artful. He soon, therefore,
laid aside all thoughts of becoming a soldier, but took every means of
endearing himself to Buckingham, carefully avoiding all suspicion that
the King had any kindness for him, but appearing to rest solely upon the
Favourite, “whose creature” he desired to be considered; “and he
prospered,” remarks Lord Clarendon, “so well in that pretence, that the
King scarcely made more haste to absolve the debt, than the Duke did to
promote the other.”[176] Under such auspices, the Earl of Holland had
risen soon to greatness.
Footnote 175:
His mother, the Countess of Warwick, lived for some time with, and
afterwards married, the Earl of Devonshire.
Footnote 176:
On the 24th of September, 1624.--Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion,
vol. i., p. 61.
A wealthy marriage with the heiress of Sir Walter Coke brought him,
among other sources of wealth, the Manor of Kensington, and made him the
owner of Holland House, built by his father-in-law in 1607, but greatly
enlarged and embellished. Through the influence of Buckingham, he had
not only been created Baron of Kensington, but placed about the person
of the Prince of Wales, a step of much hazard, as the Favourite was, at
that time, scarcely certain of the favour of Charles to himself.[177]
Holland was sent to Spain before the Prince and the Duke, so that he had
acquired an insight, not only into the politics of that court, but into
the character of those with whom he had to deal, whose foibles were, as
he conceived, to contribute some of the stepping-stones to his own
fortune.
Footnote 177:
Brydges’s Peers of James I., p. 385. Also Clarendon, vol. i., p. 62.
The Earl of Holland had had, says Bishop Hacket, “an amorous temper and
a wise head, and could court it as smoothly as any man with the French
ladies; and made so fortunate an account into England, after three
months of his introductions, that he saw no fear of denial in the suit,
nor of superiority in the articles.”[178] But James, wisely relying less
upon the crafty arts of Holland, than upon the integrity of the Earl of
Carlisle, had sent that nobleman afterwards, joining him in the same
commission with Holland. “They were,” added Bishop Hacket, “peers of the
best lustre in our court, elegant in their persons, habit, and language,
and, by their nearness to King James, apt scholars to learn the
principles of wisdom, and the fitter to improve their instructions to
honour and safety.”[179]
Footnote 178:
Life of Lord Keeper Williams, 209.
Footnote 179:
Ibid.
The Earl of Holland soon discovered that in the queen-mother, Marie de
Medici, the widow of Henry the Great, alone centred the real sway in
France at that period,[180] unhappily for the young Prince, her son, who
crouched beneath her rule and that of Richelieu. During frequent
interviews at the Louvre, he gained from her a promise of assistance;
this was even before the return of Charles and Buckingham from Spain, as
the postscript of a letter from the Earl of Holland, lately created Earl
of Kensington, dated Feb. 26, 1624, and addressed to Charles, certifies.
“The obligations you have unto this young Queen (Anne of Austria) are
strange, for with the same affections that the Queen, your sister, would
do, she asks of you, with all the expressions that are possible of joy,
for your safe return out of Spain, and told me that she durst say you
were weary of being there, and so should she, though a Spaniard; though
I find she gives over all thought of your alliance with her sister. Sir,
you have the fortune to have respects put upon you unlooked for; for, as
in Spain the Queen there did you good offices, so I find will this sweet
Queen do, who said she was sorry when you saw them practise their
masques, that madam, her sister[181] (whom she dearly loves), was seen
to so much disadvantage by you; to be seen afar off and in a dark room,
whose person and face hath most loveliness to be considered nearly. She
made me show her your picture, the which she let the ladies see, with
infinite commendations of your person, saying she hoped some good
occasion might bring you hither, that they might see you like
yourself.”[182]
Footnote 180:
Cabala.--Letter from Lord Kensington to the Duke of Buckingham, vol.
i., p. 286.
Footnote 181:
Henrietta Maria.
Footnote 182:
Cabala.--Letter from Lord Kensington to the Prince p. 287.
“The French match,” according to another eyewitness, “went on by fits;”
the Earl of Carlisle growing so weary of frivolous objections and delays
that he wished to return home. “The young lady,” adds the same
informant, “is forward, and this week sent one over with her picture to
the Prince, and where any rubb or slip comes in the way, she grows
melancholique and keeps her chamber.”[183] Nevertheless, even in this
early stage of the business, we find a letter from King James to the
Duke of Buckingham, commanding him to put the royal navy into readiness
“to bring over the Princess Henrietta.”[184]
Footnote 183:
Mr. Chamberlain to Sir D. Carleton. State Paper Office. Dated 24th
October, 1624.
Footnote 184:
State Paper Office. Dated Nov. 1, 1624.
Shortly afterwards, Lord Kensington wrote again, giving Charles, whom he
addresses as the “most complete young Prince and person in the world,”
the flattering intelligence that the fair Henrietta had expressed a
passionate desire to see his picture, “the shadow of that person so
honoured,” yet knew not “the means,” adds the ambassador, “to compass
it, it being worn about my neck; for though others, as the Queen and
Princesses, would open it and consider it, which even brought forth
admiration from them, yet durst not this poor young lady look any
otherwise on it than afar off, whose heart was nearer it than any of the
others that did most gaze upon it.” Resolved, however, to behold the
portrait of her royal suitor, Henrietta desired the gentlewoman in whose
house the ambassador was lodged, and who was a former servant of hers,
to borrow the picture secretly, assigning as an excuse that "she could
not want that curiosity, as well as others, towards a person of the
Prince’s infinite reputation." As soon as she saw her emissary enter her
room, the Princess retired into her cabinet, calling her in, “where,”
says Holland, “she opened the picture in such haste as shewed a picture
of her passion, blushing in the instant at her own guiltiness. She kept
it an hour in her hands, and when she returned it she gave it many
praises of your person.” “Sir,” continues the ambassador, well
comprehending the gallant and delicate nature of him whom he addressed,
"this is a business fit for your secrecy, as I know it shall never go
farther than unto the King your father, my Lord of Buckingham, and my
Lord of Carlisle’s knowledge. A tenderness in this is honourable; for I
would rather die a thousand times than it should be published, since I
am by this young lady trusted, that is for beauty and goodness an
angel."[185]
Footnote 185:
Cabala, vol. i., p. 288.
Amongst the most powerful advocates of Prince Charles in the French
Court was the Duchess de Chevreuse, to whose influence over Anne of
Austria has been attributed her subsequent imprudent encouragement of
Buckingham’s discreditable addresses.[186] Formerly the wife of the Duc
de Luises, the favourite of Louis the Thirteenth, but married afterwards
to the Duc de Chevreuse, a Prince of the House of Lorraine, the Duchess
de Chevreuse became the great star of the gay and dissolute scenes in
which the young Queen of France sought to bury the remembrance of a
husband from whom she recoiled, and of a Queen-Mother and Minister of
State whom she both disliked and feared. The Duchess, whose banishment
from Court, sometime afterwards, was an event never forgiven by Anne of
Austria, was one of the most splendid and lavish as well as the gayest
and most fascinating women of her day. Lord Kensington, visiting her one
evening at the Louvre, found her and the Duc de Chevreuse dressing
themselves for a masque, and covered with such a profusion of jewels as
even he never expected again to behold adorning subjects. Shortly
afterwards, there entered Anne of Austria and Henrietta, the latter full
of glee, of which, as many persons told the ambassador, “the cause might
easily be guessed.” “My Lord,” adds the Lord Kensington, addressing the
Duke of Buckingham, “I protest to God she is a lovely, sweet young
creature. Her growth is not great yet, but her shape is perfect; and
they all swear that her sister, the Princess of Piedmont (who is now
grown tall and a goodly lady), was not taller than she is at her age.”
He feared that Anne ever would be reserved towards him, not liking the
“breach and disorder of the Spanish treaty;” but she had become, it was
observed, “so truly French” as to wish for this affiance rather than
that with her own sister, the Infanta of Spain.[187]
Footnote 186:
Memoires de Madame de Motteville, vol. i., p. 21.
Footnote 187:
Cabala, 291.
Everything therefore proceeded favourably, and Henrietta passed hours in
the society of Lord Kensington, expatiating upon the Prince, and
touching upon English customs. Among other things, she “fell to
speaking,” says Lord Kensington, “of ladies riding on horseback, which,
she said, was rare here, but frequent in England; and then expressed her
delight in that exercise.”[188]
Footnote 188:
Ibid.
Lord Kensington continued, meantime, to ply the Queen Dowager with
incessant flattery, and to meet her inquiries ingeniously. “I find,” he
writes to the Duke of Buckingham, “the queen-mother has the only power
of governing in this state. She was willing to know upon what terms
stood our Spanish alliance. I told her that their delays had been so
tedious that they had sometimes discouraged the King, and had so wearied
the Prince and state with the dilatory proceedings in it, as that
treaty, I thought, would soon have an end.” So little expectation was,
at this time, entertained of an unfavourable termination of the Spanish
marriage, that the Queen thought that the ambassador referred to a
speedy union between Charles and the Infanta. "She strait said, ‘Of
marriage?’ taking it that way. I told her I believed the contrary, and I
did so her entreat, because the Spanish ambassador hath given it out,
since my coming, that the alliance is fully concluded, and that my
journey hath no other end than to hasten his master unto it, only to
give them jealousies of me, because he, at this time, fears their
dispositions stand too well prepared to desire and affect a conjunction
with us."[189]
Footnote 189:
Cabala, 286.
In another letter, also addressed to the Duke of Buckingham, it appears
that Lord Kensington was allowed access at all times to the young French
princess, with permission “to entertain her henceforth with a more free
and amorous kind of language from the Prince;” and these and other
favours were acknowledged by Kensington, as from the Duke of Buckingham,
with redoubled thanks, adding that "he knew his lordship would esteem it
one of the greatest happinesses that could befall him, to have any
occasion offered whereby he might witness how much he adored Her
Majesty’s royal virtues, and how infinitely he was her servant, ready to
receive law from her, whensoever, by the least syllable of her blessed
lips or pen, she should please to impose it." And then followed
encomiums in the same letter from the crafty Kensington, who, as he
said, solved everything as well as he could, upon the Cardinal de
Richelieu, magnifying to the Queen "the Cardinal’s wisdom, his courage,
his courtesy, his fidelity to the service, his affection to our
business," so as to captivate the queen-mother.[190]
Footnote 190:
Ellis’s Original Letters, 2nd series, vol. iii., p. 199.
A long conversation followed regarding the voyage into Spain, upon which
memorable event the queen-mother remarked “that two kings had committed
in it two great errors; the one, in trusting so precious a pledge in so
hazardous an enterprize; the other, in treating so brave a guest so
ill.” “Indeed, I heard,” said the Queen, “that the Prince was used ill.”
“So he was,” returned Lord Kensington, “but not in his entertainment,
for that was as splendid as their country could afford; but in their
frivolous delay, and in the unreasonable conditions which they
propounded.”
“And yet, madam,” added the wily ambassador, “you here use him far
worse.” "And how?" inquired the queen-mother; “In that you press,”
replied he, "upon that noble and worthy Prince, who hath, with so much
affection to your Majesty’s service, with so much passion to Madam,
sought this alliance, the same, nay, more unreasonable conditions than
the other, and what they traced out for the breaking of the match, you
follow, pretending to conclude it," alluding to one of the conditions of
the marriage contract. Lord Kensington then requested a personal
interview with the young Princess, in order to deliver to her a message
from Charles. After some little difficulty, his petition was granted;
the queen-mother, relying, as she said, upon his discretion not to utter
anything which it might be derogatory to her daughter’s dignity to hear.
It was, of course, the endeavour of the ambassador to put the Prince’s
addresses in the light of a passionate love-suit. “I obey,” said he,
"the Prince’s commands in presenting to your Highness his service, not
by way of compliment, but out of passion and affection, which both your
outward and inward beauties, the virtues of your mind, so kindle in him
that he was resolved to contribute the utmost he could to the alliance
in question," with some little other “such amorous language.” Then,
turning to the old ladies who stood near the Princess, he thought it fit
to let them know that his Highness had the Princess’s picture, which he
kept in his cabinet, “and fed his eyes many times with the sight and
contemplation of it, since he could not have the happiness of beholding
her person.” All which, and many other such speeches, were by the
Princess, “standing by, quickly taken up, without letting any one fall
to the ground.”[191]
Footnote 191:
Letter from Lord Kensington to the Duke of Buckingham.--Ellis’s
Original Letters, 3rd series, vol. iii., p. 169; also, Cabala, p. 294.
Such were the addresses of Charles to Henrietta. Buckingham, to whom
this account was written by Lord Kensington, must have smiled at the
repetition of the same love passages that had, it was said, fascinated
the heart of the Infanta.
In a subsequent letter to Charles himself, Kensington again exalted the
services of the queen-mother in promoting this match, and extolled the
charms of the Princess. “There is no preparation, I find, towards this
business, but by her--the queen-mother; and all persuasions of amity
made light that look not towards this errand; and, sir, if your
intentions proceed this way, as, by many reasons of state and wisdom,
there is cause now rather to press it than slacken it, you will find a
lady of as much loveliness and sweetness to deserve your affection as
any creature under heaven can do.” The “impressions he had of her,” he
adds, “were but ordinary, but the amazement extraordinary, to find her,
as I protest to God I did, the sweetest creature in France. Her growth
is very little short of her age, and her wisdom infinitely beyond it. I
heard her discourse with her mother and the ladies about her with
extraordinary discretion and quickness. She dances, which I am a witness
of, as well as ever I saw any creature. They say she sings most sweetly;
I am sure she looks so.” In conclusion, Kensington mentions to His
Highness that, in his letter to “my Lord of Buckingham,” he had written
a more large discourse upon this interesting theme.[192]
Footnote 192:
Cabala, p. 1287. This letter is dated Feb. 26, 1624.
Thus far had the treaty proceeded, when it was delayed by the death of
King James. The marriage articles had, nevertheless, been subscribed by
that Monarch on the 11th of May, and by the King of France on the 13th
of August, in the previous year; and, on the 13th of March, 1625, the
Earls of Carlisle and Kensington signed these articles on the part of
Charles I. Private arrangements received also their signature relative
to the toleration of Catholics within the British dominions.
The dispensation for the nuptials having arrived from Rome in the
beginning of May, there remained no obstacle to the ceremonial of
marriage. This, notwithstanding the claim preferred by the Archbishop of
Paris to that honour, was performed by Cardinal Richelieu. The marriage
was celebrated according to the usual rites of the Church of Rome. After
the ceremony, the whole procession, including the royal personages,
entered the church of Notre Dame, the Duke de Chevreuse and the Princess
Henrietta Maria taking precedence of the King and Queen. Then mass was
said, the English ambassadors retiring to the Bishop’s house during the
recital.[193]
Footnote 193:
Rushworth’s Collection, p. 169.
A banquet followed, and the event was commemorated by the release of
criminals, "as an earnest of the King’s love and respect for his
sister."[194] The previous arrangements for these ceremonials had been
delayed by much contention with regard to precedency.[195] But that
which gave the greatest uneasiness to the English nation was the
difficulty, and, as it seemed to many, the risk attendant upon the mode
of faith professed by the young Queen.
Footnote 194:
Ibid.
Footnote 195:
According to one account, the Duke of Anjou, the brother of Henrietta,
was proxy for the King of England.--See Mr. Mead’s Letter to Sir
Martin Stuteville, April 30; Ellis’s Letters, 1st series, p. 190.
1625.
At his accession, Charles had manifested very decisively his disfavour
of Catholics; he declared his intention to reform the Court, “as of
unnecessary charges, so of recusant Papists.” He gave an order in his
own hand-writing that no recusant Papist, of any rank whatsoever, should
be presented with mourning for the late King; and he showed his zeal
generally for the observance of the Church, by putting the High Sheriff
of Nottingham out of his commission, for accompanying the judges on the
circuit, who were attending the sermon, only to the church door, and
there leaving them.[196] Hopes were entertained that Henrietta Maria
might be converted, and several prayer-books in French were sent her by
Sir George Goring for that end; but the news that a bishop and
twenty-eight priests were to be included in her retinue, quickly
dispelled that pleasing anticipation.[197]
Footnote 196:
Ellis’s Letters, vol. iii., p. 187.
Footnote 197:
Ibid.
The part which Buckingham took in the promotion of this alliance
lessened, therefore, greatly the popularity which his abandonment of the
Spanish marriage was beginning to ensure to him; and the announcement of
the King’s intention to despatch the Favourite, in order to bring off
his royal bride, was, for many reasons, highly displeasing to the
country.
The chief ground of objection to the proposed journey was the expense.
And here the nation separated the wishes and intentions of Charles from
those of his minister. The King had, they observed, shown a disposition
to economy; nay, more, he had displayed an honourable determination to
pay his late father’s debts by disparking most of his remote parks and
chases, which were then more numerous and extensive than any royal
domains in Europe.[198] The lavish tendencies of Buckingham, therefore,
and the heavy charges on the exchequer which had been incurred by the
two ambassadors already at the French court, were not ascribed to the
extravagance of the Monarch, but to the vanity and profuseness of his
Minister.
Footnote 198:
Ellis’s Letters, vol. iii., p. 187.
The preparations, therefore, made by Buckingham for this, his last
foreign mission,--for, when he again visited the continent, it was with
different intentions, and under another aspect,--were viewed with
vexation, by the majority of those who were not bound to silence by
interest, for the great and fruitless cost of the Spanish journey was
fresh in remembrance.
The Duke had, however, begun his arrangements before King James’s death:
and the day[199] had been fixed for his departure. He did not forget
that he was to appear at the most festive and splendid of all the courts
of Christendom.[200]
Footnote 199:
The 31st of March.
Footnote 200:
Decoration at this time was carried to such an extent in France, that
Lord Kensington describes some of the masquers at a court fête as
having almost all their clothes embroidered with diamonds; embroidery
of gold and silver being at that time forbidden.--Cabala, 290.
An account, preserved in the Harleian Manuscripts, represents him as
having, “for his body, twenty-seven rich suits, embroidered and laced
with silk and silver plushes, besides one rich satten uncut velvet suit,
set all over, both suite and cloak, of diamonds, the value whereof is
thought to be about one thousand pounds.” Corresponding to this
extravagant attire, “a feather made with great diamonds, a sword girdle,
hatband, and spurs, all studded with diamonds,” completed the apparel
and decoration which the Duke intended to wear upon his entrance into
Paris. For the wedding-day he prepared another rich suit, composed of
purple satin, embroidered with rich orient pearls. Over this was worn a
cloak made after the Spanish fashion, and the dress was finished with
all things suitable.” “His other suits,” adds the narrator, “are all as
rich other suits,” adds the narrator, “are all as rich as invention can
frame, or art fashion. His colours for the entrance are white and
watchet, for the wedding, crimson and gold.”
Buckingham’s departure was preceded by the despatching of his servants
with fifty geldings and nags, and twelve coach horses. His personal
retinue was consistent with all this grandeur and display; it reminds
one of the gorgeous pomp of Wolsey in the height of his prosperity.
Twenty privy gentlemen, seven grooms of his chambers, thirty chief
women, and two master cooks constituted his own peculiar servants. Three
rich suits apiece were given to each of these attendants. The inferior
servants for the household consisted of twenty-five second cooks,
fourteen women of the second rank, seventeen grooms to attend upon those
yeomen, forty-five labourers sellerers belonging to the kitchen, twelve
pages, twenty-four footmen, six huntsmen, and twelve grooms. Most of
these functionaries were provided with three rich suits apiece, and to
complete the establishment there were six riders with one suit apiece,
and eight others to attend the stable business.
His equipages consisted of three rich coaches, velvet inside, and
covered externally with gold lace all over. Eight horses and six
coachmen were allotted to each coach; then there was a band of
musicians, eight score in number, “all richly suited.” "There were my
Lord Duke’s watermen, twenty-two in number, suited in sky-coloured
taffety, all gilded, with anchovys and My Lord’s arms." These were
appropriated to one barge only, and the whole of this regal retinue was,
says the annalist, "at his Grace’s charge."
Eight noblemen, the Marquis of Hamilton at their head, and six gentlemen
of honourable families, attended the Duke. Amongst them were his
brother-in-law, the Earl of Denbigh, and one of his brothers, designated
simply as “Mr. Villars.” When to these there were added twenty-four
knights, of great worth, all of “whom carried six or seven pages a
piece, and as many footmen,” the train amounted to six or seven hundred.
Nor were those all. “When,” says the writer of this account, “the list
is perfect, there will appear many more than I have named.”[201]
Footnote 201:
See Ellis’s Original Letters, 1st series, vol. i., p. 189.
The nuptials for which some of this grand preparation was made, had,
however, taken place before it was Buckingham’s fate to cross the
Channel.
The day after King James’s funeral was to have witnessed the departure
of Buckingham for France. This was on the eighth of May, and the future
Queen was expected to be at Dover by the eleventh.[202] But the Duke did
not arrive in Paris until the twenty-fourth; nor did Henrietta Maria
land on the shores of England until the twenty-second of June.[203]
Footnote 202:
Ellis’s Letters.
Footnote 203:
Rushworth, p. 170.
During the seven days that Buckingham remained at the French court, an
uninterrupted succession of feasting and rejoicing occupied his time;
whilst his imagination was engrossed by an object to which no man who
had not been brought to the highest point of presumption by a career of
prosperity would have ventured to aspire.
The painful and degrading position in which Anne of Austria was placed,
under the sway of her mother-in-law, destitute as the young Queen was of
all good advisers, and exposed by her youth and her attractions to the
snares of the designing, in the vitiated sphere in which she moved, has
been already referred to. Some additional traits of the appearance and
character of a Princess whose fascinations produced a powerful effect
upon Buckingham may not be deemed impertinent.
She was not then a mother; and the importance of giving birth to a
future monarch of France was not permitted to her until thirteen years
afterwards.[204] By her attendant and partizan, Madame de Motteville, a
character so beautiful has been given of the Queen Consort of Louis the
Thirteenth, as would inspire compassion for the sacrifice which bound
her at the altar to a husband wholly unworthy of a wife so graceful and
so virtuous, could an entire credence be assigned to that partial
testimony.
Footnote 204:
Louis XIV. was not born on the 5th of September, 1538.--See Memoir of
Madame de Motteville, vol. i., p. 71.
According to her favourite, Anne had imbibed from her mother, Margaret
of Austria, a lively piety and a love of virtue which were never
quenched, even during her passage through the manifold temptations of
her existence. She was replete, according to the same authoress, with
goodness and with justice; she was neither suspicious, nor easily led
wrong by persuasion; and where endeavours were made to prejudice her
against any one whom she esteemed, her resistance showed the strength of
her attachment. During her regency, when under the dominion of Cardinal
Mazarin, that minister was often known to say that her devotion and
rectitude of mind caused him embarrassment; “for she had,” observes
Madame de Motteville, “sufficient aptitude of mind to know well what was
right, and had she been endowed with strength of character adequate
always to defend the truth, the pen of the historian could not have
bestowed upon her any praise too high; but she distrusted herself, and
her humility induced her to consider herself as incapable of conducting
the government of the State.”[205]
Footnote 205:
Memoir of Madame de Motteville, vol. i., p. 428.
This combination of good intention with weakness of purpose, these
feminine requisites of piety and gentleness, added to her natural
sagacity, rendered Anne of Austria one of the most engaging of all those
lofty personages who figured in a capital of which one of its monarchs
observed, comparing it to a head, “that it was so spiritually gross and
full of disease as to require, from time to time, bleeding, in order to
secure the repose of its members.”[206]
Footnote 206:
Ibid, 199, said by Henry III. of France.
During the early years of this young Queen’s married life, she had been
addressed in the language of passion by several successive suitors.
“Notwithstanding the respect which her Majesty inspires,” writes Madame
Motteville, “her loveliness did not fail to touch the hearts of certain
individuals, who ventured to manifest their passion.”[207]
Footnote 207:
Ibid, 11.
Amongst these, first in the list was the Duc de Montmorenci,
distinguished for bravery, for a handsome person, and for his great
magnificence in his mode of living. This nobleman had been enamoured of
the Marquise de Sable, the reigning beauty at the French Court when Anne
of Austria first came to grace it; but her coldness and self-esteem
chilled the ardour of her admirer. Platonic attachments, the fashion for
which was first introduced by Catherine de Medici from Italy, were still
in vogue; to this fashion, more fatal, perhaps, to virtue than the more
direct blandishments of vice, Madame de Sable inclined. The alliance
between Spain and France had introduced many of the Spanish authors to
the lettered portion of the French community, and the gallantry of that
nation, imbibed from the Moors, appeared to correspond with the delicate
sentiments of the Italians. It did not, however, change man’s nature,
nor act as an antidote to his fickleness. The Duc de Montmorenci beheld
Anne of Austria, and the Marquise was forgotten. Proud and yet humble,
that lady, upon the first surmise of his alteration of sentiment,
withdrew from the contest with one so much more elevated than herself,
and refused to see him again. Nevertheless, Montmorenci found little
favour in the heart of Anne of Austria, who could never believe that his
passion for her was either sincere or ardent; and who regarded, in after
times, the petty gratification which it gave her as one of the symptoms
of flattered vanity.
The Duc de Bellegarde, old, and a veteran in the court, for he had been
the favourite of two preceding monarchs, was the next who sought to
occupy the heart in which there existed a void; for Anne’s indifference
to her royal consort daily increased. The love-suit which this ancient
nobleman presumed to address to the Queen was received by her as incense
to her vanity which could not, possibly, injure her reputation; and,
although she listened to his avowal of admiration at first with
resentment, she soon treated it as a jest; and even the King, although
disposed to be jealous, entered into the pleasantry which the devotion
expressed in the lisping accents of age naturally induced.
But a far more dangerous suitor lurked about the young Queen’s haunts,
who, watching her from the retired recesses of the court, at once loved
and persecuted her. This was the Cardinal de Richelieu.
This extraordinary character, acknowledged even by his enemies to have
been the greatest man of his time, had manifested the mad attachment
with which Anne of Austria inspired, in a singular manner, this astute
politician. To her confidante, Madame Motteville, the Queen had imparted
a strange incident in the life of this minister, whose thoughts,
designs, and affections appeared to be centered in public affairs, or,
as he termed it, in the good of the state.[208]
Footnote 208:
Madame de Motteville, pp. 29, 30.
One day, when, with ill-concealed disgust, Anne was listening to the
conversation of the Cardinal, she was surprised by a sudden burst of
hitherto subdued feelings from that crafty churchman; and she heard,
with what mingled consternation and anger may be conceived, expressions
of a passionate attachment. As she was about to reply in terms of
indignation and contempt, the King entered the closet in which she and
the Cardinal were conversing, and a sudden check was given to the
subject, never to be resumed; for Anne dared not to recur to it, lest
she should flatter the wishes of the Cardinal by showing her remembrance
of his addresses; she would only reply to him by showing tacitly her
hatred, and by her incessant refusal to accept either his proffered
friendship, or his offer of mediation between her and the King. It was
in vain she perceived that her conduct aggravated the bad understanding
between her and her royal partner; in vain she knew that whilst the
presumptuous love of the Cardinal preponderated in his breast, she yet
drove him to extremities by her abhorrence. He demonstrated “his
affection,” by persecutions which ceased only with his existence; for he
hoped, possibly, if he could not succeed by gentle means, to prevail
over her contempt by fear.
It was at this juncture, whilst Anne, estranged from her consort, and
pursued, watched, and loved by the Cardinal de Richelieu, most truly
required a friend and monitor, that Buckingham arrived to throw fresh
temptations and difficulties in her path. Unhappily her favourite,
Madame de Chevreuse, afterwards banished from Court by Richelieu, was
not a woman of prudence, and, perhaps, scarcely of virtue. By Madame de
Motteville, the Duchesse de Chevreuse is regarded as the true source of
all Anne’s errors and misfortunes. Anne loved her, as those to whom the
natural channels of affection are forbidden, or poisoned, love the
soothing and humble. She never forgave Richelieu the disgrace of her
favourite, nor even when she knew that it was the wish of her husband
that Madame de Chevreuse should be sent away, could she submit to his
wishes. Anne, in the commencement of her career, had shown much disgust
to those who were termed “les dames gallantes,” and had appeared, to
those who knew her best, to possess the most rigid notions of female
decorum. But the society of Madame de Chevreuse had broken down that
barrier in which the young and fascinating Queen found her best
protection. Even after sundry imprudencies, those who were cognizant of
her actions accorded to her the credit of a perfect purity of life, and
bestowed upon her all the esteem which is due to the most undoubted
virtue. In after life, the frankness and simplicity with which she spoke
of these early passages of her life showed that no evil was attached to
them, and that to vanity alone were to be attributed those rash
adventures in which her reputation incurred so severe an ordeal. How
far, on a review of the circumstances of her career, Anne may be
acquitted of a want of feminine modesty, of a prudence the
representative of virtue, must be a question for the moralist. Her
character must, however, be measured in some respects by the standard of
the age in which she lived.
Unhappily for Anne, at the time that Buckingham arrived in Paris, Madame
de Chevreuse was passionately in love with the handsome and dangerous
Earl of Holland, and made no secret of that disgraceful attachment.[209]
It was, therefore, her endeavour to promote everything that could
produce a continued intercourse between France and this country.
Footnote 209:
Madame de Motteville, p. 20.
Of the first meeting between Anne of Austria and Buckingham, during his
embassy, there is no account. We can suppose it to have occurred under
circumstances of dazzling splendour, to which many considerations, not
guessed by the public, lent a strong interest. The suppressed and
dangerous admiration of Richelieu might not be penetrated by Buckingham;
but it was notorious that whilst Louis XIII. distrusted, and apparently
neglected, his Queen, he was really disposed to respect and cherish her;
and was known to have confessed to a confidant one day, in speaking of
the Queen’s personal attractions, that “he dared not show her any
tenderness, lest he should displease the queen-mother and the Cardinal,
whose aid and counsels were much more essential to him than the
affection of his wife.”[210]
Footnote 210:
Madame de Motteville, p. 33.
Thus situated--bound to a husband of whose indifference she was by no
means certain, but who, she well knew, had not the mental strength to
cope with the Cardinal, and to avow any kindness for her--admired at a
distance by the courtiers--passionately loved and fiercely persecuted by
Richelieu, Anne must have presented a new source of interest and
curiosity to Buckingham; and the course of her destiny, hard as it might
seem, would give fuel to his presumption.
The dignity which Anne could assume on state occasions has been insisted
upon by Madame de Motteville, when, speaking of her demeanour during the
regency, she describes her then as equally fair with the fairest of the
Court. A vast quantity of brown hair, powdered and frizzed, indeed, and
worn in curls, set off a complexion not so delicate in colour as
distinguished for the softness and smoothness of the skin. She
disfigured herself, after the Spanish fashion, by wearing rouge; and one
defect was striking--her nose was thick and large. Her eyes varied in
colour from a perfect blue to green; and her glance was full of
sweetness and expression. Her mouth was small, and her lips crimson, and
the sweetest smiles played upon her countenance. The form of her face
and forehead was admirable; her arms and hands were celebrated for their
wonderful symmetry and for their whiteness, being, without exaggeration,
white as snow. The delicacy of her habits amounted almost to monomania.
“Madam,” observed Cardinal Mazarin to her, “should you incur everlasting
condemnation, your punishment would be to sleep in sheets of Holland
cloth.”[211] Her deportment in after life, during the minority of her
son, Louis XIV., and her fortitude during the agonies of her last fatal
illness, showed that the gentle and attractive Queen possessed a strong
natural capacity, which circumstances eventually called into action.
Footnote 211:
Biographie Universelle.
Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal de Richelieu, the all-powerful minister
of Louis XIII., was now in the height of his power; he reigned, in
short, under the name of the King. In an unbounded, and perhaps entirely
selfish ambition, and in the full fruition of their hopes, Buckingham
and Richelieu may be said to have resembled each other. In the love of
pomp and display, they were alike. The superb attire, the costly retinue
of the English peer, were puerile attempts compared with the ordinary
household of Richelieu. His magnificent palace in the Rue St. Honoré,
known, during his time, under the name of the Palais Cardinal, and,
since the year 1636, as the Palais Royal, recalled the glories of York
House at Whitehall, in the days of Wolsey, with all the added
refinements of a later period. There, in the chapel, might be seen
ornaments decorated with gold, studded with diamonds. The most splendid
tapestry, the most uncommon articles of virtu, pictures of rare value,
busts and statues, adorned the palace in which Richelieu entertained the
King and the Court in stately revels. There, on one occasion, was
enacted a play, drawn from the history of the Duke of Buckingham, when
all the French prelates were invited, and when the Bishop de Chartres,
formerly confessor to Richelieu, arranged the seats, and finally, clad
in velvet, presented himself on the stage, at the head of a train of
twenty-four pages, carrying the collation which was offered to the
company.
At the Palais Cardinal, Buckingham learned fresh lessons of an
ostentatious display, wholly inconsistent with the condition of a
subject. The Cardinal’s body-guard, assigned to him by the King,
equalled in number that of his royal master; and the horse soldiers had
a table appropriated to him in his hall; of these, the Cardinal had the
power of appointment and dismissal. His ordinary personal attendants in
his own house were composed of thirty-six pages, selected from noble
families, and reared in his house under the tutorage of able masters--a
system again recalling the household of Wolsey. When he travelled, the
Cardinal was followed by a train consisting of his secretaries, his
physicians, and his confessor; by eight carriages, with four horses
each; and by eighty baggage mules. His guard escorted him, and his
pages; his band, composed of musicians of the first eminence, and a
numerous body of domestic servants, followed the litter in which the
great Richelieu, delicate from his birth, and infirm in health, was
carried; the walls of the towns through which he passed being levelled
to receive this princely procession, when the gates happened to be too
narrow to permit its entrance. Often, indeed, it was found necessary to
widen the roads.[212]
Footnote 212:
Petilot, Notice sur Richelieu, ii., p. 112.
But, whilst Buckingham might read in the extreme expenditure of the
Cardinal a plea for his own magnificence, there was much to be learned
in that palace which Richelieu, like Wolsey, afterwards bestowed on the
monarch to whom he owed his wealth. There, the minister of Charles might
see a systematic regulation of expense; generosity without prodigality,
and almost unlimited alms-giving. Abhorring solicitation, which always
defeated its own aim, absolute and irascible, the Cardinal,
nevertheless, loved to benefit those who served him. No hasty words
escaped from him for which he was not eager to atone; and, whilst his
principle was that men are only to be maintained in their duty by
severity, his nature was placable to his inferiors, although proud and
unrelenting to his political enemies.
Another lesson might Buckingham derive in the crowded _salons_> of the
Palais Cardinal--the patronage of letters. Richelieu admitted to
intimacy the most eminent authors of the day; and so much did he enjoy
their society, that his chief physician, Monsieur Caton, used to say to
him, when prescribing for the Cardinal:--"Sir, we will do all that is in
our power; but all my remedies will be useless, if you do not add to
them a drachm of Boisrobert;"--Boisrobert being a writer whose works are
long since forgotten, but whose powers of telling well the news of the
court and city used to charm the Cardinal. In the conversation of men of
letters, Richelieu found, indeed, his greatest solace; and nothing gave
him greater satisfaction than a victory argument, or a success in
_repartée_.[213] In the Chamber of the Palais Cardinal might be heard
poets reciting their unpublished verses, or going away richly paid and
praised when their productions were approved. “Une Salle de Spectacle,”
as it was called, was erected by the Cardinal in his palace, and five
favourite authors, Corneille, Boisrobert, Colletet, D’Estoile, and
Robron, were employed to work out into a dramatic form the poetical
conceptions of their patron. Neither was this great minister content
with lavishing his individual bounty upon men of genius; he formed the
plan of the Academy of Paris, an institution which was to give laws to
literature, and the notion of which originated in a private society of
distinguished men who met together to converse, and to communicate their
works. In this extension of his powerful aid to letters, Richelieu found
an obstacle which Buckingham was not destined to encounter. Louis XIII.
hated every species of study, and despised that which he had not
intellect to appreciate. Charles, on the other hand, was intelligent and
inquiring. His education had been carefully attended to; and his taste
for the arts introduced a degree of refinement into English society such
as this country had never before beheld.
Footnote 213:
Petilot, x., 126.
It may easily be conceived with what intense curiosity, mingled,
perhaps, with a spirit of rivalry, Buckingham must have regarded his
introduction to Richelieu, and how extended a notion of the power of a
minister he must have received during his notable, though brief, sojourn
in France.
The dignity and courtesy of Richelieu, in his ordinary deportment,
might, perhaps, have supplied a hint to the haughty and uncertain
Buckingham, naturally imperious and lofty. The Cardinal knew well the
value of affability. He had a most flexible countenance, every
expression of which he could control; and even, according to Marie de
Medici, command tears at pleasure. One moment he appeared to be sinking
away in extreme pain; the next found him gay, gallant, and active. His
manners were most caressing to those whom he designed to win over; but
to all whom he met, his reception was full of apparent kindness--his
extended hand preceded words full of courtesy, and his ready smile
fascinated those who approached him.
But beneath this exterior there lay the most relentless spirit of
vengeance towards all whom he regarded as enemies, and the smile and the
ready dissimulation were fearful to many who were conscious of having
fallen under his displeasure.
Richelieu, in his morals, gave occasion to much scandal. Beneath an
assiduous exercise of some of the external forms of religion, he was
supposed to conceal latitudinarian principles, and his private life was
stained by great irregularities. The decencies of society were,
nevertheless, maintained by the Cardinal, who was sensible that nothing
lowers a man so much in public esteem as to be the slave of his
passions; yet, since there scarcely existed, in his time, a man of more
accommodating principles than the Cardinal in public life, so there were
few, it was secretly believed, who had stronger passions to curb, or to
indulge, than the most reverend celibate of the Château of Rueil--that
wonderful and splendid retreat, of which no traces are left to mark the
alleys wherein the festive throngs delighted, nor to recall the prisons
in the park, to which the all-powerful Cardinal consigned his enemies.
CHAPTER V.
BUCKINGHAM’S EMBASSY TO PARIS--HE DESPATCHES BALTHAZAR GERBIER TO SELECT
AND PURCHASE PICTURES--LETTER OF THE PAINTER TO HIM--THE
MAGNIFICENCE OF THE FRENCH COURT--BUCKINGHAM’S APPEARANCE AT THE
PARISIAN COURT--HIS ASPIRING TO THE FAVOUR OF ANNE OF AUSTRIA--THE
MANNER IN WHICH HIS HOMAGE WAS RECEIVED BY ANNE, AS STATED BY MADAME
DE MOTTEVILLE--THE FREEDOM OF MANNERS, TERMED BY ANNE "L’HONNÊTE
GALANTERIE," PERMITTED BY THE QUEEN--THE DAZZLING APPEARANCE OF
BUCKINGHAM--ANECDOTE OF THE JEALOUSY OF THE FRENCH--POINT OF
ETIQUETTE BETWEEN BUCKINGHAM AND THE CARDINAL RICHELIEU--BUCKINGHAM
ATTENDS HENRIETTA MARIA TO THE COAST--ANNE OF AUSTRIA ACCOMPANIES
HER SISTER-IN-LAW TO AMIENS--INCIDENT THERE, IN WHICH BUCKINGHAM
BETRAYED HIS MAD PASSION--HE RECEIVES A REBUFF FROM THE QUEEN--HIS
LOVE-SUIT NOT CHECKED BY HER REPROOF--HE SHEDS TEARS ON PARTING FROM
ANNE--JOURNEYS ON TO BOULOGNE AND RETURNS TO AMIENS--HIS INTERVIEW
THERE WITH ANNE--HE THEN PURSUES HIS JOURNEY TO ENGLAND--LETTERS,
AND AFFECTING CONDUCT OF HIS WIFE--THE MEETING OF CHARLES AND
HENRIETTA MARIA--BUCKINGHAM RETAINS HIS INFLUENCE OVER CHARLES I.
=CHAPTER V.=
Previous to his own departure, Buckingham had despatched Balthazar
Gerbier, the painter, to Paris, in order to select and purchase
pictures, and other articles, to decorate some of his own stately
dwellings, not one of which seems to have been, at that time, completed.
The emissary was dazzled by the sight of foreign splendours, and sent a
lively account of them to the Duke. “My lord,” he wrote, “do you beg of
Madame (the Duchess of Buckingham) that she will be pleased to furnish
York House; for this Monsieur Chevreuse, and all the folks here, are so
fine, and so magnificent and curious in their houses, that your
Excellency will be much pleased. I beg of your Excellency to see the
apartments of this Bishop of Paris, and you will see in what nice order
the pictures are arranged, and how rich everything is. And, for the love
of Paul Veronese, be pleased to dress the walls of the old
gallery--poor, blank walls, they will die of cold this winter! Your
Excellency will see also here, as at the house of the Duke de Chevreuse,
the best paintings are before the chimney, and approve what I have
always said, that they always put the principal piece over the chimney.
For all their bravery, there is still magnificence in gold. But your
Excellency will see a great mistake they make in the construction of
their chimneys. These are all made of wood, which is very improper so
near the fire. They are, also, too deep; all the heat remains within.
Moreover, there are paintings of the French masters; but we have the
pearl of the Fabians.”[214]
Footnote 214:
Memoirs of the Court of King James, by Bishop Goodman, edited by the
Rev. T. B. Brewer, vol. ii., p. 344. Taken from the original Hol.
Tan., lxxiii., 392. Translated from the French.
Madame de Motteville extols the splendour and gaiety of the court; and
although the portraiture of the galaxy of beauties whom she describes
belongs to a later period, one may readily conceive that attractions
were not wanting in that sphere graced by Anne of Austria and Henrietta
Maria.
The impression made by Buckingham on the French was favourable. “He
had,” observes Madame de Motteville, “a fine figure. His face was very
handsome; his mind and character were free from littleness. He was
magnificent in his deportment and liberal; and, as the favourite of a
great prince, he had funds at his disposal, and all the crown jewels of
England to employ in his own adornment.” “It is not to be wondered at,”
she continues, “that with so many attractions, he should have dared to
cherish presumptuous thoughts--to have harboured desires at once so
lofty, so dangerous, and so reprehensible; and he had the good fortune
to persuade those who were aware of his wishes that they were not
proffered impertinently;” “yet,” adds the confidante, almost
reluctantly, “one may venture to suppose that his vows were received in
the same degree as that in which the gods suffer the homage of
mortals.”[215]
Footnote 215:
Memoires de Madame de Motteville, vol. i, p. 14.
The object of these aspiring and criminal hopes was, it appears, the
young Queen of France. Nor is there reason to conclude that the same
indifference was manifested by Anne to Buckingham as had been shown by
her to her former admirers. In after times, when the perilous illusion
had for ever passed away, Anne, according to Madame de Motteville,
admitted that in that season of her youth she had not perceived that the
delightful and sprightly conversation, known to her by the term of
_l’honnête galanterie_, could possibly be censured, especially when no
secret understanding was couched beneath the lively converse; nor did
the thoughtless Queen attach to it any greater possibility of blame than
she should do to those ladies of her native Spanish Court, who, being
forbidden to talk to men, except in the presence of the King and Queen
of Spain, were accustomed to boast of their conquests amongst each
other, and to consider them rather as enhancing, than detracting from,
their reputation.[216] The Duchess de Chevreuse, Anne confessed, had
been wholly occupied with gallantries and diversions, and the Queen, led
by her advice and example, could not, in spite of her modesty and
principle, avoid becoming interested in an expression of passion which
seemed to her far more flattering to her self-love than dangerous to her
virtue. In these terms did Anne, after the lapse of years, refer to the
transient but intoxicating adulation paid to her by Buckingham.
Footnote 216:
Memoires de Madame de Motteville, vol. i., p. 16.
Possibly Anne was dazzled by the lofty grace of her new votary,
contrasted as it was to some advantage with the homely-featured Philip
Herbert, Earl of Montgomery, one of the noblemen who had attended
Buckingham to Paris. The mission could, as Sir Henry Wotton observes,
“want no ornaments or bravery to adorn it.” He relates an anecdote of
the Duke, who, dancing one day in a suit all gorgeously overspread with
diamonds, lost one of his most valuable jewels, which, strange to say,
was the next day recovered, although it had been lost in a “court full
of pages.” This restitution Sir Henry regards as but another proof of
the good fortune which everywhere followed Buckingham.[217] It was,
perhaps, on his court suit, which was valued at 80,000_l._[218]
Footnote 217:
Reliquiæ Wottonianæ, 221.
Footnote 218:
Miss Aikin’s Memoirs of Charles I., vol. i.
It was not to be supposed that Anne would escape the voice of scandal,
or that the attentions of one upon whom all eyes were fixed should
remain unobserved. One little occurrence, which became the subject of
general animadversion, took place after all the Court festivities were
at an end, and when Anne and the Duke were on the eve of separation. It
speaks, however, plainly of previous passages of gallantry on the one
hand, and indulgence on the other.
A week of feasting and rejoicing was over, and Buckingham prepared to
conduct the young Queen of England to her foreign home, on the second of
June. It appears that, notwithstanding the great goodwill entertained
towards the Duke by Monsieur de Chevreuse, he showed some degree of
jealousy on account of his unwonted display. Buckingham, previous to his
departure, ordered some diamonds to be set in rings, with the view of
bestowing them on several of the courtiers; but he was warned of the
effect which this would produce by his faithful agent, Balthazar
Gerbier. “I have been informed,” writes the painter, "that at the Court
where you are, they have got intelligence of the diamonds your
excellency is causing to be set in rings, and so they are trying to
guess what can be your reason. The greater part think it is in order to
make presents, which they are resolved not to receive. Your Excellency’s
perfect sagacity needs no interpreter for understanding their policy,
which is only that somebody has been such an exceeding busybody as to
blow into the ear of the Duc de Chevreuse that if your Excellency were
to be remarked above others for liberality, it would be greatly to his
detriment." Under this apprehension, the secretary of De Chevreuse
importuned Gerbier, who seems to have filled the capacity of House
Steward to the Duke, as well as his other employment, to have an account
drawn up of what was given to the household servants of De Chevreuse,
and also of the other presents. The virtue of the French Court seems to
have been aroused by the expected gifts, which were regarded as an
affront, and it was intimated that if offered they would not be
received. This delicacy of conduct was naturally contrasted with the
rapacity of the Duke, who had, it seems, accepted presents in France
amounting in value to eighty thousand pounds, as he himself stated in a
letter to the King.[219]
Footnote 219:
Bishop Goodman, vol. i., p. 290. Letter from Balthazar Gerbier of the
Duke of Buckingham. Also State Papers, vol. iii., No. 7.
Having thus offended the pride of the Parisian courtiers by his
overweening prodigality, Buckingham set forth to commit an act of
imprudence still more obvious and far more indefensible. He did not quit
Paris, however, without having both given and received an offence from
even the courtly Richelieu, who, having addressed to him a letter,
directed to “Le Duc de Buckingham,” instead of to “Monseigneur le Duc de
Buckingham,” received one in reply inscribed to “Monsieur le Cardinal de
Richelieu.”[220] Thus quitting Paris as he had done Madrid, in bad odour
with those who had eagerly welcomed him to their kingdom, Buckingham
attended his young and royal charge towards the coast.
Footnote 220:
Punctilio was then at its height. The point of etiquette, whether the
Earl of Carlisle was to wait upon the Cardinal first, or the Cardinal
upon the Earl, was settled by Richelieu’s feigning sickness and
continuing in bed.--Miss Aikin’s Court of Charles I., p. 24.
Orders had been sent by the French King that his sister should be
everywhere welcomed with honours as signal as if he were himself
present; and to show her still more respect, Anne of Austria accompanied
the young Queen as far as Amiens.
It was here that, whilst walking in the garden of the house where she
was lodged, a memorable interview between Anne and Buckingham took
place. She was, indeed, surrounded by her usual suite of attendants,
when the enamoured and imprudent Duke sought and found her. Putangue,
the equerry of the Queen of France, perceiving, as Buckingham
approached, that he was anxious to speak to his royal mistress alone,
fell back for a short time, thinking that delicacy forbade him to listen
to what was uttered by the Duke. Having by chance, according to Anne’s
subsequent statement, turned into a winding alley, the unguarded Queen
and her lover found themselves alone. In a few moments a cry was heard
by the listening attendants in the garden; the equerry hastened to his
mistress, who blamed him exceedingly for having quitted her. Anne
afterwards explained this occurrence, which naturally excited much
discussion, by relating that, alarmed at finding herself alone with her
avowed admirer, she was still more agitated by the expressions of
passionate attachment which Buckingham addressed to her. She knew that
she could not listen to the importunity of an ardent passion without
participating morally in its guilt. She acted therefore, as she thought,
and as her apologist, Madame de Motteville, conceived, honestly and
sagaciously in preferring the preservation of her own self-respect to
the fear of being unjustly blamed. Thus reflecting, she had no
apprehension that her exclamation of surprise and terror would bear a
bad construction even to her consort, who evidently regarded her with
distrust.
Having proffered some reason for his return, the Duke even left the
future Queen Consort of his royal master at Boulogne, and hastened to
the queen-mother, Marie de Medicis, at Amiens. He even went so far as to
pretend that he was commissioned to enter into some new negotiation;
whether he succeeded in blinding her or not is not stated; but, after
conversing with her for some time, he presented himself to Anne of
Austria; that princess had been apprized of Buckingham’s journey, by her
confidante, the Duchess de Chevreuse, who accompanied the Queen of
England. Anne received him, after the fashion of her adopted country, in
bed, and without her customary state; nor did she express the slightest
surprise at his appearance; but her astonishment was considerable when
she saw the Duke fall on his knees by her bedside, and kiss the
coverlids with expressions so agitated, so emphatic, that she could no
longer, as she afterwards confessed, “avoid perceiving the earnestness
of his passion.” She avowed to Madame de Motteville that she was
overcome with surprise, not unmingled with resentment, for she
comprehended, perhaps too late for her own reputation, that a real
insult was conveyed under this proffered idolatry. She remembered that
she was the Queen of France, and a long and angry silence marked her
displeasure. At this critical moment, the Countess de Lannoi, at that
time her principal lady of the chamber, and who, in that capacity, was
placed at the head of the bed, came forward to the queen’s aid. The
countess was a grave, respected, and aged personage, whose very look
might well strike terror into the presumptuous suitor. She addressed
herself to the Duke reprovingly, telling him that such conduct was
inconsistent with the customs permitted in the French Court, and bidding
him arise. She spoke, however, to one who was of late little habituated
to control, and she could make no impression. Buckingham replied that he
was not a Frenchman, and therefore under no obligation to observe the
laws of France. He spoke calmly, and then again addressing the queen, he
broke out into expressions of the utmost tenderness. Anne replied in
terms expressive of her anger at his boldness; but whilst her language
was reproachful, her manner appears to have been destitute of the
indignation natural to the occasion. She commanded him, however, to rise
from his knees, and quit the room; and he then complied.
The next day, notwithstanding this audacity, Buckingham was permitted to
see the Queen again, but in the presence of the assembled Court. It is
probable that Anne wished what occurred not to transpire, and that this
audience might be one of policy. But the precaution, if such it was, did
not avail to save Anne from the most injurious suspicions. Buckingham,
after taking leave, proceeded to England, bearing in his mind a
resolution to return to France at the earliest occasion. Anne and the
queen-mother, after some little delay, repaired to Fontainebleau to
rejoin the King. Soon afterwards, Louis was informed of all that had
occurred. The circumstances were even aggravated to the disadvantage of
the unhappy young queen. Several of her attendants were discharged.
Putangue, her equerry, was banished; her physician and others shared the
same fate. One of Anne’s Spanish ladies, Donna Estefania, had the
courage to express her disgust at this severity. “I think,” she said,
addressing Le Père Sequirent, the King’s confessor, “that so much
malignity visited upon this lady is not a good sign; it does not look
well.”[221]
Footnote 221:
Madame de Motteville, vol. i., p. 15.
Buckingham, meantime, journeyed towards England, his heart full of the
hope of returning at some future day to behold the object of his mad
passion. Yet he had every motive of tenderness and consideration towards
his duchess, whose fondest hopes were constantly, during absence, fixed
upon her faithless husband. Balthazar Gerbier, who, from his situation
in the Duke’s household, had ample opportunities of witnessing her
devotion to the Duke, terms her, when writing to Buckingham, during his
sojourn in Spain, “your incomparable Penelope, who constantly, in this
sea of trouble, has demonstrated the greatness of her constancy,
comforting herself with the hope of seeing her sun return above this
horizon, beautiful and shining as it set.”[222] Her anxiety during his
former embassy had been such as to injure her health, or, as she
touchingly expressed it, “merely melancholy was the cause of her
sickness.” Nor was that sorrow unmingled with doubt of her husband’s
constancy. Buckingham, with his natural candour and fearlessness,
perhaps, too, wanting the moral sense of shame for such transgressions,
appears, from a passage in one of the Duchess’s letters, to have
confessed to her some of his infidelities during his Spanish journey,
and to have expressed great contrition for them. Fears had, at that
time, been entertained of his wife’s health; and consumption was the
disease apprehended. The Duke was on that occasion stung to the heart by
the dread of losing his “poor Kate,” as she termed herself. Reflecting
on his reckless gallantries with shame, he appears to have considered
the illness of his wife as a judgment upon him, and intimated to her
that should she die, he should think it too hard a blow, even for one so
sinful as himself.[223] The reply made to him by his gentle wife ought
to have ensured everlasting gratitude and constancy, were it in the
nature of man to be bound by such ties to woman. “And where you say,”
writes this devoted woman, “it is too great a punishment for a greater
offender than you hope you are, dear heart, how severe God had been
pleased to have dealt with me, it had been for my sins, and not yours,
for truly you are so good a man that, but for one sin, you are not so
great an offender, only your loving women so well. But I hope God has
forgiven you, and I am sure you will not commit the like again, and God
has laid a great affliction on me by this grievous absence; and I trust
God will send me life, and Moll too, that you shall enjoy us both; for I
am sure,” she adds, "God will bless us both, for your sake; and I cannot
express the infinite affection I bear you; but, for God’s sake, believe
me, that there was never woman loved man as I do you."
Footnote 222:
Court and Times of James I., by Bishop Goodman, vol. ii., p. 265.
Footnote 223:
Ibid, p. 311.
The Duchess had at that time testified her delight at her husband’s
quitting that “wicked Madrid,” as she called it. She little thought how
detrimental to her married happiness a residence of twelve days only in
the no less vitiated air of Paris was to prove.
On quitting Amiens, Buckingham returned to Boulogne, where he met his
Duchess, who had been sent by Charles to kiss the young queen’s hand,
and to desire that she would take her own time of coming over, “with
most conveniency to her own person.”[224] On the twenty-second of June
(N.S.) Henrietta embarked, and twenty-four hours afterwards arrived at
Dover.
Footnote 224:
Rushworth, p. 170.
Charles had long been anxiously expecting the Queen. On the last day of
May he had posted down to Canterbury, there to wait for her, attended by
a large company of lords and ladies, “who tarried there to their great
charge.”[225] The King was obliged to console them, and to prolong their
attendance with messages daily from Dover, by which step, a contemporary
writes, “he persuaded them to patience.” The young Queen was detained,
as it was alleged, by her mother’s illness; “but,” adds the
correspondent just quoted, “if all be true that is reported, they can
make no great haste, being to march with a little army of 4000 at least,
whereof the Duc de Chevreuse and his followers make up three hundred,
and sixty that belong to his kitchen.”
Footnote 225:
Inedited Letter in the State Paper Office. (Not in the Calendar.)
On the fourth of June, the Earl of Northampton, who had gone into
France, it was said, in a “mad mood,” had arrived at Dover at nine
o’clock in the evening. They found the King “on the leads” (of the
Castle, probably), having spent two very cold hours there, anxiously
awaiting their arrival. It appears that Charles then wished to cross to
Boulogne; but it was objected to, as being a precedent that would lower
the kings of England, and dangers might accrue upon his placing himself
in a foreign state.[226]
Footnote 226:
State Papers, vol. iii., No. 25.
When, in the presence of the whole court and the flower of the nobility,
they met for the first time, everyone except the royal couple retired,
and Charles and his bride held half-an-hour’s conversation alone.
Henrietta is said to have taken the earliest opportunity to entreat the
King “that he would not be angry with her for her faults of ignorance,
before he had first instructed her to eschew them, for that she, being
young, and coming into a strange country, both by her years and
ignorance of the customs of the nation, might commit many errors.” And
she requested that the King would, in such cases, apply to use no third
person as a mediator, but himself inform her as to what she had done
amiss. “The King,” adds the same authority, “thanked her for it,
desiring her to use him even as she had desired him to use her, which
she willingly promised.”[227]
Footnote 227:
Rushworth, p. 171.
The plague was then raging to a fearful extent in the metropolis; and it
was afterwards, by those who witnessed the sad termination of this
reign, interpreted as an evil omen, as it began thus, although the
previous reign had commenced with a similar national calamity; whereas
the sway of James had been remarkable for peace and prosperity. “These
two plagues,” remarks the historian L’Estrange, “that of the father,
this of the son, were natives both of one parish, Whitechapel, yea,
under the same roof, and issued forth on the same day of the month, such
correspondence was there in their entry.”[228] There were not wanting
those, however, who regarded this grievous visitation, the excess of
which common sense would attribute to narrow streets and lanes, “where
air and sweetness were the only strangers,” to a judgment on the young
King’s alliance with Papacy and France.[229] It acted as a check upon
present rejoicings, and, although great preparations had been made to
receive the royal pair, most of the procession was omitted on account of
the pestilence, no fewer than twenty-three parishes being infected; and
the plague having increased fearfully during the “extremest cold weather
that had ever been known,” what, it was observed, was to be looked for
when the heat came, and the fruits were ripe?[230]
Footnote 228:
Kennet’s Complete History of England, vol. ii., p. 4.
Footnote 229:
Ibid.
Footnote 230:
Inedited Letter in the State Paper Office.
Under these unpromising auspices did Henrietta Maria take up her abode
in Somerset House, then styled Denmark House, where her chapel and
convent for Capuchin Friars were established, the execution of the laws
against Roman Catholics having been previously suspended by a warrant
from the King.[231]
Footnote 231:
Life of Lord Keeper Williams, p. 10.
Those who prognosticated uneasiness to Charles, and detriment to the
country, were not long kept in suspense as to the fulfilment of their
prophecy, for more uncongenial minds than those of Charles and his royal
bride were never destined to meet; nor did they long adhere to the wise
rule proposed, of allowing no third party to reconcile differences.
Buckingham still maintained his exalted position. The circumstances in
which he was placed were such as had never occurred in this country
before. “With King Charles,” as Sir Anthony Weldon observes, "did also
rise his father’s favourite, and in much more glory and lustre than in
his father’s time, as if he were no less an inheritor of his son’s
favour than the son of the father’s crown."[232] This pre-eminence was
regarded by the Puritan party as a grievous evil. James, they suspected
rather than knew, was somewhat weary of his favourite’s insolence; but,
in Charles’s time, “he reigned like an impetuous storm, bearing down all
before him that stood in his way, and would not yield to him, nor comply
with him.”[233] Such was the vulgar opinion; whilst the submission of
Charles was considered to show a want of dignity and heroism, especially
when the affronts passed upon him by Buckingham, in the King’s youth,
were remembered.
Footnote 232:
Court of King Charles, Secret History of the Court of James I., p. 23.
Footnote 233:
Ibid.
There were others who took a different view of the subject; and the warm
affection manifested by Charles to the Duke, surviving, as it did, the
grave, has been justly commended. “When once,” observes the historian
Lilly, "he (Charles the First) really affected, he was ever a perfect
friend; witness his continuance of affection unto all Buckingham’s
friends after his death, yea, until his own decay of fortune."[234]
Footnote 234:
Lilly’s True History of James I. and Charles I.
Raised, as he was, to the highest pinnacle of human greatness in his
native land, there were some humiliating circumstances which seriously
affected the domestic happiness of Buckingham. Of these, the chief was
the disgrace of his brother, Lord Purbeck, and the infelicity of that
marriage which had been accomplished at so much expense of integrity. In
February, 1624-25, it had been deemed necessary to institute proceedings
against Lady Purbeck and Sir Robert Howard upon the ground of adultery
and sorcery, and James I., though scarcely able to sign, had set his
hand to the warrant.
The King, nevertheless, did this act unwillingly; and he had even
previously dissuaded Buckingham from seeking a commitment, as he said
the matter ought to be conducted by “justice and not favour.” Upon
receiving this advice, the Duke wrote to Sir Randal Crewe, Lord Chief
Justice, requesting him to communicate on this point with Innocent
Lanier, a man much trusted by Lord Purbeck. That unhappy nobleman was
then residing with the Duke, who seemed anxious to retain him, fearing
that otherwise “Sir Robert and Lady Purbeck might, by their crafty
insinuations, draw from him speeches to their advantage.”[235]
Footnote 235:
State Papers, vol. clxxxiii., No. 41.
This prosecution was carried on with considerable bitterness of spirit.
Upon the first steps taken in the affair, the Duke of Buckingham was
sent for to London; and the summons despatched contained this
assurance:--"I find them" (the solicitor and attorney-general) “resolved
to deal roundly in this business, as your Grace desires.” The advice
given by these two crown lawyers was to bring the case before the High
Commission Court, which could sit without delay in the vacation, and
when the crime had been proved there, the divorce could be obtained by
ordinary law. They thought it unadvisable to send these prisoners to
prison, “a step unusual for persons of their rank,” but “advised that
they be confined in the houses of aldermen, where they would be more
strictly restrained than in prison.” They were then examining witnesses.
Buckingham, in answer to this letter, after thanking the lawyers for
their counsel, declared himself satisfied with it. “They were,” he
said, “to do their utmost to discover the truth, but his family being
nearly linked with that of Sir Howard, he wished no undue severity in
the prosecution. He entreated the King to let the law take its course,
and not to shew any favour in the business.”[236] It was immediately,
nevertheless, resolved to incarcerate Sir Robert Howard, even without
a hearing, and he was forthwith despatched to the Fleet Prison. His
partner in guilt, although at first dismayed by the reception of a
letter from the Lord Chief Justice, summoned to her aid the dauntless
assurance which she inherited from her mother, Lady Hatton, and
observed that she “was resolved to prove a new lodging and new
keepers.” Her nurse, and the child who was the supposed offspring of
her infamous connection, were left in the custody of persons
appointed, and remained in Denmark House. Eventually, Sir Robert, and
Lady Purbeck, with her son, were consigned to the charge of two
Aldermen, Barkham and Freeman, “to be close kept.”[237] Such was the
fear entertained of incurring Buckingham’s displeasure, that bail was
withheld until his mighty will was ascertained. Notwithstanding that
the commissioners appointed to examine into this singular case
declared that “they saw no fruit in keeping the delinquents in
prison,” and hinted that their incarceration being “fruitless,” their
bailment might give the world satisfaction,[238] Buckingham,
stimulated, probably, by the desire of emancipating his unfortunate
brother from his union with a woman of abandoned character, appears to
have lent himself to accusations by which the offence of the ill-fated
Lady Purbeck should assume a criminal character.
Footnote 236:
State Papers, vol. clxxxiv., No. 7.
Footnote 237:
State Papers.--Letter dated Feb. 19th.
Footnote 238:
Letter from Sir R. Heath and Sir T. Coventry to the Duke of
Buckingham.--See Bishop Goodman’s Memoirs, vol. ii., p. 376.
In the endeavour to establish the fact of adultery with Sir Robert
Howard, there appears to have been some failure. The suspicions were
“strong and violent,” as the legal functionaries declared, against Sir
Robert Howard, but no “express confession from parties, nor testimony of
witnesses,” was obtained by which the _fact_ was substantiated. With
regard to the allegations concerning witchcraft, the most extraordinary
statements were adduced. This young lady of rank had, it was affirmed,
"administered powders and potions that did intoxicate her husband’s
brain, and practised somewhat of that kind upon the Duke of
Buckingham."[239] To this accusation, the insanity which is said to have
darkened the Earl of Purbeck’s career, and the frequent reports of the
unfriendly, that Buckingham was “mad,” gave a semblance of probability
sufficient in those days of superstition. But those who were judges in
the affair happily were more enlightened than many of their
contemporaries. In the first place, the chief witness, one Lambe,
described as a “notorious old rascal,” had been himself condemned the
previous summer for a heinous offence; and arraigned a year or two
previously for practising witchcraft on “my Lord Kingston” at Worcester.
Footnote 239:
State Papers, vol. clxxiv., No. 47. Inedited Papers, Domestic, 1625.
“I see not,” writes a contemporary, “what the fellow can gain by this
confession, but to be hanged the sooner.”[240] Nevertheless, the
information was too acceptable to the powers that then overawed society,
not to meet with its reward. It was proved, indeed, that Lady Purbeck,
after the fashion of her day, contemplated the power of witchcraft as
one means of blinding or infuriating her husband. The example of the
infamous Lady Somerset had not died away in the memory of one who seems
to have resembled her in some points--in her hatred of the husband to
whom she was assigned for mercenary ends--in her mad passion for another
man, and in the dark agents to whom she resorted for aid, and by whom
she was betrayed. Lady Purbeck often visited Lambe; “and,” wrote the
Commissioners to Buckingham, “we verily think with evil intention to
your brother.” Whether Sir Robert Howard accompanied her or not in these
furtive visitations does not appear. Upon reviewing the scanty and
unsatisfactory evidence, it was concluded by the attorney and
solicitor-general, that the “use to be made of this part of the business
would be rather to aggravate and make odious the other part of the
offence, than to proceed upon it as a direct crime of itself.” Nothing,
they acknowledged, had yet appeared, that could give “them cause to
think the matter to be capital against the delinquents;” and no further
witnesses were forthcoming.
Footnote 240:
State Papers, vol. clxxiv., No. 47.--Chamberlain to Sir D. Carleton,
Feb. 26th, 1625. Inedited State Papers.
In the midst of these proceedings, it is curious to observe the
retribution which, in the course of worldly events, forces itself upon
our notice. Lady Hatton, obliged to apply for counsel to her despised
lord, to whose masterly judgment she was compelled, in her emergency, to
resort, was a spectacle to divert, and even to instruct society. “Would
you think,” writes Mr. Chamberlain, "that Lady Hatton’s stomach could
stoop so low as to seek the Lord Coke, at Stoke, for his counsel and
assistance in this affair?"
Well might Lady Hatton tremble for the result to this daughter whom she
had sacrificed to her worldly view; for a spirit of persecution now
manifested itself more and more clearly. Before the High Commission, the
frail being whose fate was thus sealed at her very entrance into life
acquitted herself, as a contemporary informs us, “reasonably well
hitherto,” but he adds, “_ne Hercules quidem coutra tot et tantos_.” By
all her demeanour was allowed to be “modest and prudent, and without
reflection on other parties.” The witnesses whom she adduced were,
however, not only silenced, but punished. One Bembige, a servant of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, was committed for speaking in her behalf, and
for stating how severely she was used by the adverse proctors. Those
gentlemen complaining of these remarks, Bembige was sent out of court;
obtaining from Lady Purbeck the distinction of “being one of her
martyrs.”[241] The cause was eventually referred to the Ecclesiastical
Court, wherein the Earl of Anglesea was the nominal prosecutor. Sir
Robert Howard, not answering to the citation served upon him, was
publicly excommunicated at Paul’s Cross. He claimed, however, his
privilege as a “parliament man,” and it was conceded to him.
Footnote 241:
Inedited Letter from Mr. Chamberlain to Sir D. Carleton, State Paper
Office.
Lady Purbeck, meantime, remained under the custody of Alderman Barkham;
no friends came forward to stand bail for her; neither Lady Hatton nor
her father supplied her with money. She sent to Buckingham for means to
fee her council;[242] nor does the aid appear to have been refused;
neither can any blame attach to the Duke for his endeavours to free a
brother who was now incapable of acting for himself,--as appears fully
from Lord Anglesea, Christopher Villiers being the prosecutor--from a
woman who, whatever may have been the extenuation of her faults, was
living audaciously in a state of infamy. Neither can we wonder at his
afterwards requesting Prince Charles to insist on his leaving the Court,
where she had set so fearful an example.
Footnote 242:
State Papers, vol. cxxxv., No. 12.
Lady Purbeck was driven away, however, for another reason; although a
divorce was not obtained, she was sentenced by the High Commission to
stand in the Savoy church in a white sheet. She fled, in the disguise of
a page, into the country; and in 1634 was again domiciled in the house
of her father, who at least had human sympathies, in which his wife had
proved herself utterly wanting. Coke, in his old age, received and
pardoned the much humiliated daughter. “She continued,” says Lord
Campbell, “to watch piously over him till his death.”[243] Nor could the
task have been otherwise than consolatory. An accident was the proximate
cause of the breaking up of that wonderful frame that had never known
rest. Coke had, in his own mind, deserved well of the world; he was wont
to give thanks that he had never given his body to physic, nor his heart
to cruelty, nor his hand to corruption.[244] When his friends sent him
three doctors to benefit his health, he told them he had never taken
physic since he was born, and would not now begin; that he had now upon
him “a disease which all the drugs of Asia, nor the gold of Africa, nor
the doctors of Europe could not cure, old age.” Notwithstanding Coke’s
great practice, he was at one time in debt to the extent of 60,000_l._,
owing, it was said, to his sons. In his will he left injunctions that he
should be buried without pomp in Littleshall church, and a monument be
erected for him there; and that his books might be preserved for his
posterity.[245]
Footnote 243:
Campbell’s Life of Sir E. Coke, p. 335, note.
Footnote 244:
Lloyd’s State Worthies.
Footnote 245:
State Papers, vol. cliv., No. 85.
In his own immediate family, Buckingham enjoyed such happiness as the
fulfilment of every earthly wish could bestow. He was now the father of
two children; Lady Mary Villiers, who, if we may accredit the
representations of a fond mother, was full of intelligence and promise.
The letters written during the absence of her husband, by the Duchess,
abound with such anecdotes of her then only child, as are only important
as they mark a mutual tie, and show confidence in the affection of him
to whom those epistles were addressed--to one whom she believed to be
all constancy and attachment--and to whom such little traits of her
daughter could alone be imparted by a mother.
“Moll,” she writes, “is very well, and is a-writing to make you merry;
she is bound to you for your sending her a token.” “Mr. Clarke will tell
you who she is like; she is so lively and full of play that she will
make you very good sport when you come home. I hope you have received
her picture, though you have sent me no word whether you have or
no.”[246] This picture was painted by Balthazar Gerbier; but, not being
completed in time, the artist was obliged to substitute one which had
been completed three years previously; “for the little lady,” writes
Gerbier, in allusion to this substitution, “she has been painted in
great haste; the hands, which crave a blessing from your excellency, are
merely outlined.”[247] The “Lady Mary” was still an infant when the Duke
returned from Spain; but the remembrance of her father, which had been
impressed upon her childish thoughts, is exemplified in the following
passage from a letter of her grandfather, the Earl of Rutland.[248]
"Your wife, your sister, Mr. Porter, and myself were at supper at York
House, when news came Dick Graeme[249] was come; but we were so
impatient to see him, that some could eat no meat, and when we did see
him and your letter, they were so overjoyed they forgot to eat; nay, my
pretty, sweet Moll, as she was undressing, cried nothing but ‘dad,
dad.’"
Footnote 246:
Goodman’s Memoirs, vol. ii., p. 313.
Footnote 247:
Ibid, p. 264.
Footnote 248:
Dated April 1st, 1623; Harl. MSS., 1581, p. 129.
Footnote 249:
One of the Duke’s attendants.
This prattling child was now growing into what King James entitled “a
fair maid;” and a son, George, afterwards celebrated for his wit and
profligacy, had been added to the many blessings showered upon
Buckingham by Providence. His wife, who had, during his absence, kept
his picture, “as her sweet saint, always within sight of her bed,” was
now happy in the presence of one whom she seems to have loved with all
the ardour of a first affection. Even the infidelities of her husband,
now beginning to be generally known, appear to have left her love
unchanged. She knew well the temptations that beset him. “Every one
tells me,” she writes at one time, “how happy I am in a husband;” “that
you will not look at a woman, and yet how they woo you.” When
undeceived, the Duchess had the greatness of mind to make allowances for
this flattered child of fortune; she knew that if any man were to be
excused, it was he who, in foreign courts, had encountered the snares to
which his disposition rendered him too easy a prey. The delinquency, as
we have seen, nearly broke her heart; but she forgave and received the
delinquent. She appears to have ever retained a conviction that her
husband’s heart was true to her, whatever his errors may have been.
“Yourself is a jewel that will win the hearts of all the women in the
world; but I am confident it is not in their power to win your heart
from a heart that is, was, and ever shall be yours till death.”[250]
Footnote 250:
Harl. MSS., 1581, p. 279.
Notwithstanding his domestic blessings, his fame and power, Buckingham
had his disquiets. Amongst these, the chief was pecuniary
embarrassments. The favourite, whose rapacity has been the theme of
historians, was harassed by difficulties which must have arisen partly
from his great extravagance, partly from the countless demands made upon
the resources of those in power.
Charles the First seems to have been no less solicitous than his father
had been to enrich his beloved Villiers. In July, 1624, he granted to
him, in conjunction with Sir George Carew, a commission for making
saltpetre and gunpowder; and, at the same time, he bestowed upon Sir
Edward Villiers an annuity of a thousand per annum,[251] probably in
order to relieve Buckingham of the charge of assisting his brother.
These favours were followed by another, which proved a source of much
expense to the Duke--that of York House, which, with other messuages in
St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, was, on the fourteenth of July, 1624,
granted to Buckingham.[252] Immense sums had also been presented to
Buckingham when ambassador to France; he wrote to the King, during his
sojourn in Paris, that he had then already received gifts nearly to the
value of eighty thousand pounds.[253] Yet, still the lavish expenditure
of Buckingham was inadequately supplied. This was a grievous source of
vexation to one whose unbounded love of display was gracefully connected
with a passion for the arts, and with an exquisite perception of all
that was excellent in painting and grand in sculpture.
Footnote 251:
Inedited Documents in the State Paper Office, July 13th, 1624.
Footnote 252:
State Papers.
Footnote 253:
To the Earl of Carlisle, 22,000 crowns. To the Earl of Holland, 20,000
crowns. Sir G. Young had a diamond from the King worth 2,000 francs;
from the queen-mother one of 300_l._, and curious plate to the value
of 12,000_l._--State Papers, 1624.
Another cause of irritation, and consequent ill-health, was the
incessant exertion incident to his station and employments. Never did
any minister conduct himself with greater courtesy to those who waited
upon him than Buckingham, to whom vulgar report assigned great arrogance
of deportment, and whose haughty bearing has passed almost into a
proverb. His attention to his minutest duties as Lord High Admiral, his
deportment to his officers when he commanded at Rochelle, will be
hereafter insisted upon. Lord Clarendon speaks of his “sweet attractive
manner;” of his “art of drawing or flowing unto him of the best
instruments of experience and knowledge, to seek what might be for the
public, or his own proper use;”[254] yet, in spite of this admirable
patience, in spite of that habitual good nature, which made him a “fair
spoken gentleman, not prone and eager to detract openly from any
man,”[255] Buckingham was harassed almost to insanity by the hourly
ingress of importunate suitors, or of clamorous complainants. Even the
visits of the friendly oppress us, when the brain is in a state of
excitement; and, accordingly, we read without surprize that he was
obliged occasionally to retire altogether from the court, retreating,
most frequently, to Newhall, his favourite seat, “to avoid importunity
of visits that would give him no rest.” It had even, at one time, been
given out by the Roman Catholics, who were incensed against him, by the
failure of the Spanish embassy, that he was “crazed in his brain;” but
“I have learned,” writes Mr. Chamberlain, “by them that know, that there
was no such matter, but that the suspicion grew by reason of his often
letting blood; only they confess he hath a spent body and not like to
hold out long, if he do not tend his health very diligently.”[256]
Footnote 254:
Parallel. Reliquiæ Wotton., p. 172.
Footnote 255:
Ibid, 174.
Footnote 256:
Letter from Mr. Chamberlain to Sir D. Carleton. In edited State
Papers, June 13th, 1624.
Shortly after his return from France, the Duke’s affairs appear to have
become so greatly involved as to oblige him to retire for a time, from
York House, to the seclusion of Burleigh-on-the-Hill. The following
letter from his Duchess is addressed to Mrs. Olivia Porter, her niece,
and the wife of Endymion Porter, that trusty servant to whom Buckingham
had assigned the charge of bringing over his jewels and plate from
Spain.[257] Mrs. Olivia Porter appears to have been a cherished
companion, as well as kinswoman, of the Duchess of Buckingham’s. The
letter is given in its original state, with regard to orthography; it is
dated, “Burghley, 18th July, 1625.”
Footnote 257:
In the State Paper Office there are several letters from Endymion
Porter to his wife, written in the inflated style of love letters of
that period, which the curious in such matters will find in the
Domestic Papers, 1624, 1625.
"DERE CUSEN,
"Doctor Nure will tell you how I am. I have sent the doctor’s leter to
him. I am in good health, I thank God, and I hope in the end I shall be
as well as ever I was. I pray, pray for me. Remember me to your husband
and sonne, and I do not doubt but what we shall be merry again in York
House. Fairfill is now sould, I thank God, and we shall, by living here
a while, redeme our selfs out of debt, I hope in Jesus. Farewell, swett
cusen,
“Your most constant friend,
“K. BUCKINGHAM.
“My Co: (cousin) remembers his services to you.”
Buckingham appears thus to have taken the most effectual means to
recover his serenity--retirement and economy; but the great duties
of his station would not suffer him long to rest, either at Newhall
or at the still more remote retreat of Burleigh. There, indeed, he
was not permitted to hide himself until after he had assisted at the
solemnity of the declaration of the King’s marriage, which was held
in the Banqueting House at Whitehall in the following order.[258]
After it was concluded, the King conducted the Queen to her presence
chamber, where she dined. The King returned to the banqueting
chamber, where he dined with the three French ambassadors, the Duc
de Chevreuse, Villeach, and the Marquis de Fite. At the second
course the heralds came, and proclaimed the King’s titles, craved a
largesse, and afterwards went to the Queen’s side, and did the same.
The Queen went to the Banqueting House afterwards, and the evening
was spent in dancing. On the following day the Duke of Buckingham
dined with the Duc de Chevreuse at Nonsuch, and supped that evening
at York House, giving there one of those sumptuous entertainments
which must have added so much to his pecuniary difficulties. For the
ambassadors were received at that noble dwelling with “such
magnificence and plenty, that the like,” writes a contemporary,
"hath not been seen in these parts. One rare dish came by mere
chance: a sturgeon of full five feet long, that afternoon, not far
from the place, leaping in a gentleman’s boat, was served in at
supper."[259]
Footnote 258:
On the 22nd of June, 1625. I have not found this account in any of
our historians.--State Papers, inedited.
Footnote 259:
Sturgeon, as well as whales, were excepted from the other great
fishes, sea dogs, called royal fishes, to which the Lord High
Admiral laid claim, when they came near the shore by right.--See
Chamberlayne’s State of England, p. 81.
During all this time, the pestilence was raging with fearful
results; yet the people could not find in their hearts to leave
London when the brave doings in celebration of the Queen’s arrival
went on. It was observed that “in all these shews and feastings,
there hath been such excessive bravery on all sides, as bred rather
a surfeit than delights in them that saw it, and it were more fit
and would better become us to compare and dispute with such pompous
kind of people in iron and steel, than in gold and riches, wherein
we come not near them.”
In addition to this insulting remark, one even still more
disparaging to the strangers was publicly thrown out. The accession
even of the high-bred Frenchwomen was considered to add little to
the grace of the courtly revels at York House or elsewhere. Her
retinue appears to have inspired neither admiration nor respect.
“The Queen hath brought, they say, such a poor, pitiful sort of
women, that there is not one worth the looking after, saving herself
and the Duchess of Chevreuse, who, though she be fair, paints
foully. Among her priests you would little look for M. Sausy, that
went an ambassador to Constantinople when we were at Venice, and is
now become a _padre del oratorio_.”[260]
Footnote 260:
Chamberlain to Sir D. Carleton, June 25.--State Papers inedited.
The public heard with disgust that two hundred pounds a day were
allowed for the maintenance of the Duc and Duchesse de Chevreuse, in
Denmark House, “for victuals and comforts.”[261] Buckingham,
meantime, passed the remainder of the year 1625 at Hampton Court,
his duchess staying at Burgleigh, where her father, the Earl of
Rutland, remained to solace her retirement, for we find him excusing
himself from attendance at Court on that plea.[262] Buckingham
experienced considerable inconvenience from the absence and illness
of the Earl of Purbeck, who, of all his brothers, seems to have
enjoyed the most of his confidence; referring to him all suitors who
were obliged, to adopt the quaint phrase of the time, to “come in at
that door.”[263]
Footnote 261:
Chamberlain to Sir D. Carleton, June 25.--State Papers inedited.
Footnote 262:
State Papers, for 1625.
Footnote 263:
Chamberlain to Sir D. Carleton, Jan. 1, 1619-20.
CHAPTER VI.
UNJUST APPRECIATION OF BUCKINGHAM’S CHARACTER--HIS ENERGY IN
RESPECT TO THE NAVY--SIR WALTER RALEGH’S WORKS ON MARITIME
AFFAIRS--PRINCE HENRY’S PREDILECTION FOR THEM--HIS MINIATURE
SHIP--HIS DEATH--LORD NOTTINGHAM’S NEGLECT AND VENALITY--HIS
POWERS--£60,000, YEARLY, ALLOTTED FOR THE NAVY--BUCKINGHAM’S
EFFORTS--EXAMPLE SET BY RICHELIEU--IGNORANCE OF SHIP-BUILDING
IN THOSE DAYS--BUCKINGHAM DRAWS UP A PLAN OF DEFENCE--FEAR OF
THE SPANISH ARMADA--THE DUKE PROPOSES TO FORM A COMPANY FOR
THE WEST, AS WELL AS THE EAST INDIES--PLAN OF TAXATION--ALSO
OF DEFENCE ON SHORE.
=CHAPTER VI.=
Hitherto the character of Buckingham has been considered merely in
the light of a courtier, in which capacity his good fortune, more
than his merits, secured him success. In foreign Courts, the
infirmities of this changeable and imprudent man were brought
conspicuously to light; his vanity, his assumption, his growing
arrogance, these, and his love of pleasure, added to the dissolute
morals of the day, constituted the sources of that obloquy;
nevertheless, the memory of this celebrated man has been
indiscriminately blackened. Hence he has been described as “utterly
devoid of every talent of a minister,” and the popular opinion
points to the notion that he did much harm, no good,[264] and that
the sole qualities conspicuous in his career were his love of
oppression, his venality, and his insolence.
Footnote 264:
Hume.
Happily for the reputation which has been thus maligned, numerous
documents,[265] which have of late been rescued from neglect,
abundantly prove that Buckingham achieved one important benefit to
his country--the restoration of the British navy. Whatever may have
been his motives, by what means soever he may have compassed his
ends, there can now be no doubt but that to him we owe the
re-establishment of that mighty power to which we are indebted for
our existence as a nation, and it may be presumed that had his life
been prolonged his exertions in this respect would have produced
still more apparent effects; and that the country would have
acknowledged, in after ages, the services which it seems to have
overlooked.
Footnote 265:
Those in the State Paper Office, to which Mr. Lechmere the Keeper,
and Mr. Lemon the Deputy Keeper, first directed my attention; and
to those gentlemen I am, therefore, wholly indebted for any new
view of Buckingham’s character which these remarks, and those
which are to follow, may afford. The Domestic Papers have been
within the last few years completely arranged, and an accurate
calendar made of them, by which the historical reader may derive
the greatest possible assistance.
During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the merchant ships were
considered to constitute the principal part of our maritime power;
they then amounted to one hundred and thirty-five, many of them of
five hundred tons each. The ships of war belonging to the Crown were
thirteen only in number, so that the navy, so boasted and renowned,
was composed chiefly of merchant ships which were hired for the
queen’s service.[266]
Footnote 266:
Anderson’s History of Commerce, vol. ii., p. 140.
King James, on his accession to the crown of England, called in all
the ships of war as well as the numerous privateers belonging to the
English merchants, and declared himself “at peace with all the
world.” This was certainly not the means by which the navy was to be
improved and maintained. It was, nevertheless, increased in his
reign to nearly double the number of Queen Elizabeth’s ships of war;
namely, from thirteen to twenty-four.[267]
Footnote 267:
The largest of Queen Elizabeth’s ships, at her death, was of 1,000
tons, carrying 340 mariners and 40 cannon; the smallest, of 600
tons, carrying 150 mariners and 30 cannon; besides the hired
vessels.--Macpherson’s History of Commerce.
In the very commencement of James’s reign the far-sighted Sir Walter
Ralegh discerned the dangerous condition of a sea-girt country
devoid of its proper defences; he perceived how ruinous this system
of curtailment of what was essential, accompanied by the most lavish
excesses in many things of trivial import, must prove; and he placed
before his sovereign a manuscript essay, entitled, “Observations
concerning the trade and commerce of England with the Dutch and
other nations.” The design of this work was to show how supinely
England suffered other nations to carry away the commerce of the
world, by her neglect of maritime affairs. This was one of eight
treatises that Ralegh wrote on maritime affairs; being, as he
proudly announces, “the first author, either ancient or modern, that
had ever treated this subject.”[268]
Footnote 268:
Hist. World, lib. 5, cap. 1, sect. 6.
Although these works have long since been obsolete, and the
practices recommended in them superseded by modern invention, they
afford a curious view of the progress of navigation, and of those
arts and sciences with which it is connected; to say nothing of the
wonderful amount of knowledge which they display, and of the
powerful intellect portrayed in every page written by this great
man.
His eloquence, however, was powerless as far as James was concerned;
but stimulated a far more comprehensive mind than that of the pedant
king. Several of these essays were addressed to Prince Henry, whose
awakened mind perceived his father’s blindness, and comprehended the
value of that which James cast away. Whilst James, forgetting that
Elizabeth had checked the Spanish Armada by her reliance, not on her
own ten ships, but on the far better appointed merchant
vessels--that she had rested, not on the size of her fleet, but on
the material which composed it--he curtly dismissed his maritime
auxiliaries, and, discharging the privateers from any bond to assist
him for the future, slept soundly, it may be presumed, on his pillow
at Westminster, congratulating himself on having set an example to
all Christendom, whilst he had, in fact, almost invited another
Armada to invade our shores.
Nevertheless, the progress of society was stronger that the royal
will. “The seventeenth century,” thus writes Macpherson, in his
History of Commerce, “may be said, from its commencement, to
approach to modern times, whether considered in a political light,
or in respect to riches, knowledge, or religion.”
In the celebrated treatise which Ralegh presented to his sovereign,
he recommended that the “land should be made powerful by the
increasing of ships and mariners;” and that such “order in commerce
should be established, that the havens of England should be full of
ships, the ships full of mariners.” It is singular to find the
language of the seventeenth century so singularly according with
that of the nineteenth.
His counsels failed to convince the self-opinionated James, but they
incited the courage of a boy, who, amid his playthings, listened to
the voice of Ralegh, and imbibed his sentiments; and the important
measures which were disregarded by men in authority, were promoted
by the fancy and favour of a precocious child. Henry, Prince of
Wales, that short-lived “type and mould of an heir-apparent,”
delighted in maritime pursuits; he brought again into vogue the
fast-declining spirit of enterprize. The citizens of London, as they
were rowed in their stately barges by Whitehall stairs, saw, with
satisfaction, the royal embryo-hero disporting himself with the
launch of a ship--twenty-eight feet long only, to be sure, and
twelve feet broad, but built by Phineas Pett, one of the ablest
shipwrights of his time. Ten years rolled away; the boy, who, at
nine years of age, loved his miniature frigate as a toy, became
sensible that the days of amusement were past, and that those of
actual business were about to commence. He resolved to visit that
then-neglected dock-yard at Woolwich, which has since become a
wonder of the world. The Prince there honoured an entertainment,
given by the ship’s company of the “Royal Anne,” with his presence.
Phineas Pett attended his young patron, and the result of that day’s
inspection was of great importance to the interests of the navy.
Some years had then elapsed since a new ship had been built. In
1609, James actually ordered and completed the construction of the
“Prince Royal,” a vessel far superior to any that had yet appeared
in the Thames; it carried sixty-four cannon, and was of fourteen
hundred tons burden. From this standard, we may infer how miserable
had been the previous state of naval force, such a ship being, in
our time, the smallest of those admitted into the line-of-battle. It
was then regarded as one of the most extraordinary productions of
native skill and of royal munificence, and was the theme of praise
amid an astonished and adulatory court.
The young Prince next conceived an excellent project. He recommended
his father to order the construction of ships to be carried on in
Ireland, not only that the natives might be employed, but also
because materials were cheaper in the sister island. The King’s
shipwrights approved of this plan, and the Lord High Admiral, a
doting old functionary, the most ancient servant of the crown then
encumbering the service, actually countenanced the enlightened idea.
It was not, however, matured; and another scheme, not so practical,
but still of the utmost importance to the science of navigation, was
frustrated, for the time, by the death of Henry. This was the
discovery of the north-west passage, which was, nevertheless,
attempted in 1612; but the ear of the gifted youth, whose patronage
had fostered the design, was unhappily closed in death before the
return of Captain Bretton, the first of the adventurous band of
heroes who have attempted the gallant enterprize.
Still improvement was not wholly retarded. The incorporation of the
East India Company (in 1613), gave a new impetus to navigation, and
everything appeared favourable to the navy, except that branch of
the government. Lord Nottingham seemed to consider his important
office as a sinecure, except in regard to his privileges and
perquisites. His dominion comprehended--to use the actual words
which described it--"the government of all things done upon the
sea-coast, in any part of the world; of all ports and havens, and
over all rovers below the first bridge next below the sea." He was a
sort of mortal Neptune; his privileges were thus defined:--"All
penalties, of all transgressions, on sea or on shore, were his; the
goods of pirates and of felons at sea were his; all stray wrecks
were his; deodands, and the share of all lawful prizes not to be
granted to lords of manors, were his." It may be easily conceived
what ceaseless fighting and squabbling, what corruption, litigation,
and oppression were the result of an authority which was so little
controlled by the discussions of Parliament in those days, or by the
honour and conscience of individuals in power. So long as the Earl
of Nottingham slumbered over his duties, dreaming, doubtless, of
delightful shipwrecks and desirable transgressions and piracies, the
navy, of course, was not augmented. Sixty thousand pounds a-year had
then been allotted to that shadow of a shade, the naval service; but
the only time that the naval service was recalled to the memory of
King James, was when the octogenarian, Lord Nottingham, appeared at
Court in his full-dress uniform. Most people began to think that the
Lord High Admiral was immortal; but, happily for the country, old
age fairly captured him at last; he died, and made room for the Duke
of Buckingham to step into all his beloved privileges and
perquisites, which, in truth, the Duke also too well appreciated. It
soon became a question what had become of all the sixty thousand
pounds yearly which had been granted for the naval service, for
there seemed to be scarcely any navy whatsoever. Buckingham, in his
new office, however, displayed qualities for which the world had
given him little credit. One of his first steps was to drag poor
King James, aguish, peevish, and prejudiced as he was, to Deptford,
to see how little there was there to be seen. His next, to get
commissioners appointed to superintend the construction of new
vessels, and the repairs of old ones, the sum allotted to them being
cut down to thirty thousand pounds, for which consideration they
were to build two new ships yearly. Cardinal Richelieu had also
endeavoured to remedy the neglect of his predecessors in power, and
to support a widely-extended commerce, the only channels of which
are on the wide ocean. In his concern for maritime affairs, he set
the first example of energy to Buckingham. From this era, therefore,
may be traced the rise of our modern naval service in importance;
the very vices of both these favourites of fortune, of Richelieu on
the one hand, and of Buckingham on the other, had the effect of
virtues under certain circumstances. To their lavish expenditure, to
their fearlessness of responsibility, to their boundless ambition,
France and England owe the maintenance of their maritime power, and
the restoration of their national defences.
Numberless obstacles, of course, occurred at the very outset of the
Duke of Buckingham’s undertakings in England; one of the great
impediments was the ignorance which prevailed in those days of the
proper mode of building ships of battle. The shipwrights were
unaccustomed to construct any vessels but such as were intended to
carry merchandise. There was a certain man, named Burwell, who had
been employed by the East India Company, and who was so
distinguished for his skill as a shipwright that he was entrusted to
build for the British navy. He committed a grand error in the very
first ship that he launched, because, to make use of the language of
a contemporary historian,[269] "he did not observe the difference
between the merchant ships and the King’s ships, the one made for
stowage, the other only for strength and magnificence."
Footnote 269:
Bishop Goodman’s Life of King James I.
On his accession, Charles I. renewed his father’s warrant granted to
twelve commissioners of the navy; and the exigencies of the times,
and the probability of a speedy war with Spain, stimulated the
exertions of the Lord Admiral and the generosity of the country.
Spain was preparing the finest armament that had ever left her
shores; and an invasion on the part of that power was openly
threatened, and almost anticipated, even by the stout-hearted
English.
Buckingham then drew up a plan of assault, as well as of defence, in
order to lower the pride of the enemy. A company was, he proposed,
to be incorporated for the West, as well as for the East Indies. A
fleet, consisting of two ships of the line, eighteen ships and two
pinnaces of the merchant-adventurers, was to be equipped, and to
this force were to be added twenty Newcastle ships, for the nautical
skill and gallant characteristics of the collier crews were wisely
resorted to in this emergency by the Lord Admiral. To meet the
expenses of the fleet, a general subscription of all estates of men
was proposed. The nobility were each to contribute a hundred pounds;
the gentlemen and yeomen were to be taxed to a certain amount;
cities and corporate bodies were to give a sum of twenty-four
thousand pounds. The merchants and the East India Company were not
to escape the general infliction. Thus, to man and to furnish the
first great fleet that England had sent forth, was the principle of
arbitrary taxation commenced in this country.
At the same time, with the fear of Spanish Armadas, of conquest,
torture, and slavery, acting upon the public mind, efforts to
restore the national defences on shore were promptly carried on.
In those days, pirates infested the narrow seas; and all the seaport
towns were taxed, in order to support a sort of coast-guard to keep
off these troublesome visitors. But every usage which could ensure
public safety had been neglected. Our national defences had fallen
into decay simultaneously with our navy. The correspondence between
Buckingham and his agents in different ports exists in the State
Paper Office, and affords a mournful picture of forts neglected and
in ruins. Shoals, and sands, and points, fatal even to the most
experienced mariners, were the snare and gulf of many a vessel, and
not a single light-house had been erected to warn the navigator of
his danger. The office of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, which, in
part of the reign of James the First, devolved on Lord Zouch, had
been conducted with scarcely more zeal and honesty than the post of
Lord High Admiral by the Earl of Nottingham. Until the stirring
exertions of the ill-fated Duke of Buckingham were directed both to
the augmentation of the naval armaments and to their preservation
from risks, the Goodwin Sands were without a light-house; and a
project for erecting one upon that dangerous passage was first
suggested to Buckingham by Sir Thomas Wildrake, and subsequently
adopted by the Duke, whose efforts to guard the narrow seas, and to
clear them of pirates, are beyond all praise, when we consider the
supineness of his predecessors in office. It was not until 1619 that
a light was placed upon the Lizard Point, which had already been
fatal to the Dutch merchants, who had lost, in the course of one
year, a hundred thousand pounds by shipwrecks.
Great offence was, of course, given by all these reformations; and
Lord Zouch even, as is implied in a letter of Buckingham’s to him,
had ventured to threaten the dreaded favourite with an attack.
Whatever has been said of Buckingham’s arrogance, his letters are
generally expressed with much courtesy, and his reply to Lord Zouch
was forbearing, though explicit. He recommended that the disputed
powers--those contested between the Lord High Admiral and the Warden
of the Cinque Ports--should be defined, to the end, not of present
controversy, but of an amicable and permanent arrangement.[270] Some
years afterwards, Buckingham found it convenient, probably in order
to have the repair and management of the forts in his own hands, to
purchase of Lord Zouch his post; a consideration of one thousand
pounds in ready money, and an annuity of five hundred pounds, were
given for it. Such was the state of the Duke’s affairs that he was
unable to pay down the stipulated one thousand pounds at once, but
was constrained to “offer land or any other security.”
Footnote 270:
See the Domestic Papers for 1619-20, State Paper Office.
Not many months had elapsed, after his appointment to the office of
Lord High Admiral, before Buckingham made use of his influence over
James the First to induce him to augment his navy. Commissioners
were chosen and selected to promote ship-building, and to regulate
the expenses attendant thereon. James, attended by his Lord Admiral,
visited Deptford in order to see two new ships, with which he was
greatly delighted; and still more that from the yearly charge of
sixty thousand pounds, in which his navy had stood him heretofore,
it was reduced to thirty thousand pounds, for four years, during
which time the Commissioners undertook to build two new ships every
year, and to repair the old; and after that to discharge these
claims for twenty thousand pounds a-year.[271]
Footnote 271:
Domestic State Papers, inedited. The agreement is dated July 17,
1624.
The King, adds the narrator of this incident, “congratulated with
the Lord Admiral that he had appointed so good officers to assist
him in his beginnings, so that he named the one ship ‘Buckingham’s
Entrance,’ and the other, in the memory of the Commissioners’ good
service, ‘Reformation.’”[272] This timely encouragement produced, of
course, the most salutary effect.[273] We have seen that during the
reign of James the First the number of ships of war was nearly
doubled; and it is due to Buckingham to state that almost the whole
of this increase was the result of his exertions.
Footnote 272:
Letter from Mr. Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton, dated London,
Nov. 12, 1619.
Footnote 273:
A note of the charge of the fleet, among the undated papers in the
State Paper Office, probably 1625, computes it at 65,656_l._ Our
Navy Force had then been considerably augmented. Some of the items
are as follow:--"For bringing of the King’s shippes into full
equipage, for clothes for the men, for impress for surgeons."
The young Lord High Admiral had declared, at his outset, that his
inexperience almost disqualified him for that important position to
which the partiality of his Sovereign had promoted him; but it was
soon perceived that his very wilfulness and impetuosity, and his
liberal notions of expense, were almost virtues under certain
circumstances. The Dutch were our great maritime rivals; for France
had no naval armament; and although the contemptuous assertion of
Voltaire, that Louis the Thirteenth had not, at his accession, one
ship of war, is false, yet he might be said almost to be destitute
of naval force, so poor and ill-provided were his vessels, and so
incompetent and miserable his seamen. It became Buckingham’s pride
to outvie all continental nations in naval power. The design might
have been ascribed to his animosity in the event of the treaty with
Spain, against that kingdom; but it is clear that he cherished it
whilst the British nation was at peace with all the world, and that
his schemes of improvement were formed before.
Charles the First renewed his father’s commission to twelve
commissioners of the navy. These were, at present, confined to three
distinct branches; such as a comptroller, a surveyor, a clerk of the
navy. They were subordinate, in Buckingham’s time, to the Lord High
Admiral, and afterwards to the Admiralty Board, from whom they were
to receive directions.[274] During the short period of Buckingham’s
rule, after the accession of Charles, much was effected, more still
was planned.
Footnote 274:
Macpherson’s History of Commerce.
It was not merely with ambitious views that Buckingham had obtained
the post of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. An active and liberal
hand was required to restore our national defences, which had fallen
to decay simultaneously with our navy. In all matters the Duke of
Buckingham himself interfered; most of the letters on important
affairs are addressed to him directly, not through his secretaries;
and most of the epistles appear to have received immediate replies,
which, it is to be regretted, are dispersed and extinct. On more
than one occasion, tributes to the Duke’s impartiality and energy
are proffered. “I am yet comforted,” writes a suitor, "that your
grace is so wise and just as to ask account of every man’s part, and
where you find most fault, there to lay most censure."[275]
Sometimes “my lady of Buckingham,” as she is designated in one of
the letters on naval affairs, is employed as a mediator, as in the
case of Sir Thomas Aylesbury, who, wishing to pass the ship “Sea
Horse,” obtained a warrant through her interest.
Footnote 275:
Domestic Papers. Letters from J. Burgh, dated Plymouth January 8,
1628.
As Buckingham progressed in experience, and his views became more
enlarged, his enthusiasm for naval affairs increased; and was,
doubtless, heightened by the knowledge that Cardinal Richelieu, who,
amongst his other titles, enjoyed that of High Admiral of
France,[276] and who thought it no shame to wear the badge of office
over his cardinal’s robes, and famous hair shirt beneath, supported
commerce, the very channels of which are on the wide ocean. These
considerations were, early in the reign of Charles the First,
strengthened and brought into play by the certainty of a speedy war
with Spain.
Footnote 276:
Macpherson, 339.
But it is reasonable to infer that the example and the works of Sir
Walter Ralegh still held their influence over society, as they had
done over the dawning intellect of Henry, Prince of Wales. The
immature projects of that royal youth, suggested, it is probable, by
the spirit of enterprise to which Ralegh had sacrificed his own
interests, were now revived by Buckingham. King Charles co-operated
with him in these earnest endeavours to carry out the discovery of
the north-west passage to China, “an action,” says Macpherson, “of
great importance to trade and navigation, and in sundry respects of
singular benefit to all our realms and dominions.”[277] As a reward
for this undertaking, Buckingham received a present from King
Charles of one of his pinnaces;[278] but death put a stop to these
public-spirited endeavours.
Footnote 277:
Macpherson, iv., 4, 377.
Footnote 278:
Ibid.
The period of Buckingham’s administration over the Admiralty affairs
was, however, one of incessant activity, carried on, as is shown by
correspondence in the State Paper Office, almost to the last hour of
his life. It seems idle to adduce the language of panegyric to
support a statement, else might we refer to the verses addressed by
Carew “to my Lord Admiral, on his late sickness and recovery,” in
which he alludes to
"Sorrow like that which touched our hearts of late;
Your pining sickness and your restless pain,
At once the land affecting, and the main:
When the glad news that you were Admiral
Scarce through the nation spread, ’twas feared by all
That our great Charles, whose wisdom shines in you,
Should be perplexed how to chuse a new."
It was not until the year 1624, after the rupture of the Spanish
treaty, that Buckingham could have been fully aware of all the
responsibilities of his post. There were then great complaints of
want of shipping; the Spanish nation, it was said, setting out one
of the finest fleets that had ever been seen.[279] To meet the
terrors of what Buckingham termed “the pretended Spanish invasion,”
he drew up a list of propositions, whereby the pride of the enemy
was to be lowered, and the supremacy of England maintained. First,
as the plan went, the enemy “was to be entertained in successive
fleets upon his own coasts, which were to destroy his shipping, to
intercept his provisions, to hinder him from gathering a heading
whereat to possess some place of accompt.”
Footnote 279:
Inedited Letter from Sir J. Hippesley, Jan. 19, 1625. Calendar,
vol. cxxxix., No. 18.
Secondly, the Spaniard was to be assailed in the West Indies;--to
intercept his fleets, to invade his possessions, to fortify
garrisons, and to establish there government confederacies. This, as
Buckingham planned, was to be undertaken, at the common charge of
the kingdom, by a company “incorporated for the West, as there
already is for the East;” and the naval force was to consist of a
fleet composed of two ships of the line, eighteen ships, and two
pinnaces of the merchant adventurers.
The King’s ships were to be manned with twenty seamen and fifty
soldiers, the merchants’ with sixty seamen and one hundred soldiers,
the pinnaces with twenty seamen. To this armament was to be added
twenty Newcastle ships, each with thirty seamen and one hundred
soldiers apiece, making in all 2,120 seamen and 3,900 landsmen.
Parliament was to be applied to in each estate for a general
subscription. The nobility at the rate of 100_l._ a man, to be paid
in two years--this, it was computed, would amount to 4,900_l._
(60,000_l._); the gentry and yeomen, 150,000_l._; the cities and
corporate towns, 24,000_l._; the six confederate companies of
merchants, including the East India “companies, may,” as the author
of this plan remarked, “well contribute.”[280] To the principle of
this scheme of Buckingham’s may be traced the origin of many
subsequent discontents. In his ardour for achieving the power of
England, or perhaps, in part, for avenging affronts which he might
consider as almost personal, he forgot all constitutional rights.
The remark of Bolingbroke occurs to the mind, on reading this plan
of arbitrary and almost indiscriminate taxation. Buckingham, says
that writer, “had, in his own days, and he hath in ours, the
demerits of beginning a struggle between prerogative and privilege,
and of establishing a sort of warfare between the prince and the
people.”[281]
Footnote 280:
Domestic State Papers, inedited, dated April 14, 1625.
Footnote 281:
Remarks on History, vol. ii., p. 220, Letter XX.
On the first of April, 1624, Buckingham addressed the committee of
both Houses, assembled in the painted chamber. The object of his
speech was to press the necessity of raising a loan of 100,000_l._,
to fit out the navy. Buckingham had, by this time, fully determined
upon a war with Spain, not, as Roger Coke expresses it, for the
“recovery of the Palatinate,” but to express his hatred against
Olivarez, and, therefore, “a fleet must be rigged up.”[282]
According to the Duke’s account of the matter, upon the breaking off
of the treaty with Spain, he was commanded by His Majesty to take a
survey of the navy, and to prepare it for “all occasions.” Upon
conferring with the “officers thereof concerning their reparation,”
Buckingham was informed that a very large sum would be requisite to
furnish the fleet with necessaries and crews. No means could be
suggested of raising the adequate sum. “My lords and gentlemen,”
said the Duke, “His Majesty has imposed a great trust on me in this
office of Admiralty, and I can do nothing without money. Such monies
as I have of my own I will most willingly expend in this service,
but that alone will do no good without future assistance.”
Footnote 282:
Coke’s Delection, vol. ii., p. 188.
He then expounded his plan; that which has already been detailed, of
levying a tax on the three estates for the expenses of the fleet,
appears for the time to have been abandoned. He now recommended
their sending for “monied men,” to raise a loan, of which, he
assured them, not one penny should be applied to any other purpose
than the one mentioned.[283] “And let me tell you,” he added in
conclusion, “that you have great reason to take this into a present
and careful consideration, for I have lately been advertised, by
letters from Spain, that they have now in readiness a great fleet,
exceeding that of eighty-eight, with provisions of 200 or 220 of
flat-bottom boats, to serve them in this their intended designs; and
the Spaniards have of late so intruded upon our coasts, that they
have taken an English ship in the face of us. This was advertised by
a servant of mine own, who spake with the pilot who was in that ship
when it was taken.”
Footnote 283:
Inedited State Papers, dated April 1, 1624.
This application was followed by immediate efforts to restore the
British navy; the numerous documents in the State Paper Office, to
which reference has been made, most completely contradict the
assertion of one of Buckingham’s bitterest enemies, Roger Coke, that
after “Buckingham became Lord Admiral, the English navy lay unarmed,
and fit for Spain; that he neglected the guarding of the seas,
whereby the trade of the nation not only decayed, but the seas
became ignominiously infested by pirates and enemies, to the loss of
very many of the merchants and subjects of England.”[284]
Footnote 284:
Inedited State Papers, Domestic, 1623.
With regard to pirates, most of the ports were taxed in King James’s
time, by way of contribution, to prevent them; and little more could
be done until the navy was repaired and augmented. There are
innumerable letters manifesting Buckingham’s extreme care to clear
the Channel from pirates. The light erected on the Lizard Point, as
Sir J. Killigrew, in a letter to Sir Dudley Carleton, then
ambassador at the Hague, remarked, “might speak itself to most parts
of Christendom.”[285] The forts and defences were inspected, and
many oversights in Lord Zouch’s wardership remedied. Such were
Buckingham’s exertions. His contemporaries were singularly
ungrateful to him for the benefits which he laboured to procure
them; but posterity experienced their effects. Thirty years after
his time, Pepys thus comments upon the improvement in our naval
force, as a popular theme of remark--"Sir William Compton I heard
talk with great pleasure of the difference between the fleet now and
in Queene Elizabeth’s days, when, in ’88, she had but thirty-six
sail, great and small, in the world, and ten rounds of powder was
their allowance against the Spaniard."[286]
Footnote 285:
Letter from Sir J. Killigrew to Sir D. Carleton, December 12th,
1619, and February, 1619-20. Inedited State Papers. By the same
letter it appears that it cost ten shillings a night to supply the
light.
Footnote 286:
Pepys’s Diary, 3rd edition, vol. ii., p. 31.
Among the articles of Buckingham’s subsequent impeachment, in 1626,
there was inserted the following statement: “The East India Company
having, in 1624, loaded four ships and two pinnaces for India, the
Lord High Admiral, knowing that they must lose their voyage unless
they sailed on a certain day, extorted from them the sum of ten
thousand pounds for liberty to sail for India.” Upon being charged
with this act of tyranny, the Duke justified himself by the plea
that the Company had captured several rich prizes from the
Portuguese at Ormuz and elsewhere, and that a large portion of the
plunder was due to the King, and also to himself as High Admiral;
and he proved that the sum said to be extorted from the Company was
given by way of compromise, instead of 15,000_l._, which was legally
due; and he was able to show that the whole sum, except two hundred
pounds, was appropriated by the King for the use of the navy.[287]
Footnote 287:
Macpherson’s History of Commerce, vol. iv., p. 317.
One fact was soon acknowledged, that even King James the First had a
stronger and more magnificent navy than any of his predecessors. It
is worthy of remark, that such was the comparative ignorance of the
times in ship-building, that when a shipwright named Bunnell, who
had been employed by the East India Company, was brought, on account
of his pre-eminence, into the British navy, “he was mistaken in the
construction of the first ship that he built for the King;” because,
as Bishop Goodman relates, "he did not observe the difference
between the merchant ships and the King’s ships--the one made for
stowage, the other only for strength and magnificence."[288]
Footnote 288:
Bishop Goodman’s Memoirs, vol i., p. 55.
Such was the state of our maritime affairs at the accession of
Charles the First. The object to which all these preparations were
destined was soon apparent. Trifling as this naval force appeared in
those days, it was deemed magnificent in the reign of the Stuart
Kings.
CHAPTER VII.
UNFORTUNATE RESULT OF THE PRINCIPLES EARLY INSTILLED INTO CHARLES I.
BY HIS FATHER--THE AFFAIR OF THE PALATINATE--ITS CONNECTION WITH
THE SPANISH MARRIAGE--MAD DESIRE OF CHARLES AND BUCKINGHAM FOR A
WAR WITH SPAIN--LETTER FROM THE EARL OF BRISTOL--THE
FIRST UNFORTUNATE EXPEDITION TO CADIZ--RESENTMENT OF THE
PEOPLE--CHARLES ASSEMBLES A PARLIAMENT--THE SUPPLIES
REFUSED--IMPEACHMENT OF BRISTOL--IMPEACHMENT OF BUCKINGHAM--HIS
THIRTEEN ANSWERS--RASH CONDUCT OF THE KING--HIS EXPRESSION OF
CONTEMPT FOR THE HOUSE OF COMMONS--SIR JOHN ELIOT AND SIR DUDLEY
DIGGES SENT TO THE TOWER--THE INTOLERANT SPIRIT OF THE
DAY--INFLUENCE OF LAUD--SERMON OF THE VICAR OF BRACKLEY--"TUNING
THE PULPITS."
=CHAPTER VII.=
The next mission entrusted to Buckingham was one which, accompanied
by the Earl of Holland, he undertook to the States-General, who had
bound themselves to restore by force of arms the Palatinate to the
King’s only sister, Elizabeth of Bohemia, “whose dowry,” Sir Henry
Wotton observes, “had been ravished by the German eagle mixed with
Spanish feathers.” “A princess,” he adds, “resplendent in darkness,
and whose virtues were born within the chance, but without the
power, of fortune.”
This mission occupied a month. The Duke and Lord Holland embarked at
Harwich, and after a dangerous passage, in the course of which three
ships were foundered, they arrived on the fifth day at Harwich. It
was during the absence of Buckingham that the unfortunate expedition
to Cadiz failed, and the public expressions of disappointment at
that misfortune were the first news to greet him on his return.
It was at this period that the seeds of many of the erroneous and
unjustifiable principles of action which were originally implanted
in the mind of Charles I. by his father, and which had been fostered
by Buckingham, were seen to produce their first effects; and that
the long course of mistakes and oppressions which preceded the great
Rebellion was commenced.
In order to comprehend the manner in which the complicated questions
of foreign policy in those days affected the line of conduct adopted
by England, it will be necessary to refer briefly to the question
which was the grand theme of the day--the loss of the Palatinate.
The misfortunes of Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, her rare qualities,
and her romantic story, are well known by every one conversant with
English history. The affairs connected with the Palatinate afford
the first instance in which Great Britain was involved in the
politics of Germany, and with the various religious parties into
which that country was divided.
In 1612, a league had been cemented between this country and the
German Protestants, by the marriage of Elizabeth Stuart with
Frederic, the Elector Palatine. Bohemia, persecuted by the Emperor
Mathias of Austria, had invited the Elector Palatine to accept the
crown, which was elective, under a conviction that Frederic, being
supported by an alliance with England, would support them in their
struggles with the intolerant Catholic Council who governed the
kingdom of Bohemia.
A fearful conflict ensued. The German States, entrusting the
management of their affairs to thirty directors, composed wholly of
Protestant Princes, were opposed by the Catholic League, formed with
a view of upholding the Jesuits in opposition to the Hussites, or
Protestants, or, as they were sometimes styled, the Evangelical
party, by whose preponderance the Elector Palatine had been called
to the throne.
Relying upon the cordial sympathy of the English nation, an
expectation in which he was not disappointed, the Prince Palatine,
believing himself equally sure of the co-operation of King James,
accepted the tempting offer of royalty without waiting for the
approval of his father-in-law. But he looked to him for support in
vain. It was one of King James’s most cherished notions, that
monarchs should support monarchs in case of disturbance, how just
soever the cause, how unanimous soever the voice of the people by
whom a sovereign was deposed. His natural timidity, also, operated
in inducing a line of conduct towards his son-in-law and his
daughter as pusillanimous as was every other trait of his character
and action of his life--and, above all, his project of accomplishing
a union between his son Charles and a daughter of Spain militated
against a real and effective interference in the affairs of the
Palatinate, except, indeed, to confuse and ruin them. He was
contented, therefore, with sending ambassadors to Germany, not only
to mediate between contending parties, but to induce the new King of
Bohemia to relinquish a throne which James pretended to assert that
his son-in-law had no right to retain.[289]
Footnote 289:
Brodie’s Constitutional History of the British Empire, vol. ii. p.
8.
The King of Poland, the Elector of Saxony, and the Duke of Bavaria,
who was at the head of the Catholic League, sided with Ferdinand,
Emperor after the death of Mathias, and the result was the reduction
of Bohemia, the loss of the Palatinate, and the flight of the
Elector Palatine, or, as he was called, the King of Bohemia, to
Holland. The King of Spain, also, sent an army under Spinola into
the field, and it was that circumstance which rendered the scheme of
marrying Prince Charles to the Infanta so unpopular in England, and
which brought so much odium on Buckingham.
The treaty for that match had been originally carried on through the
agency of the Earl of Bristol, and hence the jealousy which had
already broken out on various occasions between the Duke of
Buckingham and that able and experienced ambassador; whilst the
failure of the negotiations, which were undertaken with the pretext
of gaining the restoration of the Palatinate, was the origin of the
rash war with Spain, which Charles, without the usual form of a
proclamation, resolved on commencing.
The English, however, delighted as they had been at the rupture of
the treaty, were indignant at this informality, as well as averse to
a war which seemed to be the result of private passions rather than
the well-considered act of a monarch anxious for the dignity of his
subjects.
But a worthy representative of James’s style of policy remained in
his unhappy son. Supplies for the war with Spain were refused in the
first Parliament that Charles called; a compulsory loan was exacted.
Whilst the country was burning with resentment at this unequally
imposed burden, a fleet of eighty sail, English, and twenty sail
supplied from Holland, carrying ten thousand men, was sent to the
coast of Spain. This grand armament, raised by the energy of the
Lord High Admiral, was an object of pride to the nation, who had
never before beheld so glorious a fleet; yet it was entrusted, not
to Sir Robert Mansel, a distinguished commander, but to Cecil,
Viscount Wimbleton, a favourite of Buckingham’s, and a man neither
of talent nor experience. Thus, the fatal vice which has obtained
the popular name of jobbery was exhibited at this most critical
period.
A signal failure was the result; the fleet reached Cape St. Vincent,
and landed the troops; a fort was taken, but there was neither
discipline nor decision to restrain the troops, who rushed into a
store of wine, and soon abandoned themselves to the most disgraceful
excesses. Sickness was the consequence, and the expedition returned
ingloriously to England, with the additional discredit of its being
known that a stay of two days longer would have sufficed to take all
the shipping collected into the bay of Cadiz, and thus to have
struck a grand blow, at the very commencement of the war, against
the power of Spain.
The blame of this unfortunate attempt rested chiefly on the head of
Buckingham, as the undertaking was known to have originated in his
advice. Lord Clarendon well observes, in his life of himself,
speaking of the Stuart family, that it was their “unhappy fate and
constitution” to trust to the “judgments of those who were as much
inferior to themselves in understanding as they were in quality,
before their own, which was very good, and suffered even their
natures, which disposed them to virtue and justice, to be prevailed
upon, and altered and corrupted by those who knew how to make use of
some one infirmity that they discovered in them, and by complying
with that, and cherishing and serving it, they, by degrees, wrought
upon the mass, and sacrificed all the other good inclinations to
that single vice.”
Parliament was accordingly summoned, and at Candlemas, in 1625, the
coronation was celebrated. This ceremonial, which might have
assisted in re-establishing good feeling, proved, unhappily, the
source of bitter dissension and cavilling. The coronations of Edward
VI. and of Queen Elizabeth had been performed according to the rites
of the Romish Church. That of James I. was done in haste; and
“wanted,” says the biographer of Laud, “many things which might have
been considered in a time of leisure.”[290] Amongst the alterations
suggested by the prelates who were appointed as commissioners to
settle the form, it was decreed that anointing was to be performed
in the form of a cross, a point established, which was at that time
as fertile a source of invective as the use of that most holy and
touching symbol in our churches has since been in these days, even
amongst well-intentioned and pious Christians.
Footnote 290:
Heylyn’s Life of Laud, p. 145.
Even the ritual of the coronation, therefore, performed as it was,
almost for the first time, according to the mode which it has since
retained, contributed indirectly to the unpopularity of Buckingham.
To Laud, that prelate to whose memory so much injustice has been
done, in imputing to him designs and motives of which no proof
exists, and yet whose errors bring pain to every thinking mind, was
allotted the performance of the great ceremonial.
Formerly it had been the office of the Abbot of Westminster to
celebrate the rite; then, for a century, the Dean had held the
guardianship of the regalia used by Edward the Confessor, and had
kept them in a secret part of Westminster Abbey. These valuables
were now disinterred from their hiding-place by Laud, who, finding
also the old crucifix, set it up on the altar, as in former times.
Everything relating to this coronation wore an ominous appearance;
in the first place, it was fixed for the day of the Purification of
the Virgin Mary, and the King, whether from compliment to the faith
of his wife, or from taste, or, from the supposed influence of Laud,
it does not transpire, was dressed in white, instead of purple, used
always by his predecessors. “Not,” says Heylyn, with quaint
simplicity, “for want of purple velvet enough to make him a suit
(for he had many yards of it in his outer garment), but from choice,
to declare that virgin purity with which he came to be espoused unto
his kingdom.” His laying aside the purple was, however, looked upon
as an “ill omen.”[291]
Footnote 291:
Heylyn’s Life of Laud, p. 145.
Nor was this the only presage of coming mishaps. Charles was
afterwards accused, during the Long Parliament, of having altered
the coronation oath; the very sermon, also, preached by the eloquent
Penhouse, Bishop of Carlisle, formerly his tutor, seemed to invite
fate to do her worst; he chose a text, according to Heylyn, more
proper for a funeral than a coronation--"I will give to thee a crown
of life"--and engrafted on it a discourse which those who heard it
judged might, with great propriety, have been uttered when his
Majesty was dead, but not just at the moment when he was about to
undertake the government of his people.
The ceremonial being concluded, the King walked in his robes from
Westminster Abbey to the Hall, and delivered to Laud, who
represented the Dean of Westminster, the crown, sceptre, and the
sword called _cortena_. Laud, after receiving the regalia, returned
to the Abbey, and, placing them on the altar, offered them up in his
Majesty’s name; after which they were again locked up, never to see
the light until after the stirring season of the Rebellion, and the
more placid years of the Commonwealth. They were again displayed at
the Restoration.[292]
Footnote 292:
Heylyn.
All these forms were regarded as next to impious by the Puritan
party; and, since there was now a cordial alliance between Laud and
Buckingham, the popular hatred was divided between them both. Two
years had now passed since Buckingham, in the miseries of an ague,
had sent for Laud to console and advise him. Laud was, in truth, one
of the most agreeable of companions, and carried with him to his
grave an apprehension quick and sudden--"a sociable wit and pleasant
humour."[293] So that, even in the crisis of a malady, then of a far
more severe character than in the present day, Buckingham forgot his
sufferings, or bore them with a patience unwonted to his irritable
nature; and, “by that patience, did so break their heats and
violences, that at last they left him.”
Footnote 293:
Ibid, p. 118, and _passim_.
After this period, Laud became, Heylyn tells us, “not only a
confessor, but a councillor to the Duke;” and to his advice it was
owing that the endowments of the Charter-house were not appropriated
by the Duke to the maintenance of the war, a plan which had been
contemplated by the Duke, but applied to those of education. Laud,
we must in gratitude recall, opposed all alienations of that nature;
and to his firmness, as well as to that of the honest-hearted Sir
Edward Coke, who, as trustee to the estates called Sutton’s Lands,
resisted the attempts of the Crown to seize them, we owe the
preservation of many colleges and hospitals.
During his intimacy with Buckingham, Laud succeeded in imbuing him
with those opinions which he himself advocated during his life, and
died to support. These were opposed to what was then called
“_Doctrinal Puritanism_,” a term which Buckingham expressed a wish
to comprehend, and which Laud undertook to expound. These doctrinal
points related to the observance of the Lord’s Day; to the
“indiscrimination,” says Heylyn, “of bishops and presbyters, the
power of sovereigns in ecclesiastical matters, the doctrine of
confession and of sacerdotal absolution, and the five points which
had, for the last twenty years, been agitating the churches of
Holland.”[294] Those points, which have unhappily raised so many
bitter resentments, were now beginning to inflame the public mind in
England with that fever of intolerance which is so contagious, and
so inimical to true religion. These controversies, in the time of
Buckingham, were carried on between the party called Arminians and
the Calvinists. “A swarm of books,” as Heylyn calls them, came over
from Holland, and awoke out of “that dead sleep,” as he terms the
then state of the Church, the learned divines of Oxford. Laud had
been one of the first, on the publication of these works, to espouse
and to advocate what was then styled Arminianism, so called from a
famous professor of Leyden, Von Armene. Whatever was the standard of
Laud’s opinions, and whatsoever merit may be attached to their
sincerity, or what blame soever to their virulence, it is, at all
events, satisfactory to believe that the attention of Buckingham
was, during the latter years of his life, directed to subjects of
mightier import than the sublunary interests which had hitherto
solely engrossed his attention.
Footnote 294:
Heylyn, p. 119.
Laud had, indeed, those qualities which form the man of piety into
the missionary of social life--a mission much required in all ages.
The rigid, uncompromising priest, who gives no latitude to opinion,
no indulgence to error, generally does far more harm than good. The
lax man of the world, with weak purpose, and flickering notions of
right and wrong, is a scandal to the faith he professes, and lends a
hand to indifference, if not to infidelity. But Laud, an enthusiast,
perhaps a zealot, was the most agreeable of bigots. Born at Reading,
the son of a clothier, he had been reproached, like Buckingham, with
the meanness of his origin. Like most men, he felt the imputation;
and even in his garden at Lambeth, when in the height of his
greatness, he is stated by his biographer, Doctor Heylyn, to have
shewn no ordinary degree of vexation on his countenance, after
reading a libel in which he was reproached with his parentage, “as
if,” he said, “he had been raked out of a dung-hill.” He owned that
he had not the good fortune “to be born a gentleman,” but he had the
happiness to be descended from honest parents. The beautiful,
old-fashioned College of St. John’s, at Oxford, had received him as
a commoner, and he entered there at a period when Calvinism
influenced, strange to say, the tone and spirit of that university.
All that had once been held sacred was decaying or disused; and the
Reformed Church of England had become eclipsed by the doctrines and
writings of Zuinglius, introduced by Dr. Humphrey, the then
Vice-Chancellor, who had received his impressions, when deprived of
his fellowship by Queen Mary, at Zurich, the very hot-bed of
Calvinism.
The use of the surplice, the custom of bowing at the name of Jesus,
commanded by Queen Elizabeth in 1559, and the distinctive dress of
the priests, had been laid aside, when Laud, in 1604, performed his
exercise for Bachelor of Divinity, into which treatise he introduced
those tenets which were soon conceived, or misconceived, to be
tainted with Romanism.
Nevertheless, from the time when he was president of his own
college, St. John’s, to the moment of his promotion to the see of
Canterbury, there was little real obstruction to Laud’s elevation,
notwithstanding that the whole of his career was one of controversy
and contention, until he rose to the highest pinnacle of
ecclesiastical greatness, and fell, subsequently, into the very
depths of adversity.
This slight sketch is necessary to show how naturally Laud might be
expected to succeed in gaining an influence over Buckingham, since
he had been always engaged in winning over those of opposite
opinions, and in the great battle of controversy. Cheerful, not too
severe, nor even sufficiently strict, in his notions of morality, as
appears from his conduct relative to Mountjoy, Earl of Devonshire--a
short, stout man, with a plump and merry visage, the very opposite
of a Puritan or Calvinist minister--no man knew better than Laud how
to lay aside the gravity which was unseasonable; accessible in his
manners, staunch as a churchman to the interests of his order, but
perfectly indifferent, personally, to the gifts of fortune, Laud
delighted the great Duke, weary of fame, and perhaps of life, by the
sweetness of manner and vivacity of temper which become so well men
of high attainments. They were henceforth friends, until the thread
of Buckingham’s existence was cut short by the assassin’s blow.
It is impossible to estimate too highly the effects of this intimacy
upon the character of the Duke. He seems to have yielded readily to
the remonstrances of Laud against the misappropriation of church
revenues; and indeed, according to another authority, his own
disposition accelerated the effect produced by these impressions.
Buckingham was not the rapacious oppressor described by the
contemporary slanderers of his time. “Oppression and avarice,”
observes Nichols, in his history of Leicestershire, “_he knew not_.”
Williams, Lord Keeper, the early friend of Buckingham, was now
wholly discarded from the Duke’s friendship, and from his presence,
as appears from a letter addressed by Williams to Sir George Goring,
and written from Foxley. The mixture of servility with religious
professions; the evident desire to retain the favour of the Duke,
and his own place, of course, and yet to make his case good;--and
the dexterity with which all this is managed, lessen the regret that
would otherwise be felt that Buckingham had lost in Williams an
acute adviser, whose counsels were safer, at that juncture, than
those of the earnest and fearless, but intemperate and prejudiced,
Laud.
No benefit to the disgraced courtier and prelate resulted from this
appeal, and the new parliament was opened in the month of February,
1626, not by Williams, but by Sir Thomas Coventry, as Lord Keeper,
in a strain of fulsome adulation to the King.
But this address, followed as it was by an oration from Sir Heneage
Finch, the Speaker, in terms still more exaggerated, was little
regarded by the Commons, who immediately formed themselves into a
committee of grievances, in which the evil resulting from bad
counsellors about the King, the misappropriation of the revenue, the
failure of the expedition against Cadiz, and the expenditure of the
subsidy granted to the late King, formed the main points of
consideration.
In vain did Charles, confirming but too closely the observations
recently quoted by Lord Clarendon, resolve to defend his favourite.
He addressed a letter to the Speaker, bidding him hasten the
supplies. Forty ships, he stated, were ready for a second voyage,
and, without an immediate grant of money, the object of that
armament must be abandoned, and the navy disbanded. The Commons were
adverse to any scheme founded by him whom they regarded as the very
source of all the evils of which the country now complained.
Buckingham was the object at whom every expression of discontent was
aimed. Clement Coke, one of Sir Edward’s numerous family, observed
that it would be better to die from an enemy abroad than to be
destroyed at home. Dr. Turner, a physician whom Sir Henry Wotton
styles “a travelled doctor of physick, of bold spirit and able
elocution,” asked ministers whether it were not true that the loss
of the King’s dominions over the narrow seas were not owing to the
Duke’s mismanagement? Whether the enormous gifts of land and money
to the Duke had not impoverished the Crown? Whether the multiplicity
of offices which he held, and those whom he patronized, were not the
cause of the bad government in the kingdom? Whether he did not
connive at recusants, the Duke’s mother and father-in-law being both
papists? Whether the sale of offices, honours, places of judicature,
with ecclesiastical livings and preferments, were not owing to the
Duke?
Such was the dread of court influence in that day, that courage to
put these questions implied in Dr. Turner a perfect independence of
action and character very unusual at that period. Clement Coke was
severely reproved by his father for his boldness, and the old lawyer
refused to see his son for some time; but Dr. Turner, one of the
very few of his profession who have sat in the House of Commons, not
only escaped censure, but gained credit by his boldness, upon which
the subsequent impeachment of the Duke was grounded.
The committee to redress grievances was followed by another, which
was to inquire into religious matters, more especially into the
number of indulgences granted by his Majesty to recusants; for the
bitterness of bigotry was not confined to the party who owned Laud
as their spiritual chief; and this blow was aimed at Buckingham,
whose alleged partiality to the Romish Church was one of the false
and factious allegations of the day. At that time, it must be
remembered, a penalty of twenty pounds a month, by law, could be
levied upon every person who frequented not divine worship.[295] The
King, unhappily, ill judging, ill-advised, and therefore ill-fated,
and finding himself opposed for the first time, summoned the Lords
and Commons to Whitehall, and, addressing them, said, that whilst he
was sensible of the grievances of his people, he was much more
sensible of his own. He issued his express command that henceforth
the two houses would desist from such unparliamentary proceedings,
and leave the reformation of what was amiss to his "Majesty’s care,
wisdom, and justice."[296] This harangue produced no effect on the
two houses, and the King and Buckingham, feeling that they had lost
ground, adopted another course, and rushed into perils, from the
effect of which the Duke was saved by an untimely death, but which
were felt in after years with terrible force by Charles.
Footnote 295:
Hume--Appendix to the Reign of James I., p.38.
Footnote 296:
Heylyn, p. 142.
So long as James I. lived, the Earl of Bristol, confiding in his
favour, had borne the blame of that failure in the Spanish treaty
which had so greatly incensed the nation. For some time after the
accession of Charles, he waited, hoping to regain his footing at the
court. But when, upon the meeting of parliament, he received no writ
to serve as a member, in his place, he appealed to the Lords. The
writ was then sent, but the Earl was ordered on no account to appear
in his place. Moreover, during the vacation, in the month of March,
the Duke, certain that Bristol would impeach him, prepared articles
of impeachment against the Earl, in order to be the first in the
field, and to anticipate the accusations which he expected would
shortly be levelled at himself. The impeachment did indeed
anticipate, literally, that soon framed and delivered against the
Duke.[297] The feeling of the times rendered nothing so odious to
the nation as any wish or attempt to subvert the religion of the
country. One of the charges against Bristol was that he assisted to
introduce Popery into England; that he was the cause of the Prince’s
journey into Spain, and had there wished him to change his religion;
that he advised that the son of the Elector Palatine should be
brought up in the court of Spain--a project which, from a letter of
Bristol’s, appears to have been stated, but not suggested by
Bristol. Bristol replied that these charges were merely intended to
defeat those which he now formally preferred against the Duke, which
seemed almost like duplicates of the impeachment which the Duke had
preferred against him. First, that he had conspired with Gondomar to
take the Prince into Spain, there to convert him to the Romish
faith; that, whilst in Spain, the Duke had flattered the King of
Spain with the hopes of this conversion; that he had absented
himself from Divine service at the embassy, and had attended the
Romish rites, adoring their sacraments--a course which induced the
Spanish court to ask greater concessions from King James.[298] These
articles, with others of less import, were followed by an
impeachment from the House of Commons, who were fearful that Bristol
might not be able to substantiate the charge of treason, of which
they clearly saw the weakness, from the absence of motives and of
proofs.[299] On the eighth of May, therefore, “a large impeachment”
was drawn up against him; it was framed by six of the ablest lawyers
in the house;[300] and related to the Duke’s engrossing of
offices--his holding at the same time the posts of Lord Admiral and
of Warden of the Cinque Ports--his not guarding the narrow seas--his
lending a ship called the “Vanguard” to the French King--his selling
offices and honours--his waste of the Crown revenues--and, finally,
his giving physic to King James at the time of his sickness,[301]
applying a plaster to his chest; and that both the potion and the
plaster were of a nature unknown “to surgeons, apothecaries, and
physicians, and had been followed by dangerous consequences.”
Footnote 297:
Brodie, ii. p.89.
Footnote 298:
Brodie.
Footnote 299:
Heylyn, 143.
Footnote 300:
Heylyn, in his life of Laud, recites these names--Glandville,
Herbert, Sheldon, Pym, Wansford, and Sherland; the prologue made
by Sir Dudley Digges, and the epilogue by Sir John Eliot.--Heylyn,
143.
Footnote 301:
Inedited letter in the State Paper Office, 1623, vol. 28.
Of these charges, which were styled by Hume “either frivolous, or
false, or both,” only one or two articles can, with any certainty,
be refuted. To commence with that made by the Earl of Bristol,
relating to the conversion of Charles whilst in Spain, it appears
from a letter addressed by Sir George Calvert to Secretary Conway,
that the Marquis Inojosa, the Spanish Ambassador, was directed by
the Countess Olivarez, in the Infanta’s name, to obtain all possible
indulgences for Catholics. But no other more formal application on
the subject, nor any trace of information confirming the alleged
designs of Buckingham to convert Charles, have been found amongst
the correspondence of that period; nor has any substantial proof of
this charge been adduced by historians.[302] With regard to the
charge of engrossing offices, the importance, if not the absolute
necessity, of rescuing all maritime affairs from the ruin and
neglect in which they had been suffered to remain by a former High
Admiral, was so obvious at the very moment when it became necessary
to assert the honour of England, that it is a matter of wonder that
it should have been attempted to allege against Buckingham that
which constituted his greatest merit. That the Duke had fearlessly
applied himself to the restoration of the navy, has been shown by a
reference to documents which have fully and completely exonerated
him from that censure. It would have been of little avail for
Buckingham to restore our navy, without securing the ports; in
taking upon himself that office, he did not accept it as a mere
dignity, to be performed by deputy, but he discharged its duties
with an energy and a fidelity that very soon effected the desired
end.
Footnote 302:
A full statement of the charges may be seen in Brodie’s
Constitutional History, vol. ii., p. 113, from Rushworth.
In the answer which he afterwards addressed to Parliament, the Duke
denied having lent the ship called the “Vanguard,” and six others,
to the King of France--knowing that they were intended to be
employed against Rochelle; he stated that he had been overreached,
as the French King had pretended that he wished to make an attack on
Genoa; that, so soon as he was aware of the deception, he did all he
could to save Rochelle from destruction.[303] It appeared, also,
that a promise had been made by James I. to lend a ship to Louis
XIII., for the reduction of Genoa. The charge of neglecting his duty
as Admiral, and of having suffered the coast to be infested with
pirates, has been met by those statements in a former chapter, drawn
from original sources, which plainly show that the energy of this
ill-fated Minister was untiring, his efforts meritorious, and that,
whatever had been his former errors, they had been retrieved in his
management of naval affairs. So active were his habits, that he took
a personal share in every affair.[304] From the accusation of
corruption, it would be as difficult to defend the Duke, as it was
to exculpate, in this grave point, many public men in office at that
period. The House of Commons was still writhing under the
remembrance of the affair of Lord Middlesex, Lord Treasurer in the
time of James I., who had taken two bribes, of five hundred pounds
each, from the farmers of customs, without which _douceur_ he
refused to sign their warrants.[305] For that offence, Middlesex had
been punished with fine and imprisonment; but King James, whilst he
was eager to sell the offending Earl’s lands for the payment of the
fine, had said that he would “review the sentence of the Parliament,
and confirm it as he saw cause;” he even made a speech in behalf of
the dishonest treasurer, stating that, “in such cases, the nether
house was but as informers, the Lords as the jury, and himself the
judge;” giving them likewise to understand “that he took it not
well, nor would endure it hereafter, that they should meddle with
his servants, from the highest place down to the lowest _skull_ in
the kitchen; but if they had ought against any, they should complain
to him, and he would see it redressed according to right.”[306]
Footnote 303:
Brodie, from Rushworth, vol. ii., p.121.
Footnote 304:
Inedited State Papers, 1624.
Footnote 305:
Inedited State Papers; date, October 11th, 1624.
Footnote 306:
Letter from Mr. Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton. Inedited State
Papers, June 5th, 1624.
It was not, therefore, a matter of surprise that the Commons should,
in a case considered still more flagrant, lose their moderation,
knowing from experience how little justice their well-grounded
complaints might receive at the hands of a monarch who had imbibed
from his cradle such sentiments as those expressed by James I.
It was publicly known that offices, both about the person of the
King and in the state, were sold. In the last reign, the mastership
of the jewels had been bought by Sir Henry Caire for 2,000_l._ or
3,000_l._, from Sir Henry Mildmay, who was “thought too young a man,
and of too mean a state” to be safely entrusted with the King’s
jewels.[307] Buckingham, however, seems to have had no direct
interest in this transaction. Other instances were also adduced; and
proofs of corruption somewhere were open to every mind. Lord
Middlesex, when Sir Lionel Cranfield, was stated to have given the
Duke 6,000_l._ for his place as keeper of the wardrobe;[308] but it
seems that he purchased that post from Lord Hay, and not from
Buckingham, as the following extract from the State Papers, of the
year 1618, implies:--
“Sir Lionel Cranfield is not yet master of the wardrobe, nor likely
to be, unless he give a _viaticum_ to the Lord Hay, who, they say,
stands upon 9,000_l._”[309] It does not, therefore, appear certain
that Buckingham received either of the bribes; although it is not
improbable that, since nothing could take place without his
concurrence, he might have accepted some part of the spoil. Of the
other two allegations--namely, that he received from Lord Roberts
10,000_l._ for his title, and that he sold the office of treasurer
to Lord Manchester for 20,000_l._, there seems no certainty; but no
letters are to be found in the very minute daily correspondence of
that period, between the members of the Duke’s household and the
Court, which either take the burden of the charge from him, or
remove it to any other person.
Footnote 307:
Inedited State Papers. January, 1617-18.
Footnote 308:
Brodie, vol. i., p.113.
Footnote 309:
Dated August 20th, 1618.
The Duke was also stated, in the impeachment, to have purchased the
offices of Lord High Admiral, and of Lord Warden of the Cinque
Ports. Such was the colour given to a transaction which is generally
recognized as a matter of compensation. “To the Earl of Nottingham,
the old and incompetent admiral, the pension of 3,000_l._ yearly was
allotted, together with a good round sum of ready money;” to
Margaret, Countess of Nottingham, according to one account, a
pension of 1,000_l._, to commence at the death of the Earl, and
500_l._ to his eldest son by her.[310] According to another
statement, the pension to the Countess was not to exceed 600_l._; to
her son, Charles Howard, 500_l._ a year; and to her daughter, Anne
Howard, 200_l._ a year--after the death of their father.[311]
Footnote 310:
Inedited State Papers, 1625. This sum was eventually reduced to
5,000_l._
Footnote 311:
Letter from Secretary Nameton.--State Paper Office, Oct. 18, 1618.
Lord Zouch, meantime, the former Warden of the Cinque Ports, was
perfectly satisfied with the compensation of 500_l._ a year, secured
on lands, and 1,000_l._ ready money, in lieu of his office.[312]
Surely, if arrangements like these, completed without secrecy, and
known to every gossip of the Court, be deemed corrupt and illegal,
every minister of modern times might be liable to a similar
imputation.
Footnote 312:
Inedited State Papers.
Another charge was that Buckingham had procured titles of honours
for his allies, and pensions to support them; had embezzled the
King’s money, and obtained grants of Crown lands to an enormous
value.[313] A list of his titles and offices proves, indeed, the
blind and almost insane partiality which had placed the favourite on
the pinnacle of power.
Footnote 313:
Brodie, vol. ii., p. 113.
The statement of his possessions is equally amazing, more especially
when we consider his origin and his early difficulties. Crown lands,
to the value of 284,895_l._, had been allotted to the Duke, "besides
the Forest of Layfield--the profit made out of the strangers’
goods--and the moiety of the customs in Ireland." And yet the
Duke avowed before Parliament that his debts amounted to
100,000_l._,[314] and we find, as a sad confirmation of the charge,
among the documents in the State Paper Office, a warrant of payment
of 2,500_l._ to Sir William Russell, for interest of 30,000_l._
advanced to the Duke of Buckingham by his Majesty’s orders.[315]
Even the money given him, it was justly alleged, was a small sum
compared with that which the Duke had derived from other sources.
“How then,” asked Mr. Sherland, one of the managers of the
impeachment, “can we hope to satisfy his prodigality, if this be
true? If false, how can we hope to satisfy his covetousness? And,
therefore, your lordships need not wonder if the Commons desire, and
that earnestly, to be delivered from such a grievance.”
Footnote 314:
Ibid, 123.
Footnote 315:
Date, March 6, 1625.
Finally, the Duke was charged with having either intentionally, or
unintentionally, accelerated the death of King James.
The imprudent interference of Buckingham, under the influence of his
mother, with the medical treatment of the King, was adduced as a
proof of guilt. The absurdity of this charge, which was afterwards
taken up with much bitterness by both parties in that time of
violent discussion, seems to throw a doubt upon the whole
impeachment.
The same members who had before recited the enormous gifts and
lavish generosity of King James to his favourite, now taxed the very
man who had only to ask, to obtain, with the murder of one who was
loading him with benefits. The disease of King James, Heylyn
reports, “was no other than an ague, which, though it fell on him in
the spring, crossed the proverb, and proved, not medicinal, but
mortal.”[316] The King was old, not indeed in years, but in
constitution; the wonder was not that he died before the full span
of age was complete, but that he lived so long. The appearance of
the body after death has been insisted upon by Whitelocke as a proof
of poison; but it is well known that in many diseases this
appearance occurs, especially in affections of the heart, a class of
complaint but little understood in those times, but a malady that is
not unfrequently the result of rheumatic affections, to which James
seems to have been liable.
Footnote 316:
Life of Archbishop Laud.
Wandesford, one of the chief speakers on this occasion, declares
that the “poor and loyal Commons of England were troubled at hearing
that great distempers followed the drink and plaisters which
Buckingham had pressed on the King--droughts, raving, faintness, and
intermitting pulse;” these are, however, the usual concomitants of
that passage through the valley of the shadow of death which
precedes a final dissolution; the plaister was declared to have
driven the complaint inwards; both the administration of the drink
or posset, and the application of the plaister, were avowed by
Buckingham, who protested that neither of these intended remedies
had been used without the permission of the physicians; on hearing a
rumour that he had done so, Buckingham affirmed that he went to the
dying king, “who exclaimed, ‘They are worse than devils who say
so.’”[317]
Footnote 317:
Brodie, vol. ii., p. 125.
On the whole, this part of the impeachment seems to have fallen to
the ground; and we are disposed to credit Clarendon, who states that
though “investigated in a time of great licence, ‘no criminality was
discovered.’” King Charles also became afterwards the subject of
aspersions on this point--one of those slanderous and impossible
accusations that weaken all the previous charges, and taint them
with the hue of malice.
It is remarkable, as Hume observes, that the most vulnerable point
in Lord Bristol’s attack was altogether ignored by the Commons in
this “large impeachment.” The most blamable circumstance in
Buckingham’s whole life, as the same historian observes, was the
Duke’s conduct in breaking the Spanish treaty, and in hurrying the
nation into a war in order to gratify his private passions. But
there was a general conviction of the insincerity of Spain; and the
unjustifiable conduct of the Duke, in the affairs relative to that
country, was suffered to escape unnoticed, whilst charges, almost
untenable, were got up in the hope of ruining him with the King.
Charles was, however, infatuated. His youth and inexperience, the
pernicious example set him by his father, plead for _him_, but
nothing can extenuate the want of manly boldness in Buckingham, in
not facing his foes and demanding a trial. His answers to the
impeachment, thirteen in number, were, it is true, to borrow the
words of Sir Henry Wotton, “very diligently and civilly couched,”
and “savoured of an humble spirit, though his heart was big.” One
consideration swayed with the public, which was, that in the
“bolting and sifting of near fourteen years of such power and
favour, all that came out could not be expected to be pure and
white, and fine metal; but must needs have withal among it a certain
mixture of padars and bran in this lower range of humane
fragility.”[318]
Footnote 318:
Sir Henry Wotton, p. 225.
The Duke’s answers were very clear and satisfactory,[319] and his
address to the Lords appears to have been ingenuous and courteous.
He reminded them how full of danger and prejudice it was to give too
ready an ear, too easy a belief, to reports and testimony not upon
oath; upon such allegations none ought, he argued, to be condemned.
Then, with a grace that was natural to him, he acknowledged, with
humility, “how easy a thing it was for him in his younger years,
when inexperienced, to fall into thousands of errors in these two
years wherein he had the honour to serve so great and so
open-hearted a master.”[320] He concluded with professions of
attachment to the Church of England, hoping that for the future “he
might watch over all his actions, public and private, so as not to
give cause of just offence to any one.” And such was probably his
sincere determination; and Buckingham, had he lived, might have
proved an excellent and, as times went, an honest minister.
Footnote 319:
Hume.
Footnote 320:
Heylyn, p. 144.
The answer of Buckingham, as well as the speech of the King to his
Commons, on the 29th of March, was ascribed to the pen of Laud; but
Heylyn disavows that statement. Yet there is little doubt that Laud
prompted the Duke’s cautious and submissive reply on the one hand,
and encouraged, if he did not prompt, the King’s arbitrary and
unconstitutional conduct to the Commons.
The tempest, violent as it seemed, “did,” as Sir Henry Wotton
remarks, “only shake and not rent” the Duke’s sails. Charles, taking
as a plea that many of the accusations were not within the compass
of his own reign, and also that nothing had been proved against
Buckingham on oath, resolved to brave the storm in such a manner as
to bring down its force upon himself.
He lost, therefore, no opportunity of showing his contempt for the
House of Commons. “No one,” Hume observes, “was at that time
sufficiently sensible of the great weight which the Commons bore in
the balance of the Constitution.” Nothing but “fatal experience
could induce the English princes to pay a due regard to the
inclinations of that formidable assembly.”[321]
Footnote 321:
Hume, vol. vi., p. 179.
“This was indeed,” Lord Campbell remarks, “the great crisis of the
English Constitution. Had our distinguished patriots then quailed,
Parliaments would thenceforth have been merely the subject of
antiquarian research, or perhaps occasionally summoned to register
the edicts of the Crown”[322] “The state,” as Sir Edward Coke
declared in Parliament, “was in a consumption, yet not incurable.”
It was his courage and honesty that helped to effect a cure.
Footnote 322:
Lives of the Chancellors, vol. i., p. 325.
Charles, considering that he was himself aimed at in the allegations
against the Duke, commanded the House expressly not to interfere
with his servant Buckingham, and ordered it to conclude the bill for
the subsidies which they had begun, intimating that if that were not
done it should sit no longer. Instead of referring the case to the
Lords, and insisting on the affair being brought to a trial before
that body, he went himself to the House of Lords, and declared his
intention of clearing the Duke by his own testimony. The Commons
had, on that very day, moved that the Duke should be committed to
the Tower until the issue of his trial should be known. That motion
was rejected; in vain did Buckingham attempt to explain and soften
down this conduct in a speech to the Lords. Sir Dudley Digges and
Sir John Eliot were thrown into prison, and although they were soon
liberated, the Commons immediately declared that they would not
proceed with any business whatsoever until satisfaction should be
given for this breach of privilege.
Unhappily, all these discords were aggravated nearly to frenzy by
the bitterest of all passions--religious intolerance. Whilst we must
applaud, with all gratitude, the lofty and honest spirit which
opposed acts of despotism--a spirit to which we owe our present
pre-eminence as a free and powerful nation--we must deprecate the
remorseless oppressions which the friends of liberty scrupled not to
inflict on those who thought on religious matters differently from
themselves.
It was an expensive matter in those days to have a conscience.
Although the penalty of twenty pounds per month, enacted during the
reign of Elizabeth, had been mitigated according to the
circumstances of families, or suffered in some instances to run on
for years, it was occasionally levied all at once, to the ruin of
the unhappy Romanist families who conscientiously refused to attend
the worship of the Established Church. James I. had mercifully
relaxed the severity of these penalties; but his successor was now
called upon by the Puritan party in the House of Commons to restore
them to their original force. The Church was at this epoch far more
induced to grant indulgence than the laity, who, it is strange to
say, were the most intolerant among the persecutors of the depressed
body of Roman Catholics. Disappointed in their impeachment of
Buckingham, the Commons now presented to the King a list of
recusants who had been entrusted with offices in the State.
This petition was aimed, of course, at Buckingham, whose mother was
a Catholic, and whose wife had been long suspected of holding the
tenets of the Romish Church. It was thought sufficient in those
times to have a near relation a Romanist, to be disqualified for
office.[323]
Footnote 323:
Hume, from Franklyn, p. 195.
Queen Elizabeth, as we have before observed, when she had any point
to gain with her people, used “to tune the pulpits,” as she termed
it. It was her practice to have a reserve of preachers ready to
extol her designs in or near London, to influential congregations,
whenever she required the help of their eloquence.[324] This plan
was now adopted by Charles, and Laud was employed to call the
attention of the public to the cause of the King of Denmark, who had
been driven to the last extremity by Count Tilly. The King of
Denmark being a Protestant, it was hoped that this scheme would
propitiate the party who so vehemently endeavoured to compass the
downfall of Buckingham, and who were, for the most part, Puritans.
Footnote 324:
Heylyn, p. 153.
Unhappily the plan did more harm than good; its motives and
signification were suspected, nay, even proclaimed by some of the
simple clergy; and Sibthorpe, the Vicar of Brackley, in
Northamptonshire--at an assize sermon--gave out plainly that the
burden of those instructions which had been distributed among the
priesthood was "to show the lawfulness of the general loan which the
King now contemplated raising, in lieu of the supplies; to prove the
King’s right to impose taxes without the consent of Parliament; and
to insist that the people ought cheerfully to submit to such loans
and taxes."
The publication of this sermon was forbidden by Archbishop
Abbot,[325] for it was then illegal to print any book without a
permission from the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, or the
Vice-chancellor of one of the Universities, or some person appointed
by them;[326] and two fearful Courts of Star-chamber and High
Commission threatened any delinquent who attempted to do then what
now requires merely the consent of a publisher. Although Abbot had
so wisely prohibited Sibthorpe’s discourse, he could not save the
King whom Buckingham and Laud counselled. The audacious sermon was
published during the following year, under the almost impious title
of “Apostolic Obedience.”
Footnote 325:
Heylyn, p. 159.
Footnote 326:
Hume, p. 129.
END OF VOL. II.
---------------------------------------------------------
R. BORN, PRINTER, GLOUCESTER STREET, REGENT’S PARK.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13, GREAT MARLBOROUGH ST. LONDON
NEW AND INTERESTING WORKS
PUBLISHED BY
MESSRS. HURST AND BLACKETT,
SUCCESSORS TO MR. COLBURN.
--------------
=MEMOIRS OF THE COURT OF GEORGE IV. FROM= ORIGINAL FAMILY DOCUMENTS.
By the DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS, K.G. 2 vols. 8vo. with
Portraits. 30s. bound.
Among the many interesting subjects elucidated in this work will
be found: The Trial of Queen Caroline--The King’s Visits to
Ireland, Scotland, and Hanover--Female Influence at Court--The
Death of Lord Castlereagh--Junction of the Grenville Party with
the Government--The Political and Literary Career of George
Canning--O’Connell and the Catholic Claims--The Marquess Wellesley
in Ireland--The Duke of Wellington’s Administration--George the
Fourth as a Patron of Art and Literature, &c.
"The country is very much indebted to the Duke of Buckingham for the
publication of these volumes--to our thinking the most valuable of
the contributions to recent history which he has yet compiled from
his family papers. Besides the King, the Duke of Buckingham’s
canvass is full of the leading men of the day--Castlereagh,
Liverpool, Canning, Wellington, Peel, and their compeers. We are
sure that no reader, whether he seeks for gossip, or for more
sterling information, will be disappointed by the book.
There are several most characteristic letters of the Duke of
Wellington."--_John Bull._
“These volumes are the most popular of the series of Buckingham
papers, not only from the nature of the matter, but from the
closeness of the period to our own times.”--_Spectator._
“There is much in these volumes which deserves the perusal of all
who desire an intimate acquaintance with the history of the period.
The comments of well-informed men, like Lord Grenville, and Mr. T.
Grenville, disclosing as they do the motives of individuals, the
secret movements of parties, and the causes of public events, are of
high value to the student, and exceedingly interesting to the
general reader.”--_Daily News._
“These volumes are of great intrinsic and historical value. They
give us a definite acquaintance with the actions, a valuable
insight into the characters, of a succession of illustrious
statesmen.”--_Critic._
“The original documents published in these volumes--penned by public
men, who were themselves active participators in the events and
scenes described--throw a great deal of very curious and very
valuable light upon this period of our history. The private letters
of such men as Lord Grenville, Mr. T. Grenville, Mr. Charles Wynn,
Mr. Freemantle, Dr. Phillimore, and Mr. Plumer Ward, written in the
absence of all restraint, necessarily possess a high interest even
for the lightest and most careless reader; whilst, in an historical
sense, as an authentic source from which future historians will be
enabled to form their estimate of the characters of the leading men
who flourished in the reign of the last George, they must be
regarded as possessing an almost inestimable value. The more
reserved communications, too, of such men as Lord Liverpool, the
Duke of Wellington, the Marquis of Wellesley, Sir Henry Parnell,
&c., will be received with great interest and thankfulness by every
historiographer, whilst the lighter _billets_ of Sir Walter Scott
and Mr. Henry Wynn will be welcome to every body. Taking this
publication altogether, we must give the Duke of Buckingham great
credit for the manner in which he has prepared and executed it, and
at the same time return him our hearty thanks for the interesting
and valuable information which he has unfolded to us from his family
archives.”--_Observer._
=MEMOIRS OF THE COURT OF THE REGENCY.= FROM ORIGINAL FAMILY
DOCUMENTS. By the DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS, K.G. 2 vols.
8vo., with Portraits, 30s. bound.
“Here are two more goodly volumes on the English Court; volumes full
of new sayings, pictures, anecdotes, and scenes. The Duke of
Buckingham travels over nine years of English history. But what
years those were, from 1811 to 1820! What events at home and abroad
they bore to the great bourne!--from the accession of the Regent to
power to the death of George III.--including the fall of Perceval;
the invasion of Russia, and the war in Spain; the battles of
Salamanca and Borodino; the fire of Moscow; the retreat of Napoleon;
the conquest of Spain; the surrender of Napoleon; the return from
Elba; the Congress of Vienna; the Hundred Days; the crowning carnage
of Waterloo; the exile to St. Helena; the return of the Bourbons;
the settlement of Europe; the public scandals at the English Court;
the popular discontent, and the massacre of Peterloo! On many parts
of this story the documents published by the Duke of Buckingham cast
new jets of light, clearing up much secret history. Old stories are
confirmed--new traits of character are brought out. In short, many
new and pleasant additions are made to our knowledge of those
times.”--_Athenæum._
“Invaluable, as showing the true light in which many of the
stirring events of the Regency are to be viewed. The lovers of
Court gossip will also find not a little for their edification and
amusement.”--_Literary Gazette._
“These volumes cover a complete epoch, the period of the Regency--a
period of large and stirring English history. To the Duke of
Buckingham, who thus, out of his family archives, places within our
reach authentic and exceedingly minute pictures of the governors of
England, we owe grateful acknowledgements. His papers abound in
fresh lights on old topics, and in new illustrations and anecdotes.
The intrinsic value of the letters is enhanced by the judicious
setting of the explanatory comment that accompanies them, which is
put together with much care and honesty.”--_Examiner._
=MEMOIRS OF THE COURT AND CABINETS OF GEORGE THE THIRD=, FROM
ORIGINAL FAMILY DOCUMENTS. By the DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND
CHANDOS, K.G., &c. THE THIRD AND FOURTH VOLUMES, comprising the
period from 1800 to 1810 and completing this important work.
8vo., with Portraits. 30s. bound.
“The present volumes exhibit the same features as the former portion
of the series. The general reader is entertained, and the reader for
historical purposes is enlightened. Of their value and importance,
there cannot be two opinions.”--_Athenæum._
“These volumes comprehend a period the most important in the
events relating to our domestic affairs and foreign relations to
be found in the British annals; told, not only by eye-witnesses,
but by the very men who put them in motion. The volumes now
published immeasurably exceed their predecessors in interest and
importance. They must find a place in the library of every English
gentleman.”--_Standard._
=HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY IV., KING OF FRANCE AND NAVARRE.=
From numerous Original Sources. By MISS FREER. Author of "The
Lives of Marguerite d’Angoulême, Elizabeth de Valois, Henry
III.," &c. 2 vols. with Portraits, 21s.
=LECTURES ON ART, LITERATURE, AND SOCIAL SCIENCE.= By HIS
EMINENCE CARDINAL WISEMAN. 1 vol with Portrait. (_In
Preparation._)
=HENRY III. KING OF FRANCE AND POLAND; HIS COURT AND TIMES.= From
numerous unpublished sources, including MS. Documents in the
Bibliothèque Impériale, and the Archives of France and Italy. By
MISS FREER, Author of "Marguerite d’Angoulême," “Elizabeth de
Valois, and the Court of Philip II.,” &c. 3 vols. post 8vo. with
fine portraits, 31s. 6d. bound.
“Miss Freer having won for herself the reputation of a most
painstaking and trustworthy historian not less than an accomplished
writer, by her previous memoirs of sovereigns of the houses of
Valois and Navarre, will not fail to meet with a most cordial and
hearty welcome for her present admirable history of Henry III., the
last of the French kings of the house of Valois. We refer our
readers to the volumes themselves for the interesting details of the
life and reign of Henry III., his residence in Poland, his marriage
with Louise de Lorraine, his cruelties, his hypocrisies, his
penances, his assassination by the hands of the monk Jaques Clément,
&c. Upon these points, as well as with reference to other persons
who occupied a prominent position during this period, abundant
information is afforded by Miss Freer; and the public will feel with
us that a deep debt of gratitude is due to that lady for the
faithful and admirable manner in which she has pourtrayed the Court
and Times of Henry the Third.”--_Chronicle._
“The previous historical labours of Miss Freer were so successful as
to afford a rich promise in the present undertaking, the performance
of which, it is not too much to say, exceeds expectation, and
testifies to her being not only the most accomplished, but the most
accurate of modern female historians. The Life of Henry III. of
France is a contribution to literature which will have a reputation
as imperishable as its present fame must be large and increasing.
Indeed, the book is of such a truly fascinating character, that once
begun it is impossible to leave it.”--_Messenger._
“Among the class of chronicle histories, Miss Freer’s Henry the
Third of France is entitled to a high rank. As regards style and
treatment Miss Freer has made a great advance upon her ‘Elizabeth de
Valois,’ as that book was an advance upon her ‘Marguerite
D’Angoulême.’”--_Spectator._
“We heartily recommend this work to the reading public. Miss Freer
has much, perhaps all, of the quick perception and picturesque
style by which Miss Strickland has earned her well-deserved
popularity.”--_Critic._
=ELIZABETH DE VALOIS, QUEEN OF SPAIN, AND THE COURT OF PHILIP II.=
From numerous unpublished sources in the Archives of France,
Italy, and Spain. By MISS FREER. 2 vols. post 8vo. with fine
Portraits by HEATH, 21s.
“It is not attributing too much to Miss Freer to say that herself
and Mr. Prescott are probably the best samples of our modern
biographers. The present volumes will be a boon to posterity for
which it will be grateful. Equally suitable for instruction and
amusement, they portray one of the most interesting characters and
periods of history.”--_John Bull._
"Such a book as the memoir of Elizabeth de Valois is a literary
treasure which will be the more appreciated as its merits obtain
that reputation to which they most justly are entitled. Miss
Freer has done her utmost to make the facts of Elizabeth’s, Don
Carlos’, and Philip II.’s careers fully known, as they actually
transpired."--_Bell’s Messenger._
=THE LIFE OF MARGUERITE D’ANGOULEME, QUEEN of NAVARRE, SISTER of
FRANCIS I.= By MISS FREER. Second Edition, 2 vols. with fine
Portraits, 21s.
“This is a very useful and amusing book. It is a good work, very
well done. The authoress is quite equal in power and grace to Miss
Strickland. She must have spent great time and labour in collecting
the information, which she imparts in an easy and agreeable manner.
It is difficult to lay down her book after having once begun it.
This is owing partly to the interesting nature of the subject,
partly to the skillful manner in which it has been treated. No other
life of Marguerite has yet been published, even in France. Indeed,
till Louis Philippe ordered the collection and publication of
manuscripts relating to the history of France, no such work could be
published. It is difficult to conceive how, under any circumstances,
it could have been better done.”--_Standard._
=LODGE’S PEERAGE AND BARONETAGE FOR 1860.= UNDER THE ESPECIAL
PATRONAGE OF HER MAJESTY AND H.R.H. THE PRINCE CONSORT.
Corrected throughout by the Nobility. Twenty-Ninth Edition, in 1
vol. royal 8vo., with the Arms beautifully engraved, handsomely
bound, with gilt edges, price 31s. 6d.
LODGE’S PEERAGE AND BARONETAGE is acknowledged to be the most
complete, as well as the most elegant, work of the kind. As an
established and authentic authority on all questions respecting the
family histories, honours, and connections of the titled
aristocracy, no work has ever stood so high. It is published under
the especial patronage of Her Majesty, and His Royal Highness the
Prince Consort, and is annually corrected throughout, from the
personal, communications of the Nobility. It is the only work of its
class, in which, _the type being kept constantly standing_, every
correction is made in its proper place to the date of publication,
an advantage which gives it supremacy over all its competitors.
Independently of its full and authentic information respecting the
existing Peers and Baronets of the realm, the most sedulous
attention is given in its pages to the collateral branches of the
various noble families, and the names of many thousand individuals
are introduced, which do not appear in other records of the titled
classes. For its authority, correctness, and facility of
arrangement, and the beauty of its typography and binding, the work
is justly entitled to the high place it occupies on the tables of
Her Majesty and the Nobility.
"Lodge’s Peerage must supersede all other works of the kind, for two
reasons: first, it is on a better plan; and, secondly, it is better
executed. We can safely pronounce it to be the readiest, the most
useful, and exactest of modern works on the subject."--_Spectator._
“A work which corrects all errors of former works. It is the
production of a herald, we had almost said, by birth, but certainly
by profession and studies, Mr. Lodge, the Norroy King of Arms. It is
a most useful publication.”--_Times._
"As perfect a Peerage of the British Empire as we are ever likely to
see published. Great pains have been taken to make it as complete
and accurate as possible. The work is patronised by Her Majesty and
the Prince Consort; and it is worthy of a place in every gentleman’s
library, as well as in every public institution."--_Herald._
“As a work of contemporaneous history, this volume is of great
value--the materials having been derived from the most authentic
sources and in the majority of cases emanating from the noble
families themselves. It contains all the needful information
respecting the nobility of the Empire.”--_Post._
"This work should form a portion of every gentleman’s library. At
all times, the information which it contains, derived from
official sources exclusively at the command of the author, is of
importance to most classes of the community; to the antiquary it
must be invaluable, for implicit reliance may be placed on its
contents."--_Globe._
“This work derives great value from the high authority of Mr. Lodge.
The plan is excellent.”--_Literary Gazette._
"When any book has run through so many editions, its reputation is
so indelibly stamped, that it requires neither criticism nor praise.
It is but just, however, to say, that ‘Lodge’s Peerage and
Baronetage‘ is the most elegant and accurate, and the best of its
class. The chief point of excellence attaching to this Peerage
consists neither in its elegance of type nor its completeness of
illustration, but in its authenticity, which is insured by the
letter-press being always kept standing, and by immediate alteration
being made whenever any change takes place, either by death or
otherwise, amongst the nobility of the United Kingdom. The work has
obtained the special patronage of Her Most Gracious Majesty, and of
His Royal Highness the Prince Consort, which patronage has never
been better or more worthily bestowed."--_Messenger._
"‘Lodge’s Peerage and Baronetage‘ has become, as it were, an
‘institution’ of this country; in other words, it is indispensable,
and cannot be done without, by any person having business in the
great world. The authenticity of this valuable work, as regards the
several topics to which it refers, has never been exceeded, and,
consequently, it must be received as one of the most important
contributions to social and domestic history extant. As a book of
reference--indispensable in most cases, useful in all--it should be
in the hands of every one having connections in, or transactions
with, the aristocracy."--_Observer._
=LODGE’S GENEALOGY OF THE PEERAGE AND BARONETAGE OF THE BRITISH
EMPIRE.= A NEW AND REVISED EDITION. Uniform with “THE PEERAGE”
Volume, with the arms beautifully engraved, handsomely bound
with gilt edges, price 31s. 6d.
The desire very generally manifested for a republication of this
volume has dictated the present entire revision of its contents. The
Armorial Bearings prefixed to the History of each Noble Family,
render the work complete in itself and uniform with the Volume of
THE PEERAGE, which it is intended to accompany and illustrate. The
object of the whole Work, in its two distinct yet combined
characters, has been useful and correct information; and the careful
attention devoted to this object throughout will, it is hoped,
render the Work worthy of the August Patronage with which it is
honoured and of the liberal assistance accorded by its Noble
Correspondents, and will secure from them and from the Public, the
same cordial reception it has hitherto experienced. The great
advantage of “The Genealogy” being thus given in a separate volume,
Mr. Lodge has himself explained in the Preface to “The Peerage.”
=EPISODES OF FRENCH HISTORY DURING THE CONSULATE AND FIRST EMPIRE.=
By MISS PARDOE, author of “The Life of Marie de Medicis,” &c. 2
vols. 21s.
"We recommend Miss Pardoe’s ‘Episodes’ as very pleasant reading.
They cannot fail to entertain and instruct."--_Critic._
“One of the must amusing and instructive books Miss Pardoe has ever
given to the public.”--_Messenger._
“In this lively and agreeable book Miss Pardoe gives a fair picture
of the society of the times, which has never been treated in a more
interesting and pleasant manner.”--_Chronicle._
=THE LIFE AND TIMES OF GEORGE VILLIERS, DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.= By MRS.
THOMSON, Author of “The Life of the Duchess of Marlborough,”
“Memoirs of Sir W. Raleigh,” &c. With Portrait. (_Just Ready._)
=THE LIVES OF PHILIP HOWARD, EARL OF ARUNDEL, AND OF ANNE DACRES,
HIS WIFE.= Edited from the Original MSS. By the DUKE OF NORFOLK,
E.M. 1 vol. antique.
“These biographies will be read with interest. They throw valuable
light on the social habits and the prevalent feelings of the
Elizabethan age.”--_Literary Gazette._
=MEMOIRS OF BERANGER. WRITTEN BY HIMSELF.= ENGLISH COPYRIGHT
EDITION. Second Edition, with numerous Additional Anecdotes and
Notes, hitherto unpublished. 8vo. with Portrait.
"This is the Copyright Translation of Béranger’s Biography. It
appears in a handsome volume, and is worthy of all praise as an
honest piece of work. In this account of his life, the Poet displays
all the mingled gaiety and earnestness, the warm-hearted sincerity,
inseparable from his character. He tells, with an exquisite
simplicity, the story of his early years. His life, he says, is the
fairest commentary on his songs, therefore he writes it. The charm
of the narrative is altogether fresh. It includes a variety of
_chansons_, now first printed, touching closely on the personal
history of which they form a part, shrewd sayings, and, as the field
of action in life widens, many sketches of contemporaries, and free
judgments upon men and things. There is a full appendix to the
Memoir, rich in letters hitherto unpublished, and in information
which completes the story of Béranger’s life. The book should be
read by all."--_Examiner._
=THE BOOK OF ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD, AND DECORATIONS OF HONOUR OF ALL
NATIONS; COMPRISING AN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF EACH ORDER,
MILITARY, NAVAL AND CIVIL;= with Lists of the Knights and
Companions of each British Order. EMBELLISHED WITH FIVE HUNDRED
FAC-SIMILE COULOURED ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE INSIGNIA OF THE
VARIOUS ORDERS. Edited by SIR BERNARD BURKE, Ulster King of
Arms. 1 vol. royal 8vo., handsomely bound, with gilt edges,
price £2. 2s.
“This valuable and attractive work may claim the merit of being the
best of its kind. It is so comprehensive in its character, and so
elegant in its style, that it far outstrips all competitors. A full
historical account of the orders of every country is given, with
lists of the Knights and Companions of each British Order. Among the
most attractive features of the work are the illustrations. They are
numerous and beautiful, highly coloured, and giving an exact
representation of the different decorations. The origin of each
Order, the rules and regulations, and the duties incumbent on its
members, are all given at full length. The fact of the work being
under the supervision of Sir Bernard Burke, and endorsed by his
authority, gives it another recommendation to the public
favour.”--_Sun_
“This is, indeed, a splendid book. It is an uncommon combination of
a library book of reference and a book for a boudoir, undoubtedly
uniting beauty and utility. It gives a sketch of the foundation and
history of all recognised decorations of honour, among all nations,
arranged in alphabetical order. The fac-similies of the insignia are
well drawn and coloured, and present a brilliant effect. Sir Bernard
Burke has done his work well; and this book of the quintessence of
the aristocracy will soon find its place in every library and
drawing-room.”--._Globe._
=JOURNAL OF AN ENGLISH OFFICER IN INDIA.= By MAJOR NORTH, 60th
Rifles, Deputy Judge Advocate-General, and Aide-de-Camp to
General Havelock. 1 vol. with portrait.
"We must commend Major’s North’s ‘Journal’ to universal approbation.
It is manly in tone, noble in expression, and full of feeling, alike
honourable to the soldier and gallant profession. When we state that
the book tells of the progress of the lion-hearted Havelock’s little
band which relieved Lucknow, and is the first faithful record of the
deeds of arms performed by that phalanx of heroes, we have said
enough to cause it to be read, we are convinced, by every person who
can avail himself of the opportunity of learning what were the
hardships of his countrymen, and how immense were the sacrifices
they made to save the English besieged inhabitants from a repetition
of the atrocities of Cawnpore. We have as yet seen no book connected
with the Indian mutiny which has given us so much gratification as
Major North’s Journal."--_Messenger._
=EASTERN HOSPITALS AND ENGLISH NURSES;= The Narrative of Twelve
Months’ Experience in the Hospitals of Koulali and Scutari. By A
LADY VOLUNTEER. Third and Cheaper Edition, 1 vol. post 8vo. with
Illustrations, 6s. bound.
“The story of the noble deeds done by Miss Nightingale and her
devoted sisterhood will never be more effectively told than in the
beautiful narrative contained in these volumes.”--_John Bull._
=PICTURES OF SPORTING LIFE AND CHARACTER.= By LORD WILLIAM LENNOX. 2
vols. with Illustrations. 21s.
"This work may be characterised as a perfect synopsis of English
sports in the 19th century. Were the whole of the books previously
written on the subject destroyed, Lord William Lennox’s alone
would preserve a lifelike picture of the sports and amusements of
our age. The volumes will be read with intense enjoyment by
multitudes, for their author is an accomplished _littérateur_, who
has known how to vary his theme so skillfully and to intersperse
it with so many anecdotes and personal recollections of England’s
most distinguished men, that even those who are not themselves
given to sport will be deeply interested in the light he throws
upon English society."--_Illustrated News of the World._
=THE COUNTESS OF BONNEVAL: HER LIFE AND LETTERS.= By LADY GEORGIANA
FULLERTON. 2 vols. 21s.
“The whole work forms one of those touching stories which create a
lasting impression.”--_Athenæum._
“The life of the Count de Bonneval is a page in history, but it
reads like a romance: that of the Countess, removed from war and
politics, never oversteps the domestic sphere, yet is equally
romantic and singular. An accomplished writer has taken up the
threads of this modest life, and brought out her true character in a
very interesting and animated memoir. The story of the Countess of
Bonneval is related with the happy art and grace which so
characterize the author.”--_U. S. Magazine._
=THE LIFE OF MARIE DE MEDICIS, QUEEN OF FRANCE,= CONSORT OF HENRY
IV., AND REGENT UNDER LOUIS XIII. By MISS PARDOE. Second
Edition. 3 vols. 8vo. Portraits.
=MEMOIRS OF THE BARONESS D’OBERKIRCH,= ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE SECRET
HISTORY OF THE COURTS OF FRANCE, RUSSIA, AND GERMANY. WRITTEN BY
HERSELF, and Edited by Her Grandson, the COUNT DE MONTBRISON. 3
vols. post 8vo. 15s.
"The Baroness d’Oberkirch being the intimate friend of the
Empress of Russia, wife of Paul I., and the confidential
companion of the Duchess of Bourbon, her facilities for
obtaining information respecting the most private affairs of the
principal Courts of Europe, render her Memoirs unrivalled as a
book of interesting anecdotes of the royal, noble and other
celebrated individuals who flourished on the continent during
the latter part of the last century. The volumes form a valuable
addition to the personal history of an important period. They
deserve general popularity."--_Daily News._
=MEMOIRS OF RACHEL.= 2 vols. with Portrait. 21s.
“A book sure to attract public attention, and well meriting
it.”--_Globe._
=SCOTTISH HEROES IN THE DAYS OF WALLACE AND BRUCE.= By the REV. A.
LOW, A.M. 2 vols. post 8vo.
=MEMOIRS AND CORRESPONDENCE OF MAJOR GENERAL SIR W. NOTT, G.C.B.,=
COMMANDER OF THE ARMY OF CANDAHAR, AND ENVOY AT THE COURT OF
LUCKNOW. 2 vols. 8vo. with Portrait. 16s. bound.
=RULE AND MISRULE OF THE ENGLISH IN AMERICA.= By the Author of “SAM
SLICK.” 2 vols. post 8vo.
“We conceive this work to be by far the most valuable and important
Judge Haliburton has ever written. While teeming with interest,
moral and historical, to the general reader, it equally constitutes
a philosophical study for the politician and statesman. It will be
found to let in a flood of light upon the actual origin, formation,
and progress of the republic of the United States.”--_Naval and
Military Gazette._
=RECOLLECTIONS OF WEST END LIFE; WITH SKETCHES OF SOCIETY IN PARIS,
INDIA,= &c. By MAJOR CHAMBRE late 17th Lancers. 2 vols. with
Portrait of George IV.
"We find in Major Chambre’s lively sketches a mass of amusing
anecdotes relating to persons eminent in their day for their
position, wit, and political reputation. All that relates to George
IV. will be read with attention and interest."--_Messenger._
=THE UPPER and LOWER AMOOR; A NARRATIVE OF TRAVEL AND ADVENTURE.= By
T. W. ATKINSON. Author of “ORIENTAL and WESTERN SIBERIA.” With
Map and numerous Illustrations. (_In the Press._)
=SIXTEEN YEARS OF AN ARTIST’S LIFE IN MOROCCO, SPAIN, AND THE CANARY
ISLANDS.= By MRS. ELIZABETH MURRAY. 2 vols. 8vo. with Coloured
Illustrations.
“Mrs. Murray, wife, we believe, of the English Consul at Teneriffe,
is one of the first of female English Water Colour Artists. She
draws well, and her colour is bright, pure, transparent, and
sparkling. Her book is like her painting, luminous, rich and fresh.
We welcome it (as the public will also do) with sincere pleasure. It
is a hearty book, written by a clever, quick-sighted, and thoughtful
woman, who, slipping a steel pen on the end of her brush, thus
doubly armed, uses one end as well as the other, being with both a
bright colourer, and accurate describer of colours, outlines,
sensations, landscapes and things. In a word, Mrs. Murray is a
clever artist, who writes forcibly and agreeably.”--_Athenæum._
“Mrs. Elizabeth Murray is known to the artistic world as the
principal star of the Female Exhibition of Paintings. She left
England as she tells us, at eighteen, with all the hopes and
aspirations of an artist before her. At Morocco she becomes the wife
of a gentleman who is successively Consul at Tangiers and Teneriffe.
She has, in consequence, peculiar advantages for the observation of
Moorish and Spanish society, and as she possesses great observation
and wields the pen as cleverly as the pencil, she has produced a
book not only of interest, but of importance. In every way, whether
descriptive or anecdotal, the work claims to be placed amongst the
very best works of travel in the English Language.”--_Chronicle._
=REVELATIONS OF PRISON LIFE; WITH AN ENQUIRY INTO PRISON DISCIPLINE
AND SECONDARY PUNISHMENTS.= By GEORGE LAVAL CHESTERTON, 25 Years
Governor of the House of Correction at Cold-Bath Fields. Third
Edition, Revised. 1 vol.
“Mr. Chesterton has had a rare experience of human frailty. He has
lived with the felon, the forger, the _lorette_, the vagabond, the
murderer; has looked into the darkest sepulchres of the heart,
without finding reason to despair of mankind. In his belief the
worst of men have still some of the angel left. Such a testimony
from such a quarter is full of novelty as it is of interest. As a
curious bit of human history these volumes are remarkable. They are
very real, very simple; dramatic without exaggeration, philosophic
without being dull.”--_Athenæum._
=THE OLD COURT SUBURB; OR, MEMORIALS OF KENSINGTON; REGAL, CRITICAL,
AND ANECDOTICAL=. By LEIGH HUNT. Second Edition. 2 vols. post
8vo.
“A delightful book. It will be welcome to all readers, and
most welcome to those who have a love for the best kinds of
reading.”--_Examiner._
=MY EXILE.= BY ALEXANDER HERZEN. 2 vols.
"Mr. Herzen’s narrative, ably and unaffectedly written, and
undoubtedly authentic, is indeed superior in interest to nine-tenths
of the existing works on Russia."--_Athenæum._
=A PRACTICAL GUIDE IN OBTAINING PROBATES, ADMINISTRATIONS,= &c., in
Her Majesty’s Court of Probate; with numerous Precedents. By
EDWARD WEATHERLY, of Doctor’s Commons. Dedicated, by permission,
to the Right Hon. Sir CRESSWELL CRESSWELL, Judge of the New
Court of Probate. Cheaper Edition. 12s.
“A most valuable book. Its contents are very diversified--meeting
almost every use.”--_Solicitor’s Journal._
=ORIENTAL AND WESTERN SIBERIA; A NARRATIVE= OF SEVEN YEARS’
EXPLORATIONS AND ADVENTURES IN SIBERIA, MONGOLIA, THE KIRGHIS
STEPPES, CHINESE TARTARY, AND CENTRAL ASIA. By THOMAS WITLAM
ATKINSON. In one large volume, royal 8vo., Price £2. 2s.,
elegantly bound. Embellished with upwards of 50 Illustrations,
including numerous beautifully coloured plates, from drawings by
the Author, and a map.
"By virtue alike of its text and its pictures, we place this book
of travel in the first rank among those illustrated gift-books now
so much sought by the public. Mr. Atkinson’s book is most
readable. The geographer finds in it notice of ground heretofore
left undescribed, the ethnologist, geologist, and botanist, find
notes and pictures, too, of which they know the value, the
sportman’s taste is gratified by chronicles of sport, the lover of
adventure will find a number of perils and escapes to hang over,
and the lover of a frank good-humoured way of speech will find the
book a pleasant one in every page. Seven years of wandering,
thirty-nine thousand five hundred miles of moving to and fro in a
wild and almost unknown country, should yield a book worth
reading, and they do."--_Examiner._
“A book of travels which in value and sterling interest must take
rank as a landmark in geographical literature. Its coloured
illustrations and wood engravings are of a high order, and add a
great charm to the narrative. Mr. Atkinson has travelled where it is
believed no European has been before. He has seen nature in the
wildest, sublimest, and also the most beautiful aspects the old
world can present. These he has depicted by pen and pencil. He has
done both well. Many a fireside will rejoice in the determination
which converted the artist into an author. Mr. Atkinson is a
thorough Englishman, brave and accomplished, a lover of adventure
and sport of every kind. He knows enough of mineralogy, geology, and
botany to impart a scientific interest to his descriptions and
drawings; possessing a keen sense of humour, he tells many a racy
story. The sportsman and the lover of adventure, whether by flood or
field, will find ample stores in the stirring tales of his
interesting travels.”--_Daily News._
"An animated and intelligent narrative, appreciably enriching the
literature of English travel. Mr. Atkinson’s sketches were made by
express permission of the late Emperor of Russia. Perhaps no English
artist was ever before admitted into this enchanted land of history,
or provided with the talisman and amulet of a general passport; and
well has Mr. Atkinson availed himself of the privilege. Our extracts
will have served to illustrate the originality and variety of Mr.
Atkinson’s observations and adventures during his protracted
wanderings of nearly forty thousand miles. Mr. Atkinson’s pencil was
never idle, and he has certainly brought home with him the forms,
and colours, and other characteristics of a most extraordinary
diversity of groups and scenes. As a sportsman Mr. Atkinson enjoyed
a plenitude of excitement. His narrative is well stored with
incidents of adventure. His ascent of the Bielouka is a chapter of
the most vivid romance of travel, yet it is less attractive than his
relations of wanderings across the Desert of Gobi and up the Tangnou
Chain."--_Athenæum._
"We predict that Mr. Atkinson’s ‘Siberia’ will very often assume the
shape of a Christmas Present or New Year’s Gift, as it possesses, in
an eminent degree, four very precious and suitable qualities for
that purpose,--namely, usefulness, elegance, instruction and
novelty. It is a work of great value, not merely on account of its
splendid illustrations, but for the amount it contains of authentic
and highly interesting intelligence concerning regions which, in all
probability, has never, previous to Mr. Atkinson’s explorations,
been visited by an European. Mr. Atkinson’s adventures are told in a
manly style. The valuable and interesting information the book
contains, gathered at a vast expense, is lucidly arranged, and
altogether the work is one that the author-artist may well be proud
of, and with which those who study it cannot fail to be
delighted."--_John Bull._
“To the geographer, the geologist, the ethnographer, the sportsman,
and to those who read only for amusement, this will be an acceptable
volume. Mr. Atkinson is not only an adventurous traveller, but a
correct and amusing writer.”--_Literary Gazette._
=TRAVELS IN EASTERN AFRICA, WITH THE NARRATIVE OF A RESIDENCE IN
MOZAMBIQUE: 1856 to 1859.= By LYONS McLEOD, Esq. F.R.G.S., &c.
Late British Consul in Mozambique. 2 vols. With Map and
Illustrations.
=A JOURNEY ON A PLANK FROM KIEV TO EAUX-BONNES.= By LADY CHARLOTTE
PEPYS. 2 vols, with Illustrations. 21s. (_Just Ready_).
=LAKE NGAMI; OR EXPLORATIONS AND DISCOVERIES= DURING FOUR YEARS’
WANDERINGS IN THE WILDS OF SOUTH-WESTERN AFRICA. By CHARLES JOHN
ANDERSSON. 1 vol. royal 8vo., with Map and upwards of 50
Illustrations, representing Sporting Adventures, Subjects of
Natural History, &c. Second Edition.
“This narrative of African explorations and discoveries is one of
the most important geographical works that have lately appeared. It
contains the account of two journeys made between the years 1850 and
1854, in the first of which the countries of the Damaras and the
Ovambo, previously scarcely known in Europe, were explored; and in
the second the newly-discovered Lake Ngami was reached by a route
that had been deemed impracticable, but which proves to be the
shortest and the best. The work contains much scientific and
accurate information as to the geology, the scenery, products, and
resources of the regions explored, with notices of the religion,
manners, and customs of the native tribes. The continual sporting
adventures, and other remarkable occurrences, intermingled with the
narrative of travel, make the book as interesting to read as a
romance, as, Indeed, a good book of travels ought always to be. The
illustrations by Wolf are admirably designed, and most of them
represent scenes as striking as any witnessed by Jules Gérard or
Gordon Cumming.”--_Literary Gazette._
=THE OXONIAN IN THELEMARKEN;= OR, NOTES OF TRAVEL IN SOUTH-WESTERN
NORWAY, WITH GLANCES AT THE LEGENDARY LORE OF THAT DISTRICT. By
the Rev. F. METCALFE M.A., Fellow of Lincoln College. 2 vols.
with illustrations.
“This new book is as lively as its predecessor. Its matter is as
good, or better. The intermixture of legends and traditions with the
notes of travel adds to the real value of the work, and strengthens
its claim on a public that desires to be amused.”--_Examiner._
=THE OXONIAN IN NORWAY; OR, NOTES OF EXCURSIONS IN THAT COUNTRY=. By
the Rev. F. METCALFE, M.A., Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford.
New and Cheaper Edition, revised, 1 vol. post 8vo., with Map and
additional Illustrations.
"Mr. Metcalfe’s book is as full of facts and interesting
information as it can hold, and is interlarded with racy
anecdotes. Some of these are highly original and entertaining.
More than this, it is a truly valuable work, containing a fund of
information on the statistics, politics, and religion of the
countries visited."--_Blackwood’s Magazine._
=SIX YEARS IN RUSSIA. BY AN ENGLISH LADY.= 2 vols. post 8vo. with
Illustrations. 21s. bound.
=A SUMMER AND WINTER IN THE TWO SICILIES.= By JULIA KAVANAGH,
Author of “Nathalie,” “Adèle,” &c. 2 vols. post 8vo. with
illustrations, 21s. bound.
“Miss Kavanagh is a woman of genius and imagination. She has a
graceful and brilliant pen, much observation of character, and a
keen eye for the aspects of nature. Her volumes contain much that is
new. They are among the pleasantest volumes of travel we have lately
met with, and we can cordially recommend them. Readers will find in
these volumes the glow and colour of Italian skies, the rich and
passionate beauty of Italian scenery, and the fresh simplicity of
Southern life touched by the hand of an artist, and described by the
perceptions of a warm-hearted and sympathising woman.”--_The Press._
=THE JEWS IN THE EAST.= By the Rev. P. BEATON, M.A. From the German
of DR. FRANKL. 2 vols. 21s.
“Those persons who are curious in matters connected with Jerusalem
and its inhabitants, are strongly recommended to read this work,
which contains more information than is to be found in a dozen of
the usual books of travel.”--_Times._
“This book will richly reward perusal. We cordially recommend the
narrative for solid information given from an unusual point of view,
for power of description, for incident, and for details of manners,
domestic habits, traditions, &c.,”--_Globe._
“A very interesting work, one of the most original books of modern
travel, that we have encountered for a long time.”--_John Bull._
=CHOW-CHOW; BEING SELECTIONS FROM A JOURNAL, KEPT IN INDIA,= &c. By
the VISCOUNTESS FALKLAND. New and Revised Edition, 2 vols. 8vo.,
with Illustrations. 21s.
"Lady Falkland’s work may be read with interest and pleasure, and
the reader will rise from the perusal instructed as well as
amused."--_Athenæum._
=A PERSONAL NARRATIVE OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE NORTH-WEST PASSAGE=
with Numerous Incidents of Travel and Adventure during nearly
Five Years’ Continuous Service in the Arctic Regions while in
Search of the Expedition under Sir John Franklin. By ALEX.
ARMSTRONG, M.D., R.N., late Surgeon and Naturalist of H.M.S
‘Investigator.’ 1 vol. With Map and Plate, 16s.
“This book is sure to take a prominent position in every library in
which works of discovery and adventure are to be met with.”--_Daily
News._
=THE WANDERER IN ARABIA.= BY G. T. LOWTH, ESQ. 2 vols. post 8vo.
with Illustrations. 12s.
“Mr. Lowth has shown himself in these volumes to be an intelligent
traveller, a keen observer of nature, and an accomplished
artist.”--_Post._
=SPORTING ADVENTURES IN THE NEW WORLD; OR, DAYS AND NIGHTS OF MOOSE
HUNTING IN THE PINE FORESTS OF ACADIA.= By CAMPBELL HARDY, ROYAL
ARTILLERY. 2 vols. post 8vo. with illustrations. 12s.
“A spirited record of sporting adventures, very entertaining and
well worthy the attention of all sportsmen who desire some fresher
field than Europe can afford them.”--_Press._
=A PILGRIMAGE INTO DAUPHINE;= WITH A VISIT TO THE MONASTERY OF THE
GRANDE CHARTREUSE, AND ANECDOTES, INCIDENTS, AND SKETCHES FROM
TWENTY DEPARTMENTS OF FRANCE. By the REV. G. M. MUSGRAVE, A.M. 2
vols. with Illustrations.
=FAMILY ROMANCE; OR, DOMESTIC ANNALS OF THE ARISTOCRACY.= By SIR
BERNARD BURKE, ULSTER KING OF ARMS. 2 vols. post 8vo. 21s.
Among the many other interesting legends and romantic family
histories comprised in these volumes, will be found the
following:--The wonderful narrative of Maria Stella, Lady
Newborough, who claimed on such strong evidence to be a Princess of
the House of Orleans, and disputed the identity of Louis
Philippe--The story of the humble marriage of the beautiful Countess
of Strathmore, and the sufferings and fate of her only child--The
Leaders of Fashion, from Gramont to D’Orsay--The rise of the
celebrated Baron Ward, now Prime Minister at Parma--The curious
claim to the Earldom of Crawford--The Strange Vicissitudes of our
Great Families, replete with the most romantic details--The story of
the Kirkpatricks of Closeburn (the ancestors of the French Empress),
and the remarkable tradition associated with them--The Legend of the
Lambtons--The verification in our own time of the famous prediction
as to the Earls of Mar--Lady Ogilvy’s escape--The Beresford and
Wynyard ghost stories, &c.
"It were impossible to praise too highly as a work of amusement
these two most interesting volumes, whether we should have regard to
its excellent plan or its not less excellent execution. The volumes
are just what ought to be found on every drawing-room table. Here
you have nearly fifty captivating romances with the pith of all
their interest preserved in undiminished poignancy, and any one may
be read in half an hour. It is not the least of their merits that
the romances are founded on fact--or what, at least, has been handed
down for truth by long tradition--and the romance of reality far
exceeds the romance of fiction. Each story is told in the clear,
unaffected style with which the author’s former works have made the
public familiar."--_Standard._
=THE ROMANCE OF THE FORUM; OR, NARRATIVES, SCENES, AND ANECDOTES
FROM COURTS OF JUSTICE. SECOND SERIES.= By PETER BURKE, ESQ., of
the Inner Temple Barrister-at-Law. 2 vols. post 8vo. 12s.
PRINCIPAL CONTENTS:--Lord Crichton’s Revenge--The Great Douglas
Cause--Lord and Lady Kinnaird--Marie Delorme and Her Husband--The
Spectral Treasure--Murders in Inns of Court--Matthieson the
Forger--Trials that established the Illegality of Slavery--The Lover
Highwayman--The Accusing Spirit--The Attorney-General of the Reign
of Terror--Eccentric Occurrences in the Law--Adventuresses of
Pretended Rank--The Courier of Lyons--General Sarrazin’s Bigamy--The
Elstree Murder--Count Bocarmé and his wife--Professor Webster, &c.
“The favour with which the first series of this publication was
received, has induced Mr. Burke to extend his researches, which
he has done with great judgment. The incidents forming the
subject of the second series are as extraordinary in every
respect, as those which obtained so high a meed of celebrity for
the first.”--_Messenger._
=THE MAN OF THE PEOPLE.= By WILLIAM HOWITT. 3 vols. post 8vo. (_Just
Ready_).
=SONGS OF THE CAVALIERS AND ROUNDHEADS, JACOBITE BALLADS,= &c. By G.
W. THORNBURY. 1 vol. with numerous Illustrations by H. S. MARKS.
Elegantly bound. 6s.
"Mr. Thornbury has produced a volume of songs and ballads worthy to
rank with Macaulay’s or Aytoun’s Lays."--_Chronicle._ “Those who
love picture, life, and costume in song will here find what they
love.”--_Athenæum._
=POEMS.= BY THE AUTHOR OF “JOHN HALIFAX, GENTLEMAN,” "A WOMAN’S
THOUGHTS ABOUT WOMEN," &c. 1 vol. with Illustrations by BIRKET
FOSTER. 10s. 6d. bound.
"A volume of poems which will assuredly take its place with those
of Goldsmith, Gray, and Cowper, on the favourite shelf of every
Englishman’s library. We discover in these poems all the firmness,
vigour, and delicacy of touch which characterise the author’s
prose works, and in addition, an ineffable tenderness and grace,
such as we find in few poetical compositions besides those of
Tennyson."--_Illustrated News of the World._
“We are well pleased with these poems by our popular novelist. They
are the expression of genuine thoughts, feelings, and aspirations,
and the expression is almost always graceful, musical and
well-coloured. A high, pure tone of morality pervades each set of
verses, and each strikes the reader as inspired by some real event,
or condition of mind, and not by some idle fancy or fleeting
sentiment”--_Spectator._
=A LIFE FOR A LIFE.= By the Author of “JOHN HALIFAX GENTLEMAN,” &c.
"In ‘A Life for a Life’ the author is fortunate in a good subject,
and she has produced a work of strong effect. The reader, having
read the book through for the story, will be apt (if he be of our
persuasion) to return and read again many pages and passages with
greater pleasure than on a first perusal. The whole book is replete
with a graceful, tender delicacy; and, in addition to its other
merits, it is written in good, careful English."--_Athenæum._
"This book is signally the best its author has yet produced. The
interest is intense, and is everywhere admirably sustained. Incident
abounds, and both dialogue and style are natural and flowing. Great
delicacy in the development of character, and a subtle power of
self-analysis are conspicuous in ‘A Life for a Life,‘ while the
purity of its religious views, and the elevation--the grandeur,
indeed--of its dominating sentiments, render its influences in every
sense healthy and invigorating."--_The Press._
"‘A Life for a Life’ is one of the best of the author’s works. We
like it better than ‘John Halifax.’ It is a book we should like
every member of every family in England to read."--_Herald._
=REALITIES OF PARIS LIFE.= By the Author of “FLEMISH INTERIORS,” &c.
3 vols. with Illustrations. 31s. 6d.
"‘Realities of Paris Life’ Is a good addition to Paris books, and
important as affording true and sober pictures of the Paris
poor."--_Athenæum._
“There is much new matter pleasantly put together in these volumes.
Their merit will commend itself to all readers.”--_Examiner._
=NOVELS AND NOVELISTS, FROM ELIZABETH TO VICTORIA.= By J. C.
JEAFFRESON, ESQ. 2 vols. with Portraits. 21s.
=THE RIDES AND REVERIES OF MR. ÆSOP SMITH.= By MARTIN F. TUPPER,
D.C.L., F.R.S., Author of “Proverbial Philosophy,” “Stephen
Langton,” &c., 1 vol. post 8vo.
"This work will do good service to Mr. Tupper’s literary reputation.
It combines with lucidity and acuteness of judgment, freshness of
fancy and elegance of sentiment. In its cheerful and instructive
pages sound moral principles are forcibly inculcated, and everyday
truths acquire an air of novelty, and are rendered peculiarly
attractive by being expressed in that epigrammatic language which so
largely contributed to the popularity of the author’s former work,
entitled ‘Proverbial Philosophy.’"--_Morning Post._
=A MOTHER’S TRIAL.= By the Author of “THE DISCIPLINE OF LIFE,” “THE
TWO BROTHERS,” &c. 1 vol. with Illustrations, by BIRKET FOSTER.
7s. 6d. bound.
"‘A Mother’s Trial,’ by Lady Emily Ponsonby, is a work we
can recommend. It breathes purity and refinement in every
page.“--_Leader._
=SEVEN YEARS.=
By JULIA KAVANAGH.
Author of ”NATHALIE," 3 vols.
"Nothing can be better of its kind than Miss Kavanagh’s ‘Seven
Years.’ The story never flags in interest, so life-like are the
characters that move in it, so natural the incidents, and so genuine
the emotions they excite in persons who have taken fast hold on our
sympathy.“--_Spectator._
=LUCY CROFTON.=
By the Author of ”MARGARET MAITLAND."
1 vol.
“This is a charming novel. The characters are excellent; the plot is
well defined and new; and the interest is kept up with an intensity
which is seldom met with in these days. The author deserves our
thanks for one of the most pleasant books of the season”--_Herald._
=THE WOOD-RANGERS.=
By CAPTAIN MAYNE REID.
From the French of Louis de Bellemare.
3 vols., with illustrations.
=THE LITTLE BEAUTY.=
By MRS. GREY,
Author of "THE GAMBLER’S WIFE.“ 3 v.
=MR. AND MRS. ASHETON.=
By the Author of ”MARGARET AND HER
BRIDESMAIDS." 3 vols.
=THE WAY OF THE WORLD.=
By ALISON REED. 3 vols.
“There is a spell and fascination upon one from the first page to
the last.”--_John Bull._
=ALMOST A HEROINE.=
By the Author of “CHARLES AUCHESTER,”
&c. 3 vols.
"This novel is the author’s best."--_Herald._
=WAIT AND HOPE.=
By JOHN EDMUND READE. 3 vols.
"‘Wait and Hope’ reminds us of the style of Godwin."--_Athenæum._
=RAISED TO THE PEERAGE.=
By MRS. OCTAVIUS OWEN. 3 vols.
"‘Raised to the Peerage’ possesses very many of the requisites of a
really good novel."--_Examiner._
=FEMALE INFLUENCE.=
By LADY CHARLOTTE PEPYS, 2 vols.
=LETHELIER.=
by E. HENEAGE DERING, Esq.
2 vols.
=THE QUEEN Of HEARTS.=
By WILKIE COLLINS. 3 vols.
"‘The Queen of Hearts’ is such a fascinating creature that we cannot
choose but follow her through the pages with something of a lover’s
tenderness. As for the three old men, they are as good in their way
as the Brothers Cheeryble of immortal memory.“--_Literary Gazette._
=STEPHAN LANGTON.=
By MARTIN F. TUFFER. D.C.L. F.R.S.
Author of ”PROVERBIAL PHILOSOPHY,"
&c., 2 vols. with fine engravings.
“These volumes are pre-eminently qualified to attract attention both
from their peculiar style and their great ability. The author has
long been celebrated for his attainments in literary creation, but
the present work is incomparably superior to anything he has
hitherto produced.”--_Sun._
=CREEDS.=
By the Author of “THE MORALS OF
MAY FAIR.” 3 vols.
“This is a novel of strong dramatic situation, powerful plot,
alluring and continuous interest, admirably defined characters,
and much excellent remark upon human motives and social
positions.”--_Literary Gazette._
=THE LEES OF BLENDON HALL.=
By the Author of “ALICE WENTWORTH.”
“A powerful and well-sustained story of strong
interest.”--_Athenæum._
=NEWTON DOGVANE.=
A Story of English Life.
By FRANCIS FRANCIS.
With Illustrations by LEECH. 3 vols.
“A capital sporting novel.”--_Chronicle._
=HELEN LINDSAY;=
Or, THE TRIAL OF FAITH.
By A CLERGYMAN’S DAUGHTER. 2 vols.
=WOODLEIGH.=
By the Author of “WILDFLOWER,”
“ONE AND TWENTY,” &c. 3 vols.
=BENTLEY PRIORY.=
By MRS. HASTINGS PARKER. 3 vols.
“An acquisition to novel-readers from its brilliant descriptions,
sparkling style, and interesting story.”--_Sun._
NOW IN COURSE OF PUBLICATION.
HURST AND BLACKETT’S STANDARD LIBRARY
OF CHEAP EDITIONS OF
POPULAR MODERN WORKS.
Each in a single volume, elegantly printed, bound, and illustrated,
price 5s.
A volume to appear every two months. The following are now ready.
----------
=VOL. I.--SAM SLICK’S NATURE AND HUMAN NATURE.=
ILLUSTRATED BY LEECH.
"The first volume of Messrs. Hurst and Blackett’s Standard Library
of Cheap Editions of Popular Modern Works forms a very good
beginning to what will doubtless be a very successful undertaking.
‘Nature and Human Nature’ is one of the best of Sam Slick’s witty
and humorous productions, and well entitled to the large circulation
which it cannot fail to obtain in its present convenient and cheap
shape. The volume combines with the great recommendations of a
clear, bold type, and good paper, the lesser, but still attractive
merits, of being well illustrated and elegantly bound"--_Morning
Post._
"This new and cheap edition of Sam Slick’s popular work will be an
acquisition to all lovers of wit and humour. Mr. Justice
Haliburton’s writings are so well known to the English public that
no commendation is needed. The volume is very handsomely bound and
illustrated, and the paper and type are excellent. It is in every
way suited for a library edition, and as the names of Messrs. Hurst
and Blackett, warrant the character of the works to be produced in
their Standard Library, we have no doubt the project will be
eminently successful."--_Sun._
=VOL. II.--JOHN HALIFAX, GENTLEMAN.=
“This is a very good and a very interesting work. It is designed
to trace the career from boyhood to age of a perfect man--a
Christian gentleman, and it abounds in incident both well and
highly wrought. Throughout it is conceived in a high spirit, and
written with great ability, better than any former work, we think,
of its deservedly successful author. This cheap and handsome new
edition is worthy to pass freely from hand to hand, as a gift book
in many households.”--_Examiner._
"The new and cheaper edition of this interesting work will doubtless
meet with great success. John Halifax, the hero of this most
beautiful story, is no ordinary hero, and this, his history, is no
ordinary book. It is a full-length portrait of a true gentleman, one
of nature’s own nobility. It is also the history of a home and a
thoroughly English one. The work abounds in incident, and many of
the scenes are full of graphic power and true pathos. It is a book
that few will read without becoming wiser and better."--_Scotsman._
=VOL. III.--THE CRESCENT AND THE CROSS.=
BY ELIOT WARBURTON.
“Independent of its value as an original narrative, and its useful
and interesting information, this work is remarkable for the
colouring power and play of fancy with which its descriptions are
enlivened. Among its greatest and most lasting charms is its
reverent and serious spirit.”--_Quarterly Review._
"A book calculated to prove more practically useful was never penned
than ‘The Crescent and the Cross’--a work which surpasses all others
in its homage for the sublime and its love for the beautiful in
those famous regions consecrated to everlasting immortality in the
annals of the prophets, and which no other writer has ever depicted
with a pencil at once so reverent and so picturesque."--_Sun._
=VOL. IV.--NATHALIE. BY MISS KAVANAGH.=
"‘Nathalie’, is Miss Kavanagh’s best imaginative effort. Its manner
is gracious and attractive. Its matter is good. A sentiment, a
tenderness, are commanded by her which are as individual as they are
elegant. We should not soon come to an end were we to specify all
the delicate touches and attractive pictures which place ‘Nathalie’
high among books of its class."--_Athenæum._
“A tale of untiring interest, full of deep touches of human nature.
We have no hesitation in predicting for this delightful tale a
lasting popularity, and a place in the foremost ranks of that most
instructive kind of fiction--the moral novel.”--_John Bull._
"A more judicious selection than ‘Nathalie’ could not have been made
for Messrs. Hurst and Blackett’s Standard Library. The series as it
advances realises our first impression, that it will be one of
lasting celebrity."--_Literary Gazette._
=VOL. V.--A WOMAN’S THOUGHTS ABOUT WOMEN.=
BY THE AUTHOR OF “JOHN HALIFAX, GENTLEMAN.”
“A book of sound counsel. It is one of the most sensible works of
its kind, well-written, true-hearted, and altogether practical.
Whoever wishes to give advice to a young lady may thank the author
for means of doing so.”--_Examiner._
"The author of ‘John Halifax’ will retain and extend her hold
upon the reading and reasonable public by the merits of her
present work, which bears the stamp of good sense and genial
feeling."--_Guardian._
“These thoughts are good and humane. They are thoughts we would wish
women to think”--_Athenæum._
"This really valuable volume ought to be in every young woman’s
hand. It will teach her how to think and how to act. We are glad to
see it in this Standard Library."--_Literary Gazette._
=VOL. VI.--ADAM GRAEME, OF MOSSGRAY.=
BY THE AUTHOR OF “MRS. MARGARET MAITLAND.”
“‘Adam Graeme’ is a story awakening genuine emotions of interest and
delight by its admirable pictures of Scottish life and scenery. The
plot is cleverly complicated, and there is great vitality in the
dialogue, and remarkable brilliancy in the descriptive passages, as
who that has read ‘Margaret Maitland’ would not be prepared to
expect? But the story has a ‘mightier magnet still,’ in the healthy
tone which pervades it, in its feminine delicacy of thought and
diction, and in the truly womanly tenderness of its sentiments. The
eloquent author sets before us the essential attributes of Christian
virtue, their deep and silent workings in the heart, and their
beautiful manifestations in the life, with a delicacy, a power, and
a truth which can hardly be surpassed."--_Morning Post._
“‘Adam Graeme’ is full of eloquent writing and description. It is an
uncommon work, not only in the power of the style, in the interest
of the narrative, and in the delineation of character, but in the
lessons it teaches."--_Sun._
=VOL. VII.--SAM SLICK’S WISE SAWS
AND MODERN INSTANCES.=
"The best of all Judge Haliburton’s admirable works. It is one of
the pleasantest books we ever read, and we earnestly recommend
it."--_Standard._
"The humour of Sam Slick is inexhaustible. He is ever and everywhere
a welcome visitor; smiles greet his approach, and wit and wisdom
hang upon his tongue. The present production is remarkable alike for
its racy humour, its sound philosophy, the felicity of its
illustrations, and the delicacy of its satire. We promise our
readers a great treat from the perusal of these ‘Wise Saws and
Modern Instances,’ which contain a world of practical wisdom, and a
treasury of the richest fun."--_Post._
=VOL. VIII.--CARDINAL WISEMAN’S RECOLLECTIONS
OF THE LAST FOUR POPES.=
“There is no dynasty of European sovereigns about which we English
entertain so much vague curiosity, or have so little information, as
about the successors to the Popedom. Cardinal Wiseman is just the
author to meet this curiosity. His book is the lively record of what
he has himself seen, and what none but himself, perhaps, has had so
good an opportunity of thoroughly estimating. There is a gossipping,
all-telling style about the book which is certain to make it popular
with English readers.”--_John Bull._
“A picturesque book on Rome and its ecclesiastical sovereigns, by an
eloquent Roman Catholic. Cardinal Wiseman has here treated a special
subject with so much generality and geniality, that his
recollections will excite no ill-feeling in those who are most
conscientiously opposed to every idea of human infallibility
represented in Papal domination.”--_Athenæum._
“In the description of the scenes, the ceremonies, the
ecclesiastical society, the manners and habits of Sacerdotal Rome,
this work is unrivalled. It is full of anecdotes. We could fill
columns with amusing extracts.”--_Chronicle._
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note
There are several anomolies in the footnoting. In the original,
there is a single footnote 1 in the Preface, and the numbering
begins again at the opening of the first chapter. The sequence
continues to 99, and then restarts with 1. This is repeated several
times. There are also several notes which are denoted only with a
traditional asterisk. On occasion, footnotes appear out of order.
There is no apparent reason for the dual system, and it seems most
likely that the non-numeric references were added later, after the
numbering had been completed, and were used to avoid the need to
re-sequence work already done.
For this text, all footnotes have been re-sequenced numerically
across the whole volume, to assure uniqueness. They will appear in
the correct order.
There was a unaccountable gap in the numbering between note 14 (now
317) on p. 304 and note 27 on the following page. That gap has been
closed.
The footnote number ‘59’ (now 159) on p. 150 was missing, and was
restored here. The same problem occurred on p. 188. Note 8 (now 206)
has been restored.
Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected,
and are noted here.
Given the frequent quotations, it was inevitable that opening and
closing quotation marks would sometimes be lost or misplaced. A
sampling of these problematic passages reveals that the author has a
tendency to paraphrase and otherwise misquote. They are placed here
where the context or voice makes their position obvious, or where an
inspection of the original sources was possible and allowed for the
proper placement.
Where, in resolving these discrepancies, it was found that the
reference to sources were themselves incorrect, the correction has
been made. Since there is no bibliography specifying the edition of
the author’s sources, these corrections were made only where the
error was obvious. For instance, in a passage on pp. 136-137,
footnote 140, referring to State Paper, cxlii., No 13, was can be
validated, however the matter referred to in the following note,
incorrectly identifies the paragraph as No. 15, rather than No. 45,
where the paraphrased quotation can be found. Again, no attempt was
made to validate the accuracy of these attributions except where the
problematic printings of quotations were being resolved.
The references below are to the page and line in the original. Where
three numbers are referenced, the second refers to a note on that
page, and the third to the line therein.
9.4 in returning to land at Southampton,[”] Added.
34.3 King Philip, followed by his [thaclow], _Sic_: ?
Don Carlos
37.8 Buckingham added in a post[s]cript Added.
43.11 two pairs of pearl-shaped ear-rings, _sic_ no “
marvellous great.[”]
70.15 now that he was going to the House of Added.
Rinmon.[”]
80.15 [“]pious endeavours would fill the King Added.
80.28 guided by wor[l]dly wisdom Added.
105.8 and others, [“]to bargain for them, Removed.
137.4 leaving his minister to his fate.[”] Removed.
137.141.1 State Papers, clxii., No. [15/45] Replaced.
154.152.1 Brodie’s Co[r/n]. Hist., vol. ii., p. 128, Replaced.
note.
155.163.1 Brodie’s Co[r/n]. Hist., vol. ii., p. 128, Replaced.
note.
168.25 The Earl of Holland had had,[”] says Removed.
Bishop Hacket,
183.16 [“]a feather made with great diamonds Added.
182.18 all studded with diamonds,[”] Added.
184.2 all [‘]things suitable.[’/”] [“]His other Removed/Replaced/Added.
suits,” adds the narrator
184.24 were provided with three rich suits a[ Removed.
]piece
232.3 [“]a disease which all the drugs of Asia Added. Pro
237.21 that would give him no rest.[”] Added.
238.19 it is dated, “Burghley, 18th July, Added.
1625.[”]>
247.267.5 Macpherson’s History of Commerce[./,] Replaced.
305.8 [“]who exclaimed, ‘They are worse than Added.
devils who say so.’”
308.22 to register the edicts of the Crown[”] Added. Probable.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The life and times of George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, Volume 2 (of 3) - From original and authentic sources" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.