Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu/143

] had carried their machinations far, and had taken houses in the suburbs in their own names to shelter such disaffected and outlawed personages. And finally, they had abused their power over the queen by making her go publicly to a place (Tyburn) where many catholics had suffered in past times, whereby they sought her to regard those executed malefactors as martyrs, and his ancestors as tyrants and persecutors.

This last charge we find thus stated by Pory in his letter to Meade on the 5th of July, 1626—"And no longer ago than upon St. James's Day last, these hypocritical dogs made the poor queen to walk a-foot, some add barefoot, from her house in St. James's to the gallows at Tyburn, thereby to honour the saint of the day in visiting that holy place, where so many martyrs, forsooth, had shed their blood in defence of the catholic cause. Had they not also made her to dabble in the dirt on a foul morning from Somerset House to St. James's, her Luciferian confessor riding along by her in his coach! Yes, they have made her go barefoot, to spin, to eat her meat out of tryne (woollen) dishes, to wait at the table, and serve her servants; with many other ridiculous and absurd fooleries."

Charles thoroughly believed in the walk to Tyburn, but the queen stoutly denied it, representing it to have originated in an accidental walk on a summer's afternoon in the parks of St. James's and Hyde Park; and Bassompierre, in an eloquent speech before the privy council, maintained that view of it. After much exertion Bassompierre succeeded, but not before the latter end of November, in settling all difficulties and reconciling all parties. He first produced a reconciliation betwixt the queen and Buckingham, which delighted Charles so much, that it facilitated greatly an amicable arrangement for the queen's future household. It was conceded that the queen should have a bishop and ten priests, a confessor and his coadjutor, and ten musicians for her chapel. The chapel of St. James's was to be finished, and another built for her at Somerset House. She was to have in attendance on her person two ladies of the bed-chamber, three bed-chamber women, one lingère, and a clear-starcher, all French. Two physicians, an apothecary, and a surgeon. A grand chamberlain, a squire, a secretary, a gentleman-usher of the privy-chamber, one of the chamber of presence, a valet of the privy chamber, and a baker. All her officers of the mouth and the goblet were to be French.

Ample as these concessions appear, Bassompierre found the queen still unsatisfied, and plainly told her that he would the next day take his leave, return to France, and declare to the king her brother, and her mother, that she alone was in fault. This appeared to have full effect, and Bassompierre had the merit of a most perfect success in this arduous case; for ever after the king and queen lived in great unity and affection, and however the world went with them, showed a genuine and deep attachment to each other; an ample proof of the mischief having originated with her mischievous attendants.

From the question of domestic difference, Bassompierre and the king in council proceeded to topics of national difference. Each party had something to complain of. Bassompierre complained that the marriage treaty had been violated at every point; that Charles had bound himself both to permit the tree exercise of the queen's religion, and toleration of the catholics at large; but that his treatment of the queen and her retinue, and his persecution of the catholics were, notwithstanding, patent breaches of this contract. The council denied the persecution, endeavouring to get rid of the charge by alleging that Charles himself had made no new laws against the catholics, but had only administered those which had descended to him. This was no answer, for it was a suppression of those laws of his father's that the French had bargained for; and when this point was pressed, the council admitted that Charles had agreed to certain clauses in the marriage treaty, and had confirmed them since coming to the throne; but they declined that his majesty had regarded these clauses as merely pro formâ, and only intended to satisfy the catholic party in France, and the pope, without whom the marriage could not be effected. This was a doctrine so profligate, and so destructive of all faith in those that used it, that none but the believers in the treacherous principle of kingcraft, could have used it. It was with better show of reason that they objected, the French king had pledged himself to an alliance offensive and defensive for the restoration of the prince palatine, but had done nothing, furnished neither money nor men; on the contrary, he had refused a passage to the troops of court Mansfeldt, Frederick's general. They accused Louis also of infraction of the treaty with regard to the Huguenots, especially those of Rochelle; and avowed that Charles felt himself bound by that contract to support them in their just demands. They also contended that as it regarded the queen's religion, no restraint had been put upon it, for that her priests and attendants had not been sent back because they were catholics, but because they had been disturbers of his majesty's household and government.

It was finally concluded that Henrietta should have one French bishop, twelve French priests, none of whom were to be Jesuits, and various other functionaries, as already mentioned; with which Bassompierre expressed himself fully satisfied, on Charles promising not to enforce the penalties against recusants, and releasing the catholic priests now in prison on account of their religion. Charles promised, but his promises were worth nothing after his avowal in council of making promises or taking oaths just for present convenience; and he actually gave up the priests, seventeen in number, who went over to France in the train of the ambassador, a clear proof that they had no faith in the king's pledge of abstaining from persecution.

Bassompierre, on arriving at Paris, was coldly received by the king and queen-mother, because he had not insisted on the rigid performance of all the marriage articles; which had he done, would have certainly left the reconciliation unaccomplished. One request which he had to prefer he knew beforehand would be rejected. Buckingham, unabashed by the blunt and significant refusal of his proposal to return to Paris, had importuned Bassompierre to again request that he might go there as ambassador. A still more prompt and blunt denial was given, and the foolish duke determined to have his revenge. From that moment the attack of France was prepared for with all the diligence of rancour.

The state of feeling on both sides of the channel, indeed.