Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 02.djvu/102

 Armstrong nere of him' (Addit. MSS. 19402, f. 79). According to his own account Philip IV granted him a pension of which he received in 1631 'the arrearages amounting to 1,500l.' (Authentic Documents of time of Charles I, ii. 104), and we know that Olivarez, the prime minister, gave him a 'rich suit.' James Howell (Letters, p. 136), writing from Madrid (10 July 1623), says that 'our cousin Archie hath more privilege than any,' and that he was often invited to amuse the Infanta in her private chamber, and one day twitted her with the defeat of the Armada. To his English companions he made himself repeatedly obnoxious. Sir Tobie Matthew, one of Prince Charles's attendants, unable to endure his blunt taunts, quarrelled openly with him one day at a public dinner, and before the embassy left Madrid he came to very high words with Buckingham. He 'dared to speak his opinion to the duke,' says Fray Francisco, the author of 'the Narrative of the Spanish Marriage' (published for Camden Soc. p. 252), 'with all the force of truth, blaming severely the manner in which the whole negotiation had been carried on without consistency or truthfulness.' Buckingham, unable to silence Armstrong, threatened to have him hanged, and 'the fool replied in a way worthy of one of better sense: "No one has ever heard of a fool being threatened for talking, but many dukes have been beheaded for their insolence."' On his return to England, Armstrong's continued attacks upon the Spanish match and upon Buckingham rendered him highly popular. Ben Jonson made more or less complimentary references to 'the principal fool of state' in a masque prepared for the court revels on Twelfth Night 1623–4, in the 'Staple of News' (iii. 1), written in 1625, and in his 'Discoveries' (vii. 80), and Bishop Corbet in his 'Poems' (p. 68) spoke of the clamorous applause and laughter provoked by 'salt Archy.'

On the accession of Charles I Armstrong retained his office, and, being permitted as much license as before, wielded for a time no little political power. A petition from William Beloe, a Danish pensioner of the king's mother, shows how jealously he was regarded by the other attendants at court. Beloe states, that the king had given so special a direction for the payment of Archie's entertainment, that he was better off than in the late king's time; and another petition of a later date tells us that Charles I gave Armstrong an estate of 1,000 acres in Ireland. In a letter of much political interest addressed at the end of the year 1628 to the Earl of Carlisle, Archie boldly writes in reference to the murder of Buckingham, that 'the greatest enemy of three kings is gone;' from the same source we learn that Armstrong was married, and that a son had just been born to him whom he named Philip for the 'King of Spain's sake,' and whose godparents comprised five of the highest officials and peeresses in the state. But Armstrong's fall was not far distant. With Archbishop Laud he was, as with Buckingham, never on good terms. The fool openly ridiculed his religious and political principles, and a quarrel between them lingered on for many years. On one occasion Armstrong, having obtained permission to say grace at Whitehall in Laud's presence, blurted out 'Great praise be given to God, and little laud to the devil.' The archbishop was at first unable to obtain any redress; his enemies rallied round Armstrong, and the fool continued with impunity to 'belch in his face such miscarriages as he was really guilty of.' But on the Marquis of Hamilton's return from Scotland in 1637 Avith the news of the rebellion at Stirling in opposition to Laud's new liturgy, the fool, after many expressions of disapproval of the Scotch policy, went a step too far. Meeting the archbishop as he was entering the council chamber at Whitehall on 11 March 1636–7, he shouted out, 'Whoe's feule now? Does not your grace hear the news from Striveling?' Laud at once brought the matter before the council, at which the king and many noblemen were present, and Armstrong was condemned 'to have his coat pulled over his head and be discharged the king's service and banished the king's court.' Armstrong pleaded in vain the privilege of his office; the order was summarily executed, and the post of court-jester was immediately filled up. According to some accounts Laud endeavoured to bring the fool before the Star Chamber, and the mediation of the queen alone prevented the success of this attempt.

For some years after his disgrace Armstrong remained in London. He was seen on one occasion walking disconsolately about Westminster Abbey, dressed in black like a priest, a disguise in which, he said, he could speak with impunity whatever scandal he pleased. But his wealth had enabled him to become a large creditor, and he spent much of his time in mercilessly distraining on his debtors. Many petitions to the privy council and the House of Lords complain of the sharp practices he employed to obtain the repayment of his loans, and from 1638 to 1642 a lawsuit was pending between him and the Dean of York with regard to 200l. alleged to be due to him from the latter, and Laud intervened in the clergyman's behalf. One attempt Armstrong made to revenge himself