head of an army prepared to drive them out of Westminster, and ready to explain that, startling as the proceeding might seem, it was only a temporary and accidental interruption of the harmonious working of the constitution.

Charles, of all men, was most anxious to save Strafford, but neither he nor the Queen could understand that they could only save him by entirely renouncing all thought of appealing to force. Already an offer had been made to them which they were loth entirely to reject, and that offer, if it were once known, would be sufficient to seal Strafford's fate.

Wants of the English army.

For some time the dissatisfaction in the English army had been on the increase. "This I will say of you of the Parlialiament," wrote one of the officers in January to his brother, who was a member of the House of Commons; "you are the worst paymasters I know. Next Tuesday we have six weeks due to us, and unless there be some speedy course taken for the payment you may well expect to hear that all our soldiers are in a mutiny, to the ruin of the country, for they are notable sheep-stealers already."1

Effect of the
Commons'

vote in

Scots.

tion of the

English officers.

On March 6, in the very height of the pressure for payment to the Scots,2 the Commons had come to a vote, transferring to the troops of that nation 10,000l. which had been previously assigned to the English army. The news favour of the had naturally caused the gravest dissatisfaction amongst the troops in Yorkshire. Their talk ran on mutiny. Officers and soldiers were alike in distress. Henry Dissatisfac- Percy, brother of the Earl of Northumberland, Ashburnham, Wilmot, and Pollard, were members of the House of Commons as well as officers. "If such papers as that of the Scots," said Wilmot in the House, when the matter was under discussion, "will procure monies, I doubt not but the officers of the English army may easily do the like." When the vote had been passed these four officers consulted together. The resolution which they adopted was apparently a curious resultant from the double character which they bore. As officers of an army which had been stinted in its pay by the I E. Verney to R. Verney, Jan. 15, Verney MSS. 2 Idem, March 8, ibid.

1641

THE ARMY DISSATISFIED.

309

House of Commons, they were ready to offer their services to the King. As members of the House of Commons they were bound to keep within the limits of constitutional law, at least

An army petition proposed by Percy and others.

after their own interpretation. They proposed to induce the officers in the North to sign a declaration that they would stand by the King if Parliamentary pressure were put upon him to compel him to assent to the exclusion of the bishops from the House of Lords, or to force him to disband the Irish army before the Scots were disbanded, or if the full revenue which he had enjoyed for so many years were not placed in his hands.

Such was the military version of the fundamental laws of the realm. Percy was commissioned to offer to the King the supThe King to port of the army on these terms. There can be very be informed. little doubt that he knew pretty well that these three points were precisely those on which Charles was most anxious

He has already

heard of another plan.

The Queen

in her hopes

assistance.

Richelieu refuses to receive her in France.

that a stand should be made. Yet when he spoke to the King on the subject he was surprised to find that a more violent proposal still had already been laid before him.1

That proposal, like all other violent proposals to which Charles was called on to listen, was warmly supported by the Queen. Henrietta Maria had been ready in the disappointed beginning of March to clutch at any aid, however of foreign hopeless it might seem. She had been deeply disappointed in her expectation of foreign help. Richelieu had intimated to her, in his most polite phrases, that it would not be advisable, in her own interest, that she should visit France in this conjuncture of her affairs; and she reasonably conjectured that this advice. concealed a preference for an alliance with a strong Parliament 1 Percy to Northumberland, June 14 (Rushworth, iv. 255). It is impossible to trace out the dates of these early proceedings of Percy and his friends. The interview with the King must have taken place a few days before March 21, as from Chudleigh's evidence on Aug. 13 (Harl. MSS. clxiv. 28) it appears that Percy and his friends had drawn back (as Suckling expressed himself) about March 20; that is to say, probably on March 21, the date on which Chudleigh arrived from the North. The interview took place before this.

The Pope

her unless

the King changes his religion.

to one with a weak king. She was, however, obliged to announce that she was no longer in danger of falling into a consumption, and that she was therefore able to endure the English climate.1 Annoying as this rebuff was, she was soon afterwards subjected to a still greater annoyance. Rossetti informed her that an answer to her application for will not help money had been received from Rome, and that the Pope would no nothing for her unless her husband declared himself a Catholic. He need not avow his conversion openly at first. It would be enough if the Papal authorities were left in no doubt of the fact. The Queen knew that the Pope might as well have refused her request in distinct terms. She told Rossetti that she wished much that it might be with her husband as His Holiness desired, but that everything depended on God. Why should not offers liberty the Pope content himself with that which was really practicable? If victory were gained with papal aid the Catholics should be permitted to keep open churches in England, and should be entirely freed from all impediments to the exercise of their religion.

The Queen

of worship for the Catholics.

Father Philips adjured Rossetti to counsel the acceptance of this offer. He urged that the King was now in want only of money. He had men enough at his disposal. Irish Catholics were ready to serve him, and there were Protestants whose devotion could also be counted on. Whatever stipulations were made, the King's victory would turn to the advantage of the Catholics. Without their aid Charles would find it impossible to maintain his authority. The chief difficulty unfortunately lay with Charles himself. He was timid, and slow in coming to a resolution. Rossetti recommended that the Queen should be urged to employ herself on the good work of his conversion. She knew how the royal authority in France had been strengthened by her father's acknowledgment of the true faith.2

If no help was to be had from abroad, the eager, restless 1 Richelieu's Memoir for Chavigny, Avenel, vi. 756. Montreuil's despatch, March Bibl. Nat. Fr. 15,995, fol. 203.

2 Rossetti to Barberini, March 12, R. O. Transcripts.

22'

1641

SUCKLING'S ADVICE.

311

woman must turn elsewhere for relief from the intolerable dis

other help.

Sir John

She looks for grace and burden of her life. The quarter from which the suggestion of assistance now reached her was not one which would have commended itself to anyone versed in the realities of the world. Sir John Suckling was a gay courtier, much addicted to gambling, like many Suckling. others who, by the side of the grave decorum of Charles's domestic life, anticipated the loose profligacies of the Whitehall of Charles II. As a writer of sparkling verses he secured the admiration of his contemporaries, and has retained the admiration of later generations. His conversation was as easy and brilliant as his verse, and he readily made himself acceptable to the ladies of the Court, who thought it no shame to listen to the airy doctrine that constancy in married life was a fit object of scorn, and that modesty was but an empty name.. Amongst men he was not much respected. Once in his life he had thought of marrying a lady whose attractions were to be found in the weight of her purse. A rival, strong of arm, cudgelled him till he agreed to renounce all claims upon the golden prize. When Charles marched to the Border in 1639, Suckling raised, at his own expense, a hundred troopers decked in such gorgeous array as to expose him on his return to the laughter of rhymesters, who charged him with cowardice in the field, of which there is no reason to suppose that he had been specially guilty.1

Such was the man who had already taken upon himself to give advice which was to save the falling throne. The counsel

Suckling advises the King to act.

which he offered showed that at least he had eyes to see something of the cause of the King's misfortunes. Charles, he said was being ruined because he remained merely passive. If he wished to recover the affections of his people he must show that he was capable of acting. He must make it clearly understood that he had cut

1 The verses on Suckling and his troop are in Musarum Delicia, i. 81. Probably his horse was under Holland's command, and shared in the retreat from Kelso. We have such detailed information on that campaign that if Suckling had performed any special act of cowardice it would have been heard of.

adrift for ever those unpopular counsellors who had brought him nothing but odium. The Queen, too, must sacrifice her personal preferences for the sake of her husband. It was no hard matter for a king to be popular if he chose to give himself the trouble. The English people had no formed habit of reverence for the persons of the Parliamentary leaders, whilst loyalty to the King was a traditional feeling, which might easily be re-awakened. So far Suckling's advice was excellent. It was utterly disappointing at its close. The King was recommended to outbid the Parliamentary leaders by granting all, and more than all, that was desired. What concessions this indefinite recommendation covered, Suckling did not say. He had no knowledge of the real conditions of the political problem, or of any solution by which they could be satisfied. His advice to act ended in the vaguest suggestions as to the thing to be done. Political wisdom was not to be expected from a fribble.1

The letter in which Suckling gave the measure of his value as a politician was addressed to Henry Jermyn, and Jermyn Henry was the trusted counsellor of the Queen, though even Jermyn. he had been kept completely in the dark on the negotiations with Rome. So far as he had any religion at all, he was a Protestant, and his imperturbable self-reliance attracted the respect of the spirited and excitable lady whom he served. He was not too wise to think it possible to support the monarchy upon an armed soldiery, and did not trouble himself to develop a policy which might command respect. Somewhere about the middle of March, just at the time when Percy and his associates were preparing their scheme for a petition from the army, Jermyn and Suckling were consulting together as to the possibility of drawing the army to a more direct intervention in the strife between Charles and his Parliament. Suckling, like Percy, looked to the discontent caused by the vote which, on March 6, had transferred 10,000l. from the English to the Scottish army, as offering a basis for his operations.

1 Suckling's Works, ed. Hazlitt, ii. 233.

6

2 Rossetti to Barberini, Nov. R. O. Transcripts.

16'