Holland) and Carlisle were appointed to negotiate it.

In a short time, every thing was agreed on, and great rejoicings were made, both at Paris and London, on account of the conclusion of the marriage-treaty, which contained articles equally as favourable to the English catholics as that sworn to with Spain. But the death of James, which happened March 27, 1625, (not without

I

he hath done himself this right with me, that I discern his sufficiency more and more."-" The delicacy of the keeper's wit", says a certain writer, "in unriddling this mystery, came not short of that of Cicero, in finding out the bottom of Catiline's conspiracy." will not at all detract from the wit and dexterity of Williams, in unravelling this affair to the prince and duke; (though how consistent this correspondence with a courtezan was with the character of a bishop and a lord-keeper, the reader will determine :) but I cannot let this piece of history pass without observing, 1. The obsequiousness of this right reverend and right honourable father in God, Williams, towards the duke of Buckingham; and how solicitous to curry favour with him, though remarkable for vile behaviour, both political and moral. Doubtless, he must have been very mindful of the duties of both his functions, who spared. no cost to get intelligence of every hour's occurrences

→ Bishop Hacket's Memoirs of the Life of Archbishop Williams abridged, p. 72, 73, 74. Lond. 8vo. 1715. Lives of the Lord Chancellors, vol. II. p. 117. Lond. 8vo. 1712.

causing suspicions against Buckingham, and even prince Charles) prevented the con

at court, and devoted his midnight hours to unravel political intrigues.

2. The strict connexion between the prince and Buckingham is from hence very apparent. As is, in the

3d place, The dissimulation of James, so very remarkable through his whole life. For though, on the sight of the papers presented, he affected to talk of the Spanish ambassadors as no better than traitors; of his being grieved for having suspected them, and of the clearness of their innocency; yet it is very probable, that in his heart he never forgave Buckingham, nor was wholly pleased with the prince, who adhered to him, and acted contrary to his express will and desire in the impeachment and sentence of the earl of Middlesex a.

The death of king James, which happened-not without causing suspicions against the duke of Buckingham, and even prince Charles, &c.] The grounds for suspecting that Buckingham poisoned king James, I have very particularly set forth in another place. But the suspicions against Charles, his son, are now to be mentioned; the impartiality of history requires it. It is well known the house of commons, among other articles of impeachment against the duke of Buckingham in 1626, inserted one concerning the plaisters administered by him to king James, which, according to them, occasioned his death. The duke, in his defence, denied the charge, and protested his innocency but the commons declared they were ready to prove it on him, unless prevented; which they

* See Clarendon, vol. I. p. 23, 24. near the conclusion.

See the preceding volume,

summation of it; though soon afterwards (the duke of Buckingham being sent to con

ivere, by a dissolution. Upon this a charge is framed against prince Charles, as if he was concerned in the fact, and therefore unwilling it should undergo a parliamentary examination. Though king Charles was bound to prosecute king James's death, says Sir Edward Peyton, committed contrary to all the laws of God and nations; yet king Charles, to save the duke, dissolved the parliament; and never after had the truth tried, to clear himself from confederacy, or the duke from so heinous a scandal. Now let all the world judge of Charles's carriage, whether he was not guilty of conniving at so foul a sin."-Lilly, in more moderate terms, delivers the censure on king Charles, "That king James was really and absolutely poisoned by a plaister, applied by Buckingham's mother unto king James's stomach, was evidently proved before a committee: but whether Buckingham himself, or king Charles, was guilty, either in the knowledge of, oṛ application of the plaister, I could never learn. Many feared the king did know of it, and they gave this reason; because, when the parliament did order to question Buckingham for it, and had prepared their charge or articles to present against him in the house of lords, and to accuse him thereof, his majesty, contrary to all expectation, and as in affront to both houses, and in the upper house, when the articles caine up, gave Buckingham his hand to kiss, carried him away, &c. This action lost him the present parliament's affections; even the most sober of his friends held him very much overseen, to deny a parliamen tary justice in any matter whatsoever; but in matter

The Divine Catastrophe of the Stuarts, p. 19. 8vo. Lond. 1731.

duct the queen, who had been espoused at Paris by the duke of Chevereux in the king's name) she landed at Dover, and was met there by his Majesty, who accompanied her to London, where they were received with great expressions of affection and rejoicing.

of poison, and the party poisoned being his father, in that to prohibit a due course, or a legal proceeding against the party suspected, it was to deny justice with a refractory hand."-Milton, in severe terms, speaks of Charles on this account. "Quam similis Neroni fuerit Carolus, ostendam. Nero, inquis, matrem suam, ferro, necavit. Carolus & patrem, & regem veneno; nam, ut alia omittam indicia, qui ducem veneficii reum legibus eripuit, fieri non potuit quin ipse reus quoque fuerit"." i. e. "I will let you (speaking to Salmasius) see how like Charles was to Nero; Nero, you say, put to death his own mother; but Charles murthered both his prince and his father, by poison. For, to omit other evidences, he that would not suffer a duke that was accused of it, to come to his trial, must needs have been guilty of it himself."-How this conclusion of Milton and the others will stand, the reader must determine. For my own part, though it is evident that Charles acted very unwisely in screening Buckingham from a trial, and gave grounds for his adversaries to surmise that he was not unconscious of the horrid deed, I cannot load his memory with it, for the following

reasons:

* Observations on the Life and Death of King Charles, p. 20. at the end of the History of his Life and Times, 12mo. Lond. 1721. Milton's Works, vol. II. p. 330, 4to. Lond. 1753.

The name of this lady was Henrietta Maria, daughter of Henry IV. and sister to Lewis XIII. of France, said to be of an excellent air and beauty of countenance, of great vivacity, a lover of intrigues, and one who treated her husband with the utmost inso

1. He never shewed, by any other part of his conduct, that he was capable of being a party in so wicked an action. Now where men's private characters are fair, there should be positive proof, ere they be pronounced guilty; which I think is wanting here.

2. The charge is brought by bitter and implacable enemies, and therefore may be somewhat aggravated.

3. In the remonstrance presented to the king, Dec. 1, 1641, which sets forth his evil conduct from the beginning, there is no hint given that he was deemed culpable in this matter; nor do I remember, among all the sharp papers which were published by the two houses against him, that he is once charged with it.

4. At his trial it was not objected to him, nor was he reproached with it by Cooke or Bradshaw.

5. When going to the scaffold, it being asked him, "Whether he were not consenting to his father's `death," he replied, "Friend, if I had no other sin, (I speak it with reverence to God's majesty) I assure thee, I would never ask him pardon "."

These are the reasons for which I am for pronouncing Charles innocent in this matter, nor have I any great doubt about the reader's concurring in the justice of the sentence. However the public, as it has a right, must judge of this as well as other matters here laid

Sir Philip Warwick's Memoirs, p. 342. 8vo. Lond. 1702.