CHAPTER XII. CHARLES I. Charles's Liberality to the Queen's French Attendants — Their Attempt at Extortion - Misunderstandings between Charles and His Queen — Accusations against the Conjugal Faith of Charles Letter from Him to the Duke of BuckinghamThe White King-Strict Decorum of Charles's Court — Magnificent Entertainments - · Patrician Actors - Charles's Exaction of Court Etiquette - His Unconciliating Manners His Learning and Accomplishments — His Respect for Literature His Love of the Arts - Sale of His Magnificent Collection. - THE liberality of Charles, when he found it imperative on him to dismiss the queen's French attendants, was munificent in the extreme. The list of donations is preserved among the Harleian MSS., and amounts to 22,6721. Not content, however, with this profuse generosity, the women commenced such a disgraceful and sweeping attack on the queen's wardrobe, that they actually left but one gown and "two smocks to her back." Probably jewels and other articles of value were likewise purloined, for the lords of the council thought it necessary to interfere, and to attempt to enforce a restitution; we are informed, however, that an old satin gown was all they could prevail on the foreigners to return. The same roguery was also attempted in the queen's stables, her master of the horse, the Count de Scipieres, laying claim to all the horses and furniture under his charge. But the most ingenious attempt was one of extortion, in which the queen herself, from a weak regard for her favourites, consented to be a party. They drew up a long list of various sums, amounting in all to 19,000l., for which they asserted Henrietta to be their debtor. The queen admitted the validity of the claims; but, on being closely interrogated by Charles, eventually acknowledged the imposture. Surely every part of the foregoing narrative tends to exonerate Charles from the sweeping accusation of matrimonial tameness, which has been so often and so sedulously brought against him. He has himself left us an account of what he endured at this period. Naturally anxious to justify his conduct to his brother-in-law, the French king, he despatched Lord Carlton as his ambassador to Paris, and, in his instructions to that nobleman, enters into a full detail of the queen's behaviour, and of his own feelings. This curious document was originally published by order of the Parliament, in the "King's Cabinet Opened," in which interesting collection it may be consulted by the curious. That Charles, at this period, had frequent misunderstandings with his queen there can be no question. The fault, however, was most decidedly on the part of Henrietta; indeed, if we are to consider as authentic the instrument just alluded to, and it certainly bears all the features of truth, there can be little doubt but that, at this period of their married life, she constantly behaved herIself toward him with the most insufferable insolence. Their quarrels were doubtless fomented by Buckingham, who trembled lest the queen should obtain an undue influence over her husband. "The Queen of England," says Madame de Motteville, "related to me that, quickly after her marriage with King Charles the First, she had some dislike to the king her husband, and that Buckingham fomented it; that gentleman saying to her face that he would set her and her husband at variance, if he could." It is evident, from the account given by Bassompierre of his embassy into England, and also from the letters of the time, that Henrietta was almost daily either in tears or in a passion. Bassompierre mentions an occasion of the king entering an apartment in which he happened to be conversing with Henrietta, when, it appears, she instantly "picked a quarrel" with her husband. "The king," he says, "took me to his chamber, and talked a great deal with me, making me complaints of the queen, his wife." With the dismissal of the French train, peace and comfort seem for the first time to have gladdened the domestic privacy of Charles. The accusation which has been brought against Charles, of having broken his marriage vows, rests almost entirely on the assertions of the republican triumvirate, Milton, Peyton, and Lilly, whose charges are as vague as their minds were prejudiced. Lilly remarks "that he had not heard of above one or two natural children whom the king had, or left behind him." Peyton enters rather more into detail. "The queen," he says, "was very jealous of the king, insomuch as he, loving a very great lady now alive, whom he had for a mistress, sent her lord into the Low Countries; in the meanwhile daily courts her at Oxford, in her husband's and the queen's absence; but the lord returning, the king diverted his affectionate thoughts to another married lady, of whom the queen was jealous on her return from France, so that on a time this lady being in Queen Mary's presence and dressed à la mode, the queen viewing her round, told the lady she would be a better mistress for a king than a wife for a knight. The lady replied, Madam, I had rather be a mistress to a king, than any man's wife in the world.' For which answer she was constrained to absent herself from court a long time." The same writer alludes to the jealousy and indignation of Charles, on seeing a certain nobleman handing through the court at Whitehall a lady whom he "dearly loved." But the most unfair attack is that of Milton. "Have you the impudence," he writes to Salmasius, "to commend his chastity and sobriety who is known to have committed all manner of lewdness in company with his confidant, the Duke of Buckingham? It were to no purpose to inquire into the private actions of his life who publicly at plays would embrace and kiss the ladies." All this the republican and "holy poet" must have well known to be false. Let us remember that no authority whatever is adduced to substantiate any one of these charges; that the name of no lady is even so much as hinted at; and, moreover, that the writers of this wretched scandal, especially Milton and Peyton, were rancorous and bigoted to the last degree, and we shall have little difficulty in acquitting Charles of the charge of immorality, with which his maligners have so confidently endeavoured to sully his character. So little ground is there, indeed, for accusing Charles of being unfaithful to the marriage vow, that it may be questioned whether (even before marriage, and when surrounded by the temptations of his father's court) any single instance can be brought forward of his having been engaged in an intrigue. Peyton, indeed, comes forward with one of his unsupported scandals, and informs us that, when unmarried, he "had for his mistress a great married lady," by whom he had a son, and that at the christening he presented the child with |