N UNREQUITED LOYALT

THE LIF E OF EDWARD SOMERSET ,

EARL OF GLAMORGAN,

MARQUESS OF

WORCESTER

MARIE HAY

JOHN 8: EDWARD BUMPUS , LTD

3 50 O"FORD STREET

LONDON,W

TO

B. K .

DED ICATE THIS STORY TO THE

MEMORY OF ONE WHO TAUGHT

ME THE TRUE MEANING OF

LOYALTY AND

LOVE .

The purest treasure mortal times afiord

Is sp otless rep utation "tbat aw ayM en are but gilded loam ,

or p a inted clay "A j ew el in a ten times oarr

’

a’

up cbest

Is a bold sp irit in a loyal breast.

M ine bouour is my lif e , bot/o grow in one,

Take bouourf rom me and my life is done.

”

SHAK E SPEARE .

PR E F AC E .

“GREATE R Love hath no Man than this , that aMan lay down his L ife for his fri ends

,but it i s

given to few to raise their record so high as thesurrender of life

,and there are sacrifices as noble

as death in a beloved cause,as noble and per

chance more painful . To stand accused o f

forgery by your enemies,and of presumptuous

meddling by your friends to lose both home andfortune

,and to bear all thi s silently and without

reproach,i s a sacrifice very perfect and wonderful

in i ts noble generosity and brave fidelity .

I have endeavoured to set forth this l ife ofEdward Somerset

,first Earl of Glamorgan

,second

Mar"uess of Worcester, i n a sp irit answering untohis great loyalty. Though it has been impossibleto avoid presenting the actions o f H i s MajestyK ing Charles I . of blessed memory

,in a light

otherwise than unfavourable,still I have desired

to utter no harsh or disloyal expressions inreference to a K ing

,so truly venerated and

loved , by the hero of thi s Memoir.I t remains for me to crave the indu lgence o f

my readers,in that I have but faithfully portrayed

Glamorgan,and have avoided forming any

exaggerated or romantic notions o f his merits andtransactions

,leav ing the story o f his noble l ife

untouched by any word of praise or admiration .

I t i s needless to say that I do but write o f factscarefully verified

,and of such things as I have

warrant for under extant documents .MARIE HAY .

EDWARD SOMERSET,EARL OF

GLAMORGAN,

MARQUESS OF WORCESTER .

HIS i s the story of a great devotion and loyalty

,ill re"uited by a

Monarch,famous for h is terrible

m isfortunes and h is wonderfulpersonal charm

,which

,together

with the glamour of a lost causeand a tragic death , have disposed

mankind to overlook his falsehoods and his weakness . Bu t a sentimental hero-worship is , atbest

,an unworthy and useless frame of mind, and

one in which i t were better to revel in legendsthan to endeavour to study H istory . When weare dealing with the feeble desertion o f a Straffordo r with the ignoble repudiation of a Glamorgan’ sservices

,we cannot waste time in screening the

weak perpetrator of such actions,even though he

be the Martyr,Charles I .

K ingship by D ivine R ight was the greatprinciple fo r which men deemed it honour tosacrifice their l ives and fortunes "Loyalty wasthe ideal o f the gentleman " God and theK ing " the watchword o f the noble . We maycomprehend the splendid un"uestioning devotiono f Glamorgan if we remember that, l ike all hi s

B

2

caste at that time,he bel ieved the K ing to be

the earthly representative of the Deity, and assuch to be obeyed and served as a being to o highto be doubted or judged .

The K ing could do no wrong until thegenius o f Cromwell and the great wave o f moresober thought taught Englishmen to measure theactions o f their K ings by a difi

'

eren t standard .

What is there in the world of books morecharming than the ingenuous account by somecontemporary writer o f the sayings and doings o f

other days " How delightfial it is to conjure uppictures from the olden time

,to recall the shadowy

figures of history and make them move and speakagain , to wander through the courts o f Queenslong dead, and l ive for a space with the proudwearers o f ruff and plume . Were history themere recital of date and fact, the past would bedead indeed "but there are many records stillfragrant with the grace of old and courtly days

,

and to these we turn with keen appreciation . Wehave such a picture in an account of the marriageof the Earl o f Worcester in 1 600. We are toldin a contemporary letter that in the month ofJune, the Earl

’s marriage w ith Mistress AnneRussell was solemnized with great pomp atBlackfriars "Queen Eliz abeth deigned to bepresent, and was met at the Waterside by theBride

,and carried in a Letica or Sedan chair

,to

my Lady Russell ’s,where she supped . After

supper there came a Masque,and El iz abeth sat

beneath a s ilken dais and watched the merrymaking. Then followed dancing

,and the Q ueen

3

was wooed to dance and,to the delight of the

highly honoured company,Her Maj esty rose and

trod a measure .I t was no youn

gand beauteous Queen dancing

at th is wedding,or in 1 600 El iz abeth had long

passed the prime of l ife,and Time had spoiled the

features rash Leicester had dared to love . She,

who had inspired a thousand odes,she who had

been sung by almost every poet,of an age

unrivalled in the annals o f l iterature for great songand undying verse

,was an old painted harridan

,

bolstered up to ape the glory of a vanished youth .

There is a weight of terrible responsibility o n herhalf palsied head as she

,the great Queen dances

there" but her courtiers bow and the musicrings o u t merrily at th is wedding feast, whichlives for us through the ages

,because Queen

Eliz abeth was present, and a casual letter writerhas told us that she was wooed to dance

,

” andtrod a measure .This was the wedding of Glamorgan’s‘ fatherand mother . He was the eldest of a numerousfamily, o f whom there i s l ittle of interest torecord . Of Glamorgan ’s childhood and earlyyouth we know noth ing

,save that he travelled

much on the Continent,which was the custom for

the completion of the education of a gentleman atthat date . His l ife at Court began when the

l have cal led E dw ard Somerset Ear l o f Glamorgan throughout , a lthough that ti tle was on ly c on ferred o n him i n 1644 , beforewhich he was Lord Herbert . But

,though under his later t itle o f

Mar"uess o f Worcester he is bes t known to the wor ld as scientis tand inventor, i t i s as G lamorgan , the devoted loya l i st that he hashi s first claim on the interest and adm iration o f posteri ty .

K ing,whom he was destined to serve so nobly,

came to the throne. In 1 62 8 he marriedElizabeth

,daughter o f Sir Will iam Dormer, who

became the mother of Henry, created Duke o f

Beaufort by Charles I I . From all accounts,

Glamorgan spent the greater portion of the sevenyears o f his married l ife with this lady in retirement at Raglan Castle, and though he occasionallyrepaired to Court, his delights were study, research ,and scientific experiment, and these he preferredto court l ife . These were his golden days ,

" hetells us long afterwards

,when the tide o f civil

war and anarchy had swamped the peace o f

England and destroyed many an English home .There is l ittle to record o f these golden days . Inh istory we hear always of the disasters

,the mis

fortunes,the evils wh ich befall

,but there is l i ttle

to tell o f the times o f peace and sunsh ine , eitherin the life o f a nation o r i n that o f an individual .Though imagination may picture th i s man whowas afterwards to play a part in a great and stirringdrama

,poring over the learned treatise, o r fitting

the l inks o f some important mechanical c o n

trivan c e , i t i s mere conj ectured probability .

History is writ with pain,bloodshed

,and intrigue

a painted picture,owing i ts existence to the depths

Of i ts shadow . Peace i s silence,the pregnant

silence in which great thoughts are thought,great

deeds prepared "but many years of peace musto f necessity be dismissed in a sentence, while ofturmoil and revolt there are many records .Glamorgan ’s first wife died in 1 63 5 . She had

the honour of being painted by Vandyck, but we

know no more o f her . Four years later hemarried Margaret

,daughter of the Earl of

Thomo nd.

I t was during these seven years of h is firstmarriage that Glamorgan first employed theskilled mechanic

,Caspar Kalto ff , who remained in

his services many years,as in a school under

me,

” we are told in the “ Cen tury.

" I Kalto lf’

s

practical skill was directed in discovery and invention by the genius o f his master .To scientists

,Glamorgan (under the name of

Worcester) 18 known as the reputed inventor ofthe steam engine

,but probably owing to no con

temporary h istorian o f note having certified to theexistence o f the engine he invented

,his claim there

to has been overlooked by some great authorities,

and strenuously denied by others . He has beenridiculed by Walpole

,and scornfully dismissed

in a sentence by Macaulay,who calls h im both

charlatan and imposter while those who havewritten of the l ives and works o f great engineerssuch as Savory

,

2 Stevenson , and Watt havedenied

,or entirely overlooked h is claim .

When we speak of inventions we constantlyforget that each invention i s merely another step

A Century of the Names and S cantl ings which I can cal l tom ind to have tr ied and perfected .

—Glamorgan ’s book publ i shedin 1666 .

‘ S avory,to whom the credi t of the d iscovery of the use and

power of steam has been accorded , seems to have desired to wipeout from the know ledge of man the record of G lamorgan ’s earl ierexper iments

,for he bought up a l l the books a l luding thereto in

1699 and burnt them . At least , so runs the story "uoted byDe sagu liers , in his Course of Experiments

,1 763 .

6

forward in thought and experiment,and that no

step can be taken which has not had an anteriorstep in the great chain of progressive humanendeavour . There may be a long series of elementary principles developed without the occurrenceof a single practical result as regards any usefulapplication to supply man's wants . There mayarise a series combining these elements, and forthe first time producing a new machine orAnd it i s th is furthering of an existing thoughtor known principle which we call an invention .

De Caus had speculated and written,and others

had conj ectured but to Glamorgan undoubtedlybelongs the first practical illustration o f the greatprinciple of the appl ication of the power o f steam .

That he did invent,and with the skilled hand o f

Kalto fl"construct an engine propelled by steam , i sbeyond doubt

,for we have incontestable proofs in

such authentic documents as So rbiere ’

s Relationd’unVoyage enAngle terre

”

( 1 6 i n which is givenan account of a water commanding engine orHydraul ic Machine

,then working on the banks

of the Thames near Vauxhall "and in the diaryof Cosmo de Medici , who visited England in1 656 , we find mention of th is same engine .Again we have proof in the Warrant for Protectiono f th is invention

,granted in 1 663 by Charles I I . ,

retain ing for the King and his heirs th e tenthpart of the benefits accruing from the Marquesso f Worcester ’ s water commanding engine .

”2

Dircks .Ac t to enab le Edward Mar"uess of Worcester to receive the

benefit of a Water Commanding Engine by him i nvented, grantedby Charles I I . in 1663 .

It is surely impossible to suppose that such awarrant should be given to a man who hadmerely written and talked of his i nvention , butperfectly likely that it should be granted to aperson who had practically demonstrated the useand power thereof by its existence in actual form .

The mach ine is described by Glamorgan in thatcurious book which he called by the verbosetitle

,

“ A Century of the Names and Scantl ingso f such Inventions as at present I can call to mindto have tried and perfected

,which (my former

notes being lost) I have at the instance of apowerful friend

,endeavoured now

,in the year

1 65 5 , to set these down in such a way asmay sufficiently instruct me to put them intopractice . The descriptive clause i s as followsAn admirable and most forcible way to drive upwater by fire

,not by drawing or sucking it

upwards , for that must be as the Philosophercalleth it-Iutra sp/oaeram activitatis— which is butat such a distance. But this way hath noBounder

,if the Vessels be strong enough for I

have taken a piece of a whole Cannon,whereof

the end was burst,and filled i t three-quarters full

o f water,stopping and scru ing up the broken

end "as also the Touch-hole "and making aconstan t fire under it

,within twenty-four hours i t

burst and made a great crack "so that having away to make my vessels

,so that they are

strengthened by the force with in them , and theone to fill after the other. I have seen the waterrun l ike a constant F o untaine Stream forty foothigh "one Vessel o f water rarified byfire. driveth

up forty o f cold water . And a man that tendsthe work i s but to turn two cocks

,that o n e

Vessel o f Water being consumed,another begins

to force and refill with cold water, and so successiv ely the fire being tended and kept constant,which the self-same Person may likewise abundan tly perform in the interim between thenecessity o f turning the said Cocks . (2 ) AnEngine so contrived

,that working the Primum

mob ile forward or backward,upward or down

ward,c ircularly o r cornerwise

,to and fro , straight,

upright o r downrigh t, yet the pretended Operationcontinueth

,and advan c eth none of the motions

above-mentioned,hindering

,much less stopping

the other "but unanimously, and with harmonyagreeing they all augment and contribute strengthunto the intended work and operation "andtherefore, I call th is a Semi-omnipotent Engine,and do intend that a Model thereof be buriedwith me ."

The claim of Glamorgan to be considered thefirst to util i se steam as a motive power

,the

development of which discovery has revolutionisedthe commercial , political , scientific , and social l ife ofthe world

,rests chiefly o n these two short clauses

o f the “ Century .

”So rbiere and Cosmo de Medic i

omitted any detailed description of the machine,

and though their testimonies are valuable asestabl ish ing the fact of its actual existence

,they

tell us l ittle else . The passage in So rbiere’

s

narrative is as follows : One of the most curiousthings I wished to see was a Hydraul ic Machinewhich the Marquess o f Worcester has invented

,

9

and o f which he has made an experiment. Thi smachine will raise to the height o f 40 feet by thestrength of one man , and in the space of oneminute of time

,four large buckets of water

,and

that by a pipe or tube of eight inches ." Of thismachine there is nothing left

,not a plan or draw

ing, no minute description or specification , save inthe two short clauses of the “ Century.

” Of whatwas probably the precursor of the Vauxhall enginethere is a trace on the ruined keep of RaglanCastle. Certain strange grooves on the externalwall remaining to testify to the existence of awater rais ing engine

,which we believe to have

been the first practical application o f the power o f

steam made by Glamorgan .He probably accomplished the bulk of h is

studies and experiments between the year 1 62 7

(when he engaged Kaltofi") and 1 64 2 , when he

turned his attention to the struggle raging inWales between the Royalists and the rebels

,but

i t i s not till much later that we find evidence ofthe “water-commanding engine being in existence. In itself the date of the invention i sunimportant, but it i s likely that it was betweenthe years mentioned

,for Glamorgan cannot have

found time during the Irish expedition fo r researchor experiment

,or money and convenience in the

three years o f h is sub sequent exile in France .The legend runs

,that when he was imprisoned in

the Tower after h i s return in 1 650 or 1 65 1 , hewatched the boil ing o f the pot on the fire, andseeing the steam lift the l id , was persuaded thatsuch a force could be applied to greater things .

IO

But th is i s a tradition which has been quoted in c o nn ec tio n with almost every other claimant to thepriority of discovery o f the power of steam . I t i smore likely that the invention dates from an earlierperiod o f Glamorgan’ s l ife . There is at Badminton

,among the papers relating to Glamorgan ,

a copy of h is prayer, which he composed “whenfirst with h is c o rpo rall eyes he did see finish

’

d aperfect tryall o f h is Water-Commanding Engine,del ightful and useful to whomsoever hath inrecommendation eyther knowledge, profit o r

pleasure ." This document,though not entirely

written by Glamorgan’ s hand,contains numerous

corrections and alterations in h is writing.

Of modern writers o n the subj ect o f th isdevoted loyalist and eminent inventor

,Mr . Hen

Dircks i s the best authority . He published in1 865 ,

“The Life,Times

,and Scientific Labours o f

the Second Marquess of Worcester.” Mr . Dirckswrote a masterly discussion on the validityof Glamorgan’s claim to be considered a greatscientist and inventor . After a thorough investi

gatio n of all the documents relating to the subj ect,of the “ Century,

” and of every evidence ofcontemporary wri ters , Mr. Dircks concluded thatGlamorgan was the inventor of the steam engine

,

and that he had the principle of telegraphy,and

of a primitive form of paddle-boat in h is mind .

As a skilled engineer Mr. Dircks was certainly acompetent j udge of the scientific attainmentsof Glamorgan , but he missed the interest in hisnarration of Glamorgan ’s l ife

,and con sequently

the work has been more used as a book of

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 2

“ Century,but unfortunately he omitted to in

struct us by what means he eff ected this voli tion .

The “ Century ” tells of many other inventionswhich were “ tried and perfected ” by Glamorgan ,cyphers and alphabetic seals , contrivances foreff ecting and conveying secret correspondence , firearms, on new and improved systems, automataand other ingenious toys of many kind . And hedoubtless foreshadowed a system o f Shorthandwriting

,something o f a method to abbreviate by

eliminating the constant repetition of the sameletter. I t probablymeant, according to Mr. Dircks ,the use of dots

,strokes

,and dashes

,as in the

modern shorthand . The clause of the “ Century "

i s as follows :“ A way by a Circular motion

,either along a

Rule or Ring-wise,to vary any Alphabet

,even

th is of Points , so that the self—same Point individually placed, without the least additional markor variation o f place

,shall stand for all the 24

letters,and not for the same letter twice in ten

sheets writing"yet as easily and certainly read andknown

,as if i t stood but for one and the self-same

letter constantly signified .

”

Like all the scientists and thinkers of that timeGlamorgan sought for the secret of perpetualmotion— that dream which haunted the wisestof our forbears . Perp etuum M obile was notdeemed an impossibil ity by the most eminentscientists of the ‘ seventeenth century

,and the

search for self motive power exercised the mindsand exhausted the ingenui ty of the learnedlong after Glamorgan ’s quest for knowledge was

I3

completed , and the great active brain rested in thepeace of death . Glamorgan bel ieved that he hadbeen near to the solution of this still unsolvedsecret

,for he tells us in the “ Century " that he

could “Provide and make that all the Weights ofthe descending side of a Wheel shall be per

petually further from the Centre than those o f

the mounting side,and yet equal in number,

and heft to the one side as the other. A mostincredible thing

,if not seen

,but tried and

perfected before the late King (of blessedmemory) in the Tower, by my directions "two Extraordinary Embassadors accompanyingHis Maj esty

,and the Duke o f Richmond and the

Duke Hamilton , with most o f the Courtattending Him . The Wheel was 14 foot overand 40 weight o f 50 pounds apiece . Sir Will iamBalfour

,the Lieutenant of the Tower

,can j ustify

it with several others . They all saw that nosooner these great Weights passed the Diameterline of the lower side, but they hung a foot furtherfrom the centre, nor no sooner passed theDiameter-l ine o f the upper side

,but they hung a

foot nearer . Be pleased to judge the consequence ."

I t will be observed that Glamorgan did not saythis i s perpetual motion — but it was the obj ect ofthe machine he exhibited to King and Court

,and

by which he evidently believed that he hadactually efi

’

ec ted an illustration o f the possibility o fperpetual motion . The mention o f Sir WilliamBalfour, as Lieutenant of the Tower, fixes the dateof this experiment to between 1 63 8 and 1 64 1 .

How vividly we can picture the scene— Glamorgan

14

proudly explaining the mechanism o f the GreatWheel , with its swinging weights , the Kingdignified and grave

,with that strange look of

predestined tragedy on h is face— the crowd ofcourtiers" I t i s o ur first gl impse o f Charles I .and Glamorgan

,of the brave and devoted loyalist,

and the King,in whose service he was soon to

leave the peace of the laboratory and the delightso f study, to give h is youth aud his thought, hi shome and h is fortune, for the monarch who provedincapable of recompensing devotion save byrepudiation .

Clause 99 of the“ Century must be mentioned

as it is remarkable as illustrating one o f Glamorgan’ s favourite theories

,which he sets forth in

a sort of doggerel verse occurring in o n e of hispetitions to King Charles I I

Whosoever is Master of WeightI s Master of F orce

,

Whosoever is M aster of WaterIs Master of both .

”

In clause 99 he instructs usHow to make one pound weight to raise an

hundred as h igh as one pound falleth,and yet the

hundred pound descending doth what noth ing lessthan o n e hundred pound can effect . As usual

,

however,he asserts the feasibil ity o f th is balance

and does not give any practical directions as to themanner in which he proposes to accomplish it .The hundredth and last clause of the book isworthy of note

,for it proves that he thoroughly

understood the immense practical utility whichcould be gained from the appl ication o f his water

IS'

commanding or water-ra is ing inventions as appl iedto drainage

, 8zc .

,—he says

Upon so potent a help as these two lastmentioned questions’ a Waterwork is by manyyears experience and labour so advantageously byme contrived that a Child’s force bringeth up anhundred foot high an incredible quantity o f water

,

even two foot Diameter, so naturally, that the workwill not be heard even into the next Room andwith so great ease and Geometrical Symmetry

,that

though it work day and night from one end ofthe year to the other it will not require fortyshill ings reparation to the whole Engine, norh inder one’ s day-work. And I may boldly calli t the most stupendous Work in the wholeworld "not onely with little charge to drain allsorts of Mines and furnish Cities with water

,

though never so high seated , as well to keep themsweet

,running through several streets

,and so

performing the work o f Scavengers,as well as

furnishing the Inhabitants with sufficient water fortheir private occasions "but likewise supplyingRivers with sufiicien t to main tain e and make th emportable from Towne to Towne

,and for the better

ing of Lands all the way i t runs "with manymore advantageous . and yet greater eff ects ofProfit, Admiration , and Consequence. So thatdeservedly I deem this Invention to crown myLabours

,to reward my Expenses

,and make my

Thoughts acquiesce in way of fi1rther I nventions .

Al lud ing to the clause p revious ly "uoted beginning An

Engine so contr ived that w orki ng the Primum Mob i le forw ard orbackw ard

,&c . , and to c lause 99.

1 6

Th is,mak i n up the whole Century

,and pre

venting any Eirther trouble to the Reader for thepresent

,meaning to leave to Posterity a Book,

wherein under each of these heads,the means to

put in execution and visible trial all and every o fthese Inventions

,with the shape and form of all

th ings belonging to them , shall be printed byBrass plates .”

This promise of a further book was u n fo rtunately never fulfilled , and therefore Glamorganhas been forgotten or regarded as a crazy dreamerby the few who have knowledge o f him .

I n 1 64 2 Henry Somerset, Earl o f Worcester,father of Glamorgan , was created Marquess byCharles I . He was then sixty-five and a martyrto the gout

,but h is Chaplain

,Dr. Bayly

,has left

us a record o f h is humorous remarks and hispretty wit . He was a gay and roll icking oldnobleman

,a rel ic of the days when England was

indeed merry England,shrewd withall, and he

seems throughout to have endeavoured to curbthe reckless generosity o f Glamorgan

,fo r Dr .

Bayly tells us how, when the King’s contin ued

demands for monetary assistanc e had well nighexhausted his purse and his patience

,he upbraided

Glamorgan , reminding h im o f the vast sumsalready supplied for His Maj esty’s needs

,and

when Glamorgan,as usual

,i ntent o n serving the

King at whatever cost, replied , “ But Sir,I must

have it he turned peppery,and flung the key

o f his treasury at h is son ’ s headI n 1 64 2 Glamorgan was made General o f South

Wales,and in the February o f that year we find

I7

him at the head of a force o f foot and 500horse, besieging the town of Gloucester, whichwas held by a company of volunteers in theParliamentary interest . Sir Will iam Wallerarrived o n the scene with a large body of troops

,

and Glamorgan being absent on that day,the l ittle

army tamely surrendered,and was led into

Gloucester. “ God forgive those o f the King'sparty,

” Glamorgan wrote long after,

“ who wereoccasion that gentlemen were surprisedand I n o t despatched from Oxford until the dayafter. But though terribly discouraged by thisdefeat he set about with untiring energy to raise aregiment of foot and ten troops o f cavalry for HisMajesty ’s service . He garrisoned Cardiff

,Breck

nock,Hereford

,Goodrich Castle

,and the

Forest o f Dean after taking them from theenemy. He had exchanged his books fo rthe sword

,and from a man of dreams and

studies he became a man of action but beyondthe facts

,which he himself told us , we

have li ttle knowledge of the Welsh campaign,

and,therefore

,we must hurry on to the ch ief

events o f his l ife, those events for which he hasbeen misjudged and abused

,and which are indeed

entangled in such a web o f confl icting interests,

personal feel ings aggravating political strifes, andreligious factions

,that it i s no wonder that

h istorians have failed to unravel what was inreality

,

simple enough— the magnificent selfsacrific e o f a man

,so loyal that he never broke

that silence which was the last service he couldrender to a beloved Master

,and preferred failure

,

1 8

ruin,and exile to clearing h imself at the expense

of his King’s honourable word, which was theonly other course left open to him .

I n 1 64 3 the Royal Cause was in a desperateplight

,and Charles I . seeing that Lord Ormond

,

Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,through religious

animosity to the Catholics, failed to effect a treatywith them

,determined to despatch another envoy

to procure the assistance o f troops and money.

The King’ s choice fell on Glamorgan who wasadmirably fitted for the negotiations

,being a

Cathol ic and allied by marriage to the house ofThomo nd, one of the most powerful families o n

the insurgent Cathol ic s ide.I n order to form any approximate estimate ofthe state of affairs in Ireland it i s necessary tolook far back in her history . This will enab le usto comprehend the mingled feelings o f both Protestant and Catholic Irishmen towards the Crownof England .

Before the reign o f Henry II. I reland wasgoverned by four Kin

gs and a supreme head

,o r

over-lord,the whole o rming a Pentarchy . To

the supreme King they all paid tribute,but other

wise they were entirely masters o f their o wn

kingdoms . They were constantly engaged inpetty warfare between themselves , in fact a generalpeace over the length and breadth o f Ireland wasa very rare occurrence . In the reign o f HenryI I . Ireland submitted to the rule of England aftera fierce struggle for independence .Though Henry I I . may have dreamed o f theconquest o f Ireland

,the bondage of the country was

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

20

assistance . Many o f the nobles o f England werestirred to join in the venture

,more especially as

they were encouraged to do so by Henry I I .The expedition was successful "Dermot was

reinstated in h is possessions,and Henry

,who

came with an army to subdue the Irish , found thework already done

,and though he sojourned in

Ireland a whole winter,he and his army never

struck a blow,and he received homage from most

o f the kings and chieftains .Notwithstanding th is nominal conquest and

peaceful subjugation,the Irish continued during

four centuries to hate the English rule , andpractically

,though the chiefs paid yearly tribute

and homage to the Crown of England , i t was onlyin the Pale (which comprised the counties ofDublin , Kildare, Meath , and Uriel , with thecities of Waterford

,Cork

,and Limerick) that

English rule prevailed . The rest of I relandacted independently of the English Government,entering into leagues and treaties

,not only among

themselves,but with such of the foreign powers

as deemed it worth while to concern themselveswith a" handful of malcontents . Constant warfare existed between the chiefs whose territories lay beyond the “ Pale ”

" and in short,I reland was in the same turbulent state whichhad characterised i t before Henry II. ’

s advent ,and it continued to be a hopeless chaos andturmoil until the reign of James I

_

. o f

England , who reduced it to a partial state o f

order, though even then the passions ra ised bythe continued enforcement o f the Reformed

2 I

faith in Ireland caused unending revolt anddiscontent .At the commencement of the reign of Henry

VI I I . I rish affairs were in the usual state of complexity, but when that monarch attempted to enforcethe tenets of the new Reformed Faith on the

Irish , the country was immediately convulsedwith violent opposition . I t was hopelesslyimpolitic to call upon the people to abj ure a creedwhich they regarded with all the passionatereverence of a race

,dowered with the ardent

religious bel ief of the Celt " utterly futile tooblige them to conform to a religion which theybelieved to be heresy

,and to embrace which they

thought meant eternal perdition . Many of theIrish ch ieftains rose in arms against the Englishrule, determined to strike a blow against theoppressor and his hated religion , but they weredefeated and seemingly submitted to Hen ry .

The King,profiting by experience

,and seeing

that h is power over the Irish would increasemore rapidly by grace and favours than byseverity and force

,adopted a new system

,and

though he continued obdurate on the subj ect ofreligious freedom

,he showered honours

,favours

,

titles, and riches on some of the chief families,and endeavoured to draw them to the Court .The nobles who were thus o fl

'

ered riches andhonours with the Reformed Faith on the onehand

,confiscation and oppression with the Faith

of their Fathers on the other,in most cases choose

the former but the great mass of smaller noblesand peasantry whom Henry had not concil iated

,

2 2

continued firm in their adherence to the o ld

Faith . However, thi s reconcil iation did not lastlong

,and we find some of the very chieftains who

two years before had been recompensed for theirsubmission by Henry VI I I . , proposing terms toFranci s L,

King of France,to become his vassals

in,return for a suflicien t force of French to enable

the Irish to shake o ff the English yoke .This enterprise came to noth ing, and Henry

'ssuzerainty continued unchallenged in the Pale,

”

though there were incessant revolts in the outlying districts of Ireland . At the accession ofEdward VI . there was a formidable rising of themalcontents

,but i t was speedily subdued . The

reign of Queen Mary, while it filled ProtestantEngland with dissens ion and bloodshed, wasnatural ly hailed with delight by Catholic Ireland

,

who for five years knew a peace unprecedentedin her troubled history . But th is lull wasdestined to be of short duration , for with theaccession of Queen Elizabeth , the old story ofenforcing the Reformed Faith began again

,and

in Ireland there was a fierce struggle during thewhole of her reign .

James I . boasted that h is management ofIreland was h is masterpiece

,but though he may

have had some cause for h is boast,in that he

succeeded in reducing Ireland to a state ofcomparative quietude

,such as had not been pre

vio u sly known , still i t was but a sorry legacy thathe bequeathed to Charles I. , for the discontent andturbulence had been raised to fever heat by therealisation of King James’s favourite schem e o f a

23

Protestant colonisation in Ireland. Th is schemewas to introduce a great number of English andScotch settlers into Ireland, and to dower themwith the property forfeited by such of the Iri shas had refused to conform to the ProtestantFaith . A horde o f adventurers immediatelypoured into the country

,and the Irish people,

who had bel ieved in King James’ s former promises o f religious freedom and restitution o f

possessions,saw themselves duped by their

English ru ler, and robbed righ t and left by Royalcon nivance . I reland was parcelled out, and entiretowns were appropriated by the interlopers .The town of Derry

,for instance, was acquired

by the citizens of London , who partially rebuiltit and altered its name to Londonderry.

Naturally the natives viewed the invasion oftheir country with bitter displeasure, and albeitthe usurpers , supported by the English Government

,were too strong to combat openly, the

temper o f the people was dangerously hostile, andthey were more than ever evilly disposed towardthe English rule

,and though the fire of Irish

hatred and resentment may have appeared to beextinguished

,i t was only smouldering

,and we

cannot coinc ide in King James’s opinion that hehad entirely pacified a hitherto uncontrollablepeople.The beginning of Charles I . ’s reign was t e

markable for the indulgence shown to theCatholics throughout the kingdom , and especially to the I rish , on whom Charles showeredspecious promises o f favour and protection .

24

Mass was once more publicly celebrated even inDublin

,and the Irish responded to th is freedom

by a warmth of loyalty and aff ection to theirlenient Master . But thi s dream o f peace andliberty was all too short

,for Charles soon c om

men c ed in I reland that vacillating and deceitfulpolicy which eventually wrought h is o w n ruin

,and

brought him to a death then unprecedented for aking in the h istory of the world . I f we wish to

excuse Charles I . fo r hi s insinceri ty , for the betrayalof h is most devoted friends

,and for his political

and private double dealing,we may plead that

never was monarch so beset by difficulties,that h is

was a situation which needed a strong head andhand

,and that Charles I . was a weak man , over

whelmed by a train o f calamities great enough tohave broken a Charlemagne . But excuse andpall iate as we will

,th is King

,who moves through

history and romance with the halo of a tragicdeath

,was utterly lost to honour and fidelity

,and

from the outset stooped to a course o f untrustworth iness and falsehood in Iri sh affairs

,which

alone would have been sufficient to earn him thecontempt o f posterity . The Irish Cathol ics

,

trusting in the Royal promises,establi shed a

Seminary in Dubl in,and in the heat of their

gratitude for the freedom they had craved in vainfo r many years

,off ered to equip and keep at their

own expense,a constant body o f infantry

and 500 horse for the services of His Maj esty.

To this the Protestant and Puritan partiesobj ected

,and the King

,swayed by their influence,

rej ected the off er,and withdrew both his protection

2 5

from the Seminaries and his sanction fo r thecelebration of Mass in Ireland . He was advisedthat severity to the Cathol ics was the only methodo f obtaining supplies from his Protestant subj ects

,

and he therefore recalled Lord Deputy Faulkland,

who,i n accordance with His Maj esty’s desire

,had

dealt leniently wi th the Iri sh Papists,and Lord

Ely and Lord Cork,staunch Protestants

,were

entrusted with the administration o f Ireland .

When the Catholics of Dublin,relying on the

King’s protection,were assembled at Mass on St .

Stephen ’s Day, 1 63 1 , they were startled by theintrusion o f the Protestant Archb ishop of theDiocese

,the chief Magistrate

,and a file o f

musketeers , who seized the sacrificing priest atthe Altar

,hewed down the crucifix

,and carried

away the vessels . The most rigorous executionof the old penal laws against Catholics wasextended to every part of Ireland

,and the King

gave orders that the payment of the army shouldbe made from the fines imposed upon suchPapists as failed to attend the establishedworship .

Wentworth , afterwards Earl of Strafford , whobecame Lord Deputy in 1 63 3 , was far fromsuccessful in thi s capacity

,although he did much

to improve the commerce of the country,and laid

the foundations o f the great linen industry ofIreland . But he carried out the instructions ofhis Royal Master to the letter

,sparing the Iri sh

no severity. He considered Ireland as a conquered country , and wrung great sums of moneyout of its people, Protestants and Catholics alike,

2 6

bestowing in return hints and promises of freedomin religious matters to the Catholics

,while to the

Protestants,he declared that they could not lag

behind their Papist compatriots in service andloyalty

,adding that they too would surely be

rewarded . The Iri sh Parliament responded byvoting — a larger sum than Strafford hadhoped for— but in return a petition was drawn uppraying the King to grant a confirmation of hispromises regarding religious freedom , and anenquiry into defective titles and possession o f

estates . Strafford , however, refused to forwardthis petition , although he had received the re

quired subsidies . Again the Irish saw themselvestricked

,and when the Lord Deputy proceeded to

execute h is favourite plan o f establ ish ing theKing’ s title to the whole of the Province ofConnaught, the discontent in Ireland knew noboundsAfter nine years of regency in Ireland

,Straf

ford,who had been Charles ’ closest friend and

favourite adviser, was accused of levying taxeswithout the consent of King or Parliament bothin Yorkshire and Ireland , and was attainted ofhigh treason and beheaded in 1 64 1 . The Kingstood by and saw him led to death when aresolute refusal to sign the death warrant wouldhave saved the life of this hi s most loyal subj ect .But such a course would have further prej udicedthe Royal cause, and required a strength anddetermination which could n o t be hoped for froma Stuart. True the King essayed to save Strafford, saying, that he could not condemn him of

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 8

Parliamentarians played o ff the Protestants againstthe Catholics

,who , i n spite of the King

’s repeatedfalseness to them

,remained loyal to the Crown .

Many o f the I rish Protestants were equallyloyal

,but were misled by supposing that their

efforts were entirely directed against the Catholics,

whereas , i n reali ty , they were aiding the King’ s

enemies against his devoted adherents . I n everyquarter of Ireland this bitter strife was in progress

,and when Charles called for assistance

from the Protestant loyalists they refused,fearing

to leave their homes at the mercy o f theirCatholic opponents .Added to these causes of strife, some of theIrish , who had been dispossessed of their estatesin the reign of James I.

,chose the moment of

disorganisation of Government in England torevive and enforce their ancient claims . TheCathol ics continued to declare their loyalty to theKing

,but they were forced to remain in arms in

self-defence,fo r the Protestants and Puritans

would have had no hesitation in raising the cry ofreligious fanaticism and compassing a generalmassacre o f the “ idolaters .” Meanwhile affairsin England rendered i t imperative that Charlesshould receive assistance from Ireland

,and he

endeavoured to make peace with one or other ofthe parties . On the one hand the Protestantswere lukewarm and fearful of what would occurin Ireland were they to send their forces toEngland, on the other hand Lord Ormond , LordLieutenant of Ireland , mismanaged any treatybetween the King and Catholics

,to whom he was

29

both by rel igious convictions and pol itical bias ,b i tterly hostile . Charles, well aware that only inhis Catholic subj ects could he confide

,fully

apprised of Ormond ’s prej udices, weary o f thecontinued procrastination of the Lord Lieutenant

,

and anxious for help,determined to despatch Lord

Glamorgan to treat with the Catholics . Ostensibly Glamorgan repaired to Ireland to raisetroops

,in reali ty to procure aid from the Catholics

at any price and with full powers to grant anyconcession demanded .

Glamorgan left Oxford in March, 1 644 , fo r

Wales and ultimately for Ireland " and in theApril of that year His Maj esty conferred a Patentgranting him the ti tle o f Earl of Glamorgan

,

although in the January of the said year he hadalready addressed h im as Glamorgan . Howeverthis Patent was privately granted under the King’ sown hand , and Glamorgan

’ s detractors at a laterdate endeavoured to prove that it was nevergranted

,but “ l ike other of the warrants t’ i s

surreptitiously gotten,and indeed His Maj esty

saith he remembers it not,

” th is,though Charles

constantly addressed him and wrote of him toothers as Earl of Glamorgan . Charles I I . i n1 66 1 acknowledged it “ as a ti tle settled by o u r

Royal Father o f blessed Memory .

”

The Patent granted by Charles I . i s quoted infull by Collin s in the Peerage o f England

, ( 1 74 1 )by Birch and others . I t created “ EdwardSomerset

,al ias Plantagenet, Lord Herbert, Earl

o f Glamorgan , and nominated him “ Generalis simo of three armies, English , I rish and foreign ,

30

and adm iral of the fleet at sea . It was full o fpromises, none of which were destined to befulfilled .

Glamorgan’s so n , Plantagenet, was to marry theKing’s daughter Elizabeth with three hundredthousand pounds in dower o r portion

,most part

whereof we acknowledge spent by your fatherand you in our service and the title of Duke ofSomerset to you and your heirs male for ever "and from henceforth to give the garter to yourarms and at your pleasure to put o n the Georgeand Blue Ribbon . And for your greater honourand in testimony o f our reality we have with o u r

own hand affixed our Great Seal of England untothese our Commissions making them Patents .”

Poor little Princess Elizabeth,thus promised in

marriage,she died at Carisbrooke Castle

,of a

broken heart , they say, soon after the executiono f the King, her father.The instructions anent the Iri sh Nego ciatio n sgiven by Charles I . to Glamorgan are kept atBadminton . The paper which is in th e King’sown hand is dated January, 1 644 , and is entitled“ Several Heads whereupon yo u ,

o u r trusty andwell beloved cousin, Edward , Earl of Glamorgan ,may securely proceed in execution o f o ur

commands .”“ First

,you may engage your estate, interest

and credit,that we will most really and punctually

perform our promises to the Irish , and as it i snecessary to conclude a peace suddenly

,whatso

ever shall be consented unto by o u r Lieutenantthe Marquess of Ormond, We will die a thousand

3 1

deaths rather than disannul o r break i t "and ifupon necessity anything be to be condescendedunto

,and yet the Marquess not willing to be seen

therein,or not fit for us at the present publicly to

own , do you endeavour to supply the same.Iffor the encouragement o f the Lord Marquess

of Ormond you see it needful to have the Gartersent h im , o r any further favour demonstrated fromus to him

,we will cause the same to be performed .

If for the advantage of our service you see fitto promise any titles of Earls in either o f o u r

kingdoms , upon notice from you we will causethe same to be performed .

For the maintenance of o ur army under yourcommands, we are graciously pleased to allow thedel inquents ’ estates where you overcome to bedisposed by you , as also any o f o ur revenues inthe said places , customs or other, our profits,woods, and the like, with the contributions .Whatever towns o r places of importance yo u

shall th ink fit to possess, you shall place c ommanders and governors therein at your pleasure .

“Whatever order we shall send you (which yo uare only to obey) we give you leave to impart thesame to your council at war

,and if they and yo u

approve n o t thereof,we give yo u leave to reply,

and so far shall we be from taking it as a disobedience, that we command the same.

“At your return we will accept o f some officersupon your recommendation

,to the end no

obstacle or delay may be in the execution o f yourdesires in order to our service

,and o ur commands

in that behalf.

3 2

At your return yo u shall have the command o f

South Wales,Herefordshire

,and Gloucestershire

of the Welsh s ide, returned to yo u i n as amplemanner as before .

“ In your absence we will not give credit orcountenance to anything which may be prej udicialto your father

,you, or yours .

C . R .

The glowing promise We will die a thousanddeaths rather than disannul or break it ” wasdestined to be fulfilled in a manner all unworthyo f a King, but Charles throughout his transactionswith Glamorgan never hesi tated to promise

,even

as he never hesitated to abandon .

Meanwhile His Majesty wrote Lord Ormondthe following letter

ORMOND,

My Lord Herbert having business ofhis own in Ireland (wherein I desire yo u to doh im all lawful favour and furtherance) , I havethought good to use the power I have

,both in

h is aff ection and duty,to engage him in all

possible ways to further the peace there which hehath promised to do . Wherefore

,as you find

occasion, yo u may confidently use and trust him

in this,or any other th ing he shall propound to

yo u fo r my service " there being none in whosehonesty and zeal to my person and crown I havemore confidence . So I rest

,

Your most assured and constant friend,

CHARL E S R .

33

And below we find in cypher the followingOxford

,2 7th Decemb. 1 644 .

His honesty or affection to my service will n o tdeceive you " but I will not answer for hisj udgment.”

The King had entrusted Glamorgan with aperilous and diflic u lt mission , but at the outset hedisparaged the man who undertook it .Again Charles granted to Glamorgan the following warrant under h is private S ignet and RoyalS 1gnatu re .

CHARL E S R .,

Charles,by the Grace of God , o f

England,Scotland , France , and Ireland , Defender

of the Faith, & c .

,to our trusty and right well

beloved cousin , Edward , Earl o f Glamorgan,

greeting. We, reposing great and especial trustand confidence in your approved wisdom andfidelity

,do by these (as firmly as under our Great

Seal,to all intents and purposes) authorise and

give you power to treat and conclude with theconfederate Roman Catholics i n our Kingdom o f

Ireland, if upon necessity any be to be condescended unto

,wherein o ur Lieutenant cannot so

well be seen in,as no t fit fo r us at present

publicly to own . Therefore we charge you toproceed according to this o u r warrant

,with all

possible secrecy "and for whatsoever yo u shallengage yourself

,upon such valuable considera

tions as you in your j udgment shall deem fit,we

promise on the word of a King and a Christian,

to ratify and perform the same,that shall be

D

34

granted by you , and under your hand and sealthe said confederate Cathol ics having by theirsupplies testified their zeal to our service . Andthis shall be in each particular to you a sufficientwarrant .Given at our Court at Oxford

,under our

signet and Royal signature , the 1 2 th of March,

i n the twentieth year o f o ur reign,1 644 .

There is a further warrant o f great importancequoted in full in the Nuncio ’s Memoirs

,which is

as followsCHAR LES R .

Whereas we have had efficient andample testimony of your approved wisdom andfidelity

,so great is the confidence we repose in

you,as that whatsoever yo u shall perform ,

aswarranted under o ur sign manual , pocket signeto r private mark, or even by word o f mouth witho u t further ceremony, we do in the word o f aKing and a Christian , promise to make good to

all intents and purposes, as eff ectually, as if yourauthority from us had been under the Great Sealof England , with this advantage that we shallesteem ourself the more obliged to yo u fo r your

galan try, in not standing upon such nice terms todo us service

,which we shall

,Go d will ing

,

reward . And although you exceed what law canwarrant

,o r any powers of ours can reach unto

,

as not knowing what you have need of,yet it

being f or our service, we oblige ourself not onlyto give you our pardon

,but to maintain the same

with all our might and power " and thougheither by accident, or by any other occasion , we

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

3 6

an important historic personage and the player ofo n e of the parts in the great drama which throughlong and tedious acts works up to the final scene— the tragedy ofWhitehall .Glamorgan found the Deputies o f the Con

federate Cathol ics at Dublin n ego c iating a treatywith Lord Ormond , but, as usual , the terms whichOrmond was willing to concede were such thatthe Catholics refused them , and after a few meetings the Deputies left Dubl in and returned toKilkenny

,the seat of the Supreme Council of the

Papists,Glamorgan also proceeded to Kilkenny,

taking the King's credentials and private in structions

,and a compl imentary letter from Lord

Ormond himself,who seems to have been anxious

for Glamorgan to conclude the treaty,though he

afterwards den ied that he had power to grant anyterms whatsoever to the Catholics. Through allthe n ego c iatio n s , Ormond was absolutely averse toany agreement with the I rish upon their terms

,

though he ought to have realised how fatal anydelay must prove to the King’s interests . Thediflicu lty was n o t that o f treating with a commonenemy

,but of reconcil ing the King’ s friends as to

the manner o f serving His Maj esty .

Arrived at Kilkenny,Glamorgan concluded the

following treaty, (which was to be kept secret

from the Protestant loyalists and from LordOrmond) —Firstly

,religious freedom fo r the

Catholics "that they should hold all churchesrightfully theirs other than such as are nowactually enjoyed by His Majesty ’s Protestant subiec ts . Secondly, that the Cathol ics should be

3 7

exempted from the juri sdiction of the Protestan tclergy

,and that the Cathol ic clergy should be

unmolested in theirjurisdic tio n over their Catholicflocks . These conditions were demanded and inreturn the Catholics engaged to send to England

armed men,under the command of

Glamorgan,and agreed to devote two-th irds of

their clergy’ s revenues towards the maintenanceof the said men for the space of threeyears . This treaty was to be confirmed by thenext Parl iament held in Ireland .

Affairs stood thus when the Pope’ s Nuncio,

Rin uc c in i, arrived at Kilkenny . The Nuncio,

fearing that the publication of a political treaty w thOrmond would cause the Catholics (who werenot aware of the private religious treaty withGlamorgan) to conclude that such a peace wasmade on account of private and temporal advantages, and not for the honour and freedom o f

Religion,and would thus occasion scandal among

Catholics and foreigners and give triumph to theheretics , insisted upon the necessity of the LordLieu tenan tcy being held by a Catholic , and alsodesired that a clause should be inserted in the treatyanent the erecting of Universities . Meanwhile heassured Glamorgan o f his zeal for the King

,and

persuaded him to sign a paper pledging the King ’sword that when the troops were landed in Enland the matter of a Catholic holding the LordLieu tenan tcy should be agreed to . Possibly i nthis latter clause Glamorgan may have exceededthe actual instructions of the King

,but His

Maj esty had given h im full powers to concede

3 8

anything in h is name provided assi stance wereprocured .

In England aff airs were growing more andmore desperate

,and the ci ty of Chester

,besieged

by the Parliamentarians,could not hold o u t if the

promised assistance from Ireland failed to arrive .Glamorgan left Kilkenny

,and proceeded to Dublin

in order to effect a treaty with Ormond concerningthe expedition o f troops . This treaty was to be o fsuch a nature that i t could be made public

,while

the other and more important treaty whichGlamorgan had just made, was to be kept secret .He arrived at Dublin o n Christmas Eve

,and o n

Christmas Day he waited on the Lord Lieutenant ,who received him with great civility. The following day

,however

,Ormond and his o flic ials

received Glamorgan in a different manner, fo r h issecret treaty with the Cathol ics had come into theLord Lieutenant’s hands by a chance occurrence .

The Popish Archbishop o f Tuam ,one of the

Supreme Council , was going into Ulster to visith is diocese

,when he met with a body of Irish

troops march ing to besiege Sligo .

l The Archbishop j oined with these troops and was killed inthe sortie made b the garrison of Sligo .

Unfortunately for the hopes of the Irish Papistsand for the Royalist cause

,a copy ofGlamorgan ’ s

treaty was found on the Archbishop ’s body. TheEngl ish Commissioners in Ulster transmitted thispaper to the Parl iament in England , who had causedcopies to be printed

,publ ished

,and despatched to

the Marquess of Ormond and to Lord DigbyS l igo was held by the Par l i amentarians .

3 9

then at Dublin . Ormond and Digby,fearing the

odium which the publ ication of this treaty woulddraw on the King from the Parliamentary party,deemed it expedient to vindicate H i s Maj estyby proceeding against Glamorgan . Accordinglywhen the Council assembled in Dublin on the2 6th December

,1 64 5 , Lord Digby rose and

charged Glamorgan with suspicion of hightreason, and moved that his person should besecured , alleging that the “ authority from HisMaj esty must be either forged or surreptitiouslygained

,or if the Earl had any colour o f authority

that it was certainly bound up and limited by suchinstructions as would in no wise license him toany transaction of that nature

,

” adding that theKing to redeem his crown

,his o w n l ife

,and the

l ives of h is Q ueen and children , would not grantthe Irish the least piece of concessions so de stru ctive to his regal it'y and religion .

”

Glamorgan was committed to the custody o f

the Constable of the Castle o f Dublin , in thecondition of a close prisoner until further directions . The next day he was examined beforethe Lord Lieutenant and Council of Ireland .

Glamorgan answered to the questions put to him,

that they,h is interrogators

,had the treaty in

their hands,and thus knew what i t contained , and

that he had done nothing save that fo r which heheld a warrant . He added that he did not conc eiv e the articles to be obl igatory to HisMajesty

,and yet without any j ust blemish of my

honour, my honesty, or my conscience ,” and he

produced a “ De feaz an ce signed by the same

40

men who had signed the treaty on the Cathol ic s ide ,explaining that “ the Earl o f Glamorgan did in noway intend thereby to oblige H i s Maj esty otherthan he himself should please after he had receivedthose men as a pledge o f the RomanCatholics loyalty and fideli ty to His Majesty .

But he promised faithfully not to acquaintH i s Maj esty with this De feaz an c e till he hadendeavoured to induce His Majesty to the granting of the said concessions . The Commissionershereby discharge the Earl of Glamorgan both inhonour and conscience o f any further engagementto them therein , though H i s Maj esty should notbe pleased to grant the said particulars

,the said

Earl having given assurance upon h is word ,honour, and vo lu n tery oath never, to any personwhatsoever, to discover this Defeaz an c e in theinterim , without their consent .Whether Glamorgan received the permission o fthe Supreme Council to show this Defeaz an c e toOrmond , or whether, as usual , intent on servinghis King, he committed an act of disloyalty to theCatholics, does not transpire, but it i s certain thathe was able to explain hi s action to the Papists insuch a manner as to justify himself and retaintheir trust, for subsequently we find h im oncemore in treaty with the Catholics, and apparentlyenjoying their entire confidence . After a shortimprisonment Glamorgan was liberated , for thenews of his incarceration put the Cathol ics intosuch a prodigious consternation

,many desiring to

take arms and proceed to Dublin in order toprocure h is l iberty

,that Ormond considered it to

4 1

be wiser to set him free . I t i s probable that thiswas merely a pretext, and that Ormond havingseen the King’s Warrants and Powers

,i n common

justice could not detain Glamorgan as prison er,

and therefore he was enlarged upon h is ownrecognizance of and o f the LordsClanrikarde and Kildare of J(210,000 each .

Meanwhile the news of the discovery o f thetreaty and of Glamorgan ’s arrest and imprisonment reached the King . In order to avoidcensuring H i s Maj esty’s behaviour at this jun c turetoo harshly it i s necessary to realise in what aterrible position the unfortunate Monarch wasplaced— beset by enemies

,surrounded by spies

,

his subj ects distrusting and hating him , his everyaction misj udged

,and with the constant suspicion

of his Papist inclination in the minds o f even hismost loyal Protestant adherents (which suspicionhad i t become a certainty meant the alienation o f

the entire Protestant Kingdom) . Thus it i s withpity at h is utter weakness and his inab il ity tograpple with the events wh ich his own vacillationand constant double-dealing had woven into an

entangled web beyond his power to unravel,that

we should approach this portion of the secreth istory o f Charles I .Upon the receipt of the news of the discoveryof the treaty and of Glamorgan’s arrest andimprisonment, the King made the declaration .

“ That the Earl of Glamorgan hath,without the

King’s directions or privity entered into a treatyw ith the Commissioners of the Roman Catholicparty, and drawn up certain articles h ighly

4 2

derogatory to His Majesty ’s honour and most

pre'

udicial unto the Protestant religion inIreland

,

” the King took Lord Digby to witness“ who by reason o f his former employment inthese aff airs

,doth best know how contrary the

proceeding of the said Earl was to His Maj esty ’sintentions and directions

,and what great prej udice

i tmight br ing if these proceedings of the Earl ofGlamorgan should be understood to have beendone by the directions o r approbation of HisMaj esty

,that Glamorgan having made offer

unto him to raise forces in the Kingdom ofI reland

,and to conduct them into England for

His Maj esty ’s service,had a commission to that

purpose,and to that purpose only . That he had

no commission at all to treat of anything else ,without the privity of the Lord Lieutenant, muchless to capi tulate anything concerning religion orany propriety belonging either to Chur c h orLaity .

”The King protested that until he heard

Glamorgan was arrested and restrained , he neverhad any notice that the said Earl had enteredInto any kind of treaty or capitulations with theIrish Commissioners

,much less that he concluded

o r signed those articles so destructive both toChurch and State

,and so repugnant to H i s

Maj esty’s public professions and known resolutions .”

Charles continued by utterly repudiating anything conceded by Glamorgan

,and declared that

he “ doth ab solutely deny h im therein ,” adding,

that as it was necessary to conclude a peace withthe Irish Catholics “ fo r the preservation o f H i s

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

44

the very bottom of what we might have pOSS1blyin trusted unto the Earl of Glamorgan in thi saffair.” The document continues to instructOrmond to “ thoroughly and diligently prosecutethe charge against the said Earl .On the same day the King wrote th is letter toOrmond, Secretary Nicholas despatched ano flic ial document to the Council o f I reland inwhich

,amongother expressions of blame and

accusations o forgery against Glamorgan , occursthe sentence The King hath commanded meto advertise your Lordships that the patent formaking the said Lord Herbert of Raglan Earl o fGlamorgan is no t passed the Great Seal here, sohe is no Peer of this Kingdom . He hath treatedwith the Iri sh Rebel by the name o f “ Earl o f

Glamorgan,

” which is as vainly taken upon him asthe pretended warrant ( if any such he) was surreptitio u sly gotten , fo r H i s Maj esty saith heremembers i t not . I t would appear thatGlamorgan went to Ireland fully prepared that incase of failure or discovery the King would disavow all knowledge and authori ty

,but the utter

lack of truth wh ich caused His Majesty todisavow even the title conferred by his own hand ,was surely but an unkingly dishonesty and weakness and one which Glamorgan must have feltdeeply.

If any further proof were needed to convinceus that Glamorgan was fully authorized to treatwith the Irish Catholics on the King’ s behalf, thefollowing letter remains in the Harleian Collectionof Manuscripts to testify that he was neither the

PORTRAIT OF HIS MAJE STY K ING CHARLE S I.

Painted by Vandyck and presented by the K ing to Edward S omerset,Ear l of G lamorgan .

Thi s P1o tut e is at B adm in ton .

4-5fantastic bigot he 13 represented by Walpole, n o rthe forger which Carte esteemed him

GLAMORGAN,

I must clearly tell you bothe you andI have been abused in th is business, for yo u havebeene drawen to consent to conditions muchbeyond your instructions

,and your treaty bath been

divulged to all the w orld. If you had advised withmy Lord Lieutenant (as you promised me) allth is had been helped . But we must lo o ke forward . Wherefor, in a word , I have commandedas much favor to be showen to yo u as maypossibly stand with my service or saf ety , and if yo uwill yet trust my advyc e (which I have c om

manded Digby to give you freely) I will bring

yo u so o ff,that you may still be usefu l to me "

and I shall be able to recompense you fo r youraff ection . I f not, I cannot tell what to say. ButI will not dout of your c omplyan c e in this"s incei t so h ighly concerns the good o f all my c rown e s ,my owen particular, and to make me have stillmeanes to shew myselfe

Your most asseured frend ,CHARL E S R .

Oxford , Feb . 3rd, 1 64 5 .

At first sight we are struck by the heartlessand egotistic tone of this missive, but it wasevidently written with the knowledge that it wouldpass through the hands o f Lord Digby " forthere are other letters extant which breathe a verydifferent feel ing, and to do Charles j ustice he was

46

never insensible to the su ff erings of his friends .The next letter (also in the Harleian Collection)was doubtless to be entrusted to another andmore reliable channel

,and therefore it was written

with no pretence at reproof,and it shews that the

King,despite his public repudiation and his

private expressions to Ormond and others,still

had entire confidence in Glamorgan ’s j udgment .His Majesty wrote :

TI ERBERT,

I am confident that this ho n nest trustybearer will give you good satisfaction

,only I have

not in everyth ing done as you de syred the wanto f confidence in you being so far from being thecause thereof

,that I am every day more and more

confirmed in the trust that I have of yo u . F o r,believe me

,i t i s n o t in the power of any to make

you suff er in my opinion by ill offices . But o fth is

,and diverse other th ings

,I have given Sir

John Winter so full instructions that I will say n o

more,but that I amYour most assured constant frend

,

CHARL E S R .

Oxford,Feb . 2 8th

,1 64 5 .

Albeit the King had repudiated him,Glamorgan

continued to labour as gallantly as heretofore, andwe find ‘ him using his utmost endeavour toinduce the Confederate Catholics to consent tothe terms o f peace off ered by Ormond . Thisrenewed zeal was owing to the pressing need forassi s tance in England

,where each day affairs were

4 7

becoming more desperate fo r the Royalist cause .Unfortunately the Nuncio and others o f theclergy considered the terms off ered by Ormondextremely defective

,and proposed that the Cessa

t ion ‘ should be continued . They were ready toagree that assistance should be sent to the Kingprior to the conclusion o f a treaty

,but Glamorgan

obj ected , wish ing the peace to be immediatelyconcluded . I t was a fatal error on his part thusto delay the despatch of the troops in the vainhope of eff ecting a better treaty, for the Nuncio ,with the craft o f an Ital ian and the wil iness of anecclesiastic , persuaded the Council to await theconclusion of the treaty

,which Sir Kenelm Digby

was negotiating with the Pope on the behalf o fCharles

,through Queen Henrietta Maria

,then in

Paris and to this,Glamorgan

,influenced by the

Nuncio’s representations , was induced to agree .The treaty concluded by Sir Kenelm Digby in

France came to the Nuncio’ s hands aboutJanuary o r February 1 64 5

-4 6 . I t stipulated fo r

entire religious freedom in I reland,the restitution

o f monasteries,the annulment o f all penal laws

against Cathol ics,and an independent I rish Parlia

ment,that the Irish Government and all the

principal I rish o flic e s be put into the hands o fCathol ics

,who should hold equal rights o f

honours,offices

,and degrees with Protestants ,

that the town o f Dublin should be governed byEnglish o r Irish Cathol ics , and that the Royal istforces should c o-operate with the I rish to drive'The Cessation or Truce w as agreed upon by the contending

parti es .

48

the Parl iamentary forces out of Ireland . Al l

thi s being performed by the King,the Pope

agreed to pay Queen Henrietta Maria a hundredthousand crowns o f Roman money

,and authorized

the transportation of twelve thousand troops fromIreland into England for the service of the King

,

provided that their commanders were Catholic .Meanwhile Chester was daily more vigorously

besieged,and Glamorgan anxiously implored

immediate help fo r his King and party,but the

Nuncio,with Sir Kenelm ’ s treaty in his hand

,

urged i ts formal acceptance either by the King,or

by the Queen on his Maj esty’ s behalf. I n Dubl ini t was rumoured that intrigue and procrastinationhad rendered Glamorgan ’s efforts useless, fo r

Chester, i t was said , had fallen . Glamorgan,

distraught with anxiety,could proceed no further

,

fo r the Nuncio had persuaded the KilkennyCouncil that his treaties were really nu ll and void

,

fo r had not the King loudly repudiated hisauthorities " Distrusted by the Council and theNuncio , his endeavours to reconcile both and procure aid only caused further suspicion . Hetherefore wrote several letters to the Nuncio

,

protesting h is will ingness to comply with al l

demands, provided assistance were promptlydespatched to England "and also, in an Officialdocument

,promised to ratify in the King’ s

name, any treaty concluded between the Popeand Henrietta Maria. He succeeded at lengthin inducing the Nuncio to regard th is promiseas a treaty, and he then repaired to Waterfordto attend to the embarkation of a first draft o f

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I

50

Meanwhile in England Glamorgan ’s affairswere as unpropitious as those connected withh is political l ife . The great castle o f Raglanhad been surrounded by Parliamentary troopsfrom the year 1 64 2 , as we have already seenduring Glamorgan’ s great Welsh campaign

,but

about March,1 64 5 , th is desultory warfare grew

more serious,and Raglan was closely besieged .

The story o f the ten weeks’ s iege is n o t the leastthrill ing of the many struggles between King andParliament . Raglan had the honour of being thelast fortress o f England held in His Maj esty ’scause . The straits unto which the besieged werebrought were severe

,but the aged Marquess of

Worcester made a long and gallant stand againstthe Rebels

,despite the presence o f my lady of

Glamorgan in the beleaguered castle . Dr. Bayly,my lord ’s chaplain

,has left o n record some

details . He tells us how a musket ball passedthrough the window o f my lord ’ s dining apartment

,and flew within “

an hair’s breadth of theMarquess ’s head

,then crashed against the o ak

wainscotting o f the wall and rebounded, flattened ,on to my lord ’s head . My lady o f Glamorgan

,

who was sitting at dinner with her husband ’sfather

,fled

,unnerved

,from the chamber, but

returning craved his lordship ’s pardon . No t so,Madame,

” said the Marquess,

“

yo u had reasonto run away when your lord ’s father was knockedon the head .

”Then

,pausing awhile, and turning

the flattened bullet round with his finger,he c o n

tinn ed , “ Ah "gentlemen , those who had a mindto flatter me were wont to tell me that I had a

5 I

good head in my younger days "but if I do notflatter myself I th ink I have a good headpiece inmy o ld age, or else i t would not have beenmusket proof"Many were the sorties made by the loyal

garrison o f Raglan , and continual the fierceskirmishes with the Parliamentary forces

,

“ oftenas many as 200 horse rushing forth

,only to return

with the report of bootless labour.” At lengthGeneral Fairfax, wearied with the prolongedoperations

,and having sent many reinforcements

from Oxford to the besiegers at Raglan,repaired

thither in person with a still larger body of troops .On the 7 th of August he sent a summons toLord Worcester, setting forth the futil ity offurther resistance against such overwhelmingnumbers

,and my lord sent o u t a drum and c om

missioners to parley . The castle provisions hadrun terribly low

,and the vigilant watch o f the

Parliamentary army entirely prevented any supplies from passing through to the besieged .

Already the castle garri son was reduced to themost meagre fare, and any lengthened resistancewas obviously impossible in any case

,for there

were but three barrel s o f powder left. But therewere still a few bags of meal and corn , and mylord decided to hold o u t for several days, pendingthe conclusion of advantageous terms o f surrender .On August 1 7 th these terms were concluded , ando n the 1 9th inst . the castle o f Raglan was formallysurrendered to Sir Thomas Fairfax . The conditions demanded by Lord Worcester

,and conceded

by his adversary were as follows — “ The castle

52

surrendered fo r the use o f the Parliament, but allthe officers , soldiers , and gentlemen of thegarrison should march o u t with their horses andarms

,colours flying

,drums beating

,trumpets

sounding,and matches lighted at both ends "

permission to select any place within ten miles o fthe castle for the purpose o f delivering up theirarms

,after which the soldiers shall be disbanded

and set at l iberty and safe conduct and pro tection given to all the inmates of Raglan Castle .”

These conditions were performed,with the exc ep

tion of the freedom to the Marquess himself,who was conveyed prisoner to London

,and

placed in the custody o f the Parl iament’s BlackRod . He continued in confinement until h i sdeath in December

,1 646 . The castle o f Raglan

was partially destroyed by order o f the Parl iament . Over the length and breadth of Englandwe find these ravages which were neither necessaryfo r the safety o f the Parl iament nor in accordancewith its boast that i ts actions were directed by azeal for the welfare of the kingdom . Theseravages are hateful fo r ever to the antiquary andthe artist . The French Revolutionists have beenj ustly execrated fo r the irremediable harm ,

oftenthe utter destruction

,they wrought to the most

beautiful monuments o f a nation ’ s history andart

,and the Engli sh Puritans stand accused of the

same vandal ism .

I n March,1 64 6 (old style) , Glamorgan was

created Duke o f Somerset and Beaufort, a titlewh ich he never appears to have used , though thepatent is apparently quite in form and i s n ow

53

preserved at Badminton . I t remains, however, toprove that while Charles in public repudiatedGlamorgan

,and denied the authority he had

granted to h im , in private he showed every wishto honour and recompense h im for his devoted

,

though fruitless,efforts to procure assistance . I t

would seem, throughout, that the King andGlamorgan had some private understanding

,for

there are letters,as already shewn

,extant in the

Harleian collection and elsewhere,from the King

,

af ter h is forced repudiation o f Glamorgan,in

which His Maj esty repeats the assurances of h istrust in , and favour to Glamorgan . One important letter

,quoted in the Nuncio’ s Memoirs

,

and in Vittoria Siri ’ s Mercurio runs

GLAMORGAN,

I am not so strictly guarded , but thatif you send to me a prudent and secret person

,I

can receive a letter,and you may signify to me

your mind . Having always loved your personand conversation

,which I ardently wish fo r at

present more than ever,if i t could be had without

prej udice to you , whose safety is as dear to me asmy own . If yo u can raise a large sum o f moneyby pawning my Kingdoms fo r that purpose

,I am

content you should do it and if I recover themI will fully repay that money . And tell theNuncio , that if once I can come into h is and yourhands , which ought to be extremely wished for byyo u both , as well for the sake of England asIreland , since all the rest, as I see, despise me, Iwill do i t . And if I do not say thi s from my

54

heart, or if in any future time I fail you in this ,may God never restore me to my Kingdoms inthis world

,nor give me eternal happiness in the

next,to wh ich I hope th is tribulation will conduct

me at last,after I have satisfied my obl igations to

my friends,to none o f whom am I so much

obl iged as to yourself, whose merits towards meexceed all expressions that can be used by

Your constant Friend,

CHARLE S R .

From Newcastle, July 2o th , 1 64 6 .

This letter is posterior to the King ’s repudiationof Glamorgan , who responded by forming adesperate plan for conveying the King into Ireland

,

out of the hands of his enemies . If yourMaj esty will resolve to come hither

,I will hazard

my life to find out a way for it so necessary do Ithink th is to your Majesty’s safety .

” l How farthis proj ect was matured we do not know

,but it

i s certain that Charles was so strictly guarded thathe never found an opportuni ty of escape .The treaties continued

,constantly changing

,

and confusion turns to chaos in thi s impenetrablepage of h istory

,after the King managed to

convey to Ormond a private letter,i n which he

bade him obey all my wife’ s commands,do not

obey any public command of mine until I sendyou word that I am free from restraint . ” 2

Glamorgan left Ireland in March , 1 64 7-4 8, andj ourneyed to France in the hope of being enabledto procure money and assistance for his belovedNunc io's Memoirs . “Carte .

5 5

master. Of what steps he took, or o f how hespent h is time there is no record . The Court ofQueen Henrietta Maria was filled with Englishnobles, who were for the most part so bereft ofworldly goods as to be often in want of a breakfast

,and Glamorgan ’s exile must of necessi ty

have resembled that o f the other loyal i sts . FromEvelyn’s Diary it would appear that many o f therefugees lived in Paris

,and repaired but in fre

quently to the sorry Court held at St . Germainsby the daughter of “Henry the Well-beloved ”

La Reine Malheureuse,as she surnamed himself.

Nor was Her Majesty in a position to help herexiled subj ects

,for we read in the Memoirs o f the

Cardinal de Retz,

“ I found Her Maj esty theQueen o f England in her daughter’s chamber

,who

has since been Duchess of Orleans . At my comingin she said ‘You see

,I am come to keep Henrietta

company . The poor child could not rise to-dayfor want of a fire . ’ The truth is the Cardinal(Mazarin) fo r six months together hath notordered any money towards the Queen ’ s pensionand that no purveyors will trust her

,knowing

that she hath not a single ‘ billet ’ in herlodgings .”

Clarendon tells us in h is History of theRebell ion how the great nobles o f England wereforced to go on foot through the streets of Pari sfor “ lack o f funds to pay a . coach hire.” Whenwe consider that no one

,save members of the lower

classes,walked in the streets o f Paris , we can

better understand the historian’ s di sgust at such astate of things the more so

,when we remember

5 6

that this custom prevailed in consequence o f thefilthy condition of even the great thoroughfaresof France’s capital .We have no knowledge of Glamorgan’ s doingsfrom the time he left I reland till h is return toEngland

,nor ac tuall are we aware whether he

passed the years 0 his exile entirely in Paris .But we may presume that, wherever he was , hewas in no affluent position

,for his entire fortune

was in the hands o f Cromwell.Queen Henrietta Maria either was moved to

pity by her own knowledge of Glamorgan ’s unre

quited service,or in reality received her royal

husband ’ s commands to give any obj ect of valueshe could dispose of to the devoted loyalist "forthere i s at Badminton a letter in Her Maj esty ’ so wn hand , written soon after Glamorgan becamean exile

,i n which she acknowledges his great

services and informs h im that she has caused to bedelivered unto h im a necklace of ten large rubiesand two large diamonds called the Sancy and thePortugal

,acknowledging that besides h is great

expe n c e s made by him for the King, our veryhonoured Lord

,he hath supplied us with three

hundred and seventy thousand Livres Tournois ,exclusive of the very great services

,at least of

equal consequence,which up to the present time,

he hath rendered us . I n regard of which wemake known that the said necklace entire belongto him

,so that he may sell i t without interference

on our part .When we read later Glamorgan ’s own statement

of the huge sums disbursed by his father and

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

5 8

ourselves , and doubt not but that, when theoccasion comes and by God ’s help our means arerestored

,we will recognize the same with deepest

gratitude in accordance with the will o f yourHoliness . As to the remaining matters that concern us , we desire you to confide in the saidMarquess

,who of all our supporters hath served

us best, especially as we have given him leave towait upon your Holiness to that end

,for we are

obliged in order that this may be cautiously carriedout

,thus abruptly to kiss the hands of your

Holiness . Given at our Court,i n prison

,in the

I sle of Wight,2 o th April , 1 649 .

Your Ho li ness ’s most devoted

CHARL E S R .

I t would appear,therefore

,that Glamorgan had

succeeded in conveying letters from the Pope tothe King, and that this i s His Maj esty

’s answeraccrediting h is most beloved kinsman ” to treatwith the Vatican for some secret obj ect

,which

the King,surrounded by spies

,had not time o r

security to specify,before he was obliged

abruptly to kiss h is Holiness ’s hands . Whatth i s obj ect was we cannot say

,whether it was the

religion of England that hung in the balance inreturn for proff ered help

,in troops or monies to

bribe the crowd of canting Puritans,we shall

probably never know,but this letter shows us that

the unfortunate Monarch was struggling still inthe net of disloyalty which enmeshed him

, and

'F or facsimi le o f thi s Letter see Plate.

59

that Glamorgan was working as usual for theKing who had publicly disowned him .

As will at once be perceived,there is an error in

the dating of the letter . In April,

1 649, thetragedy had been over some two months

,and

Europe stood aghast at the sight of a murderedKing and a triumphant regicide Parliament rulingwith more than kingly despotism . And , therefore , th is letter has been put aside as unauthentic .But it i s unlikely that even the least ingeniousforger would have committed so glaring a mistake.Who did not know the date of the King’sexecution " What could have been the objecto f the forgery at best" Moreover, as we haveseen , there is a constant discrepancy of dates at thatperiod, for between the o ld and new styles menbecame confused . Then

,too

,there i s only o n e

figure wrong,the n ine— 1 649

— for, in the Aprilof 1 64 8 the King was indeed at h i s Court inPrison in the Isle of Wight . Why should itnot be merely a lap sus penuae of the copyist

’s"Again the letter is endorsed at the back inGlamorgan ’s own cipher (the key to which wasonly discovered by Dircks about and th iscipher

,says “ The King’s

,out of the I sle of

Wight.” Thus we may surely accept th is letteras genume .

Through all the story of Glamorgan ’s life we,

who know the end,can feel the tragic futil ity of

the struggle he,in common with hundreds o f

other loyali sts,was making against the inexorable

fate,the shadow of whose dark mantle was so

surely closing over Charles Stuart . But th is

60

forgotten letter shows us once more that unto thevery last the Courts of Europe were intriguing anddevising in order to avert the terrible doom fromthe Kingly head

,which Vandyck so loved to paint .

In 1 6 50 o r 5 1 Glamorgan suddenly returnedto England, whether from lack of means o f subsistence abroad

,o r from some political motive

we do not know "for we are only apprized o f

his return by the fact that he was immediatelyseized and imprisoned in the Tower. Thehistorian

,Kennet

,tells u s that Glamorgan

returned to England to collect private in telligence as to the temper o f the people towardsCharles I I . , for, Louis "IV .

,much against the

will o f Cardinal Mazarin,seemed disposed to aid

the exiled King in an expedition to England , if thedisposition of the English nation seemed propitious to his Restoration . But though there isevery probabilily that this was the cause ofGlamorgan ’s return , we have no actual proof thati t was . Be it as it may

,it was a bold return , for

the Parliament had stigmatized Glamorgan as“ traitor to

,and enemy o f, the Commonwealth , and

had doomed him to die without mercy .

” LordHerbert (Glamorgan

’ s son,afterward first Duke

o f Beaufort) , was a member o f the RevolutionaryParliament

,and was allowed a liberal income by

Cromwell out of the great fortune which theLord Protector enjoyed

,a goodly sum of which

was supplied by the Worcester estates . LordHerbert seems to have frequented Cromwell ’shouse

,for there i s a well—know letter ‘ in which

l Brit. Mu s . Co l l . MSS .,Vo l. xxx111. p . 37 .

6 1

Cromwell warns his wife against entirely trustinghim , and desires her n o t to permit h is visits to benumerous .Glamorgan ’s imprisonment lasted some three

years,and from 1 654 to the Restoration he was

free upon parole,l iving o n a magnificent allowance

o f £3 a week granted by Cromwell o u t o f hisconfiscated Worcester estates . I t i s likely that heresided at Worcester House

,fo r we know that h is

wife had been permitted to abide there,but there

is little o r n o record of this portion o f

Glamorgan ’ s life .I n 1 65 5 he published his book

“The Century,

which some authorities state to have been c ompiled during his exile , others believe to have beenpenned while he was imprisoned in the Tower

,

but which was more probably written after hi sl iberation o n parole . I t is a curious littlebook

,and appears to be a mere summary o f

i nventions and devices . Glamorgan evidentlyintended it to be followed by a larger treatise ,giving minute specifications fo r the putting intopractise o f the inventions

,o f which the short

clauses of th is note book are evidently onlydescriptions

,but this proj ect was never ac c om

plished. The Century ” i s dedicated to CharlesI I . , and to both Houses o f Parliament . Thefirst edition is extremely rare, but there have beenmany later editions thirteen editions in separatevolumes

,and twelve in magazines at diff erent

times . Mr . Dirck’s edition,printed at the end o f

his “ Life Times and Scientific Labours o f theMarquess of Worcester ” has the advantage o f

62

copious notes and a masterly preface by Mr.Dirck himself. I t i s in other respects a verbatimreprint from the first edition .

I t i s sad to follow Glamorgan through the yearsof poverty which he passed

,constantly petitioning

Parliament to return him some port1on of h isconfiscated estates . The fact that h is son

,Lord

Herbert, ‘ was apparently in far better circumstances than his now aged and impoveri shedfather, may be owing to his having sat in theRevolutionary Parliament and to his being onterms of friendship with the Protector himself.But thi s personage does no t seem to have endeavo u red to alleviate his father’ s distresses, fo r wefind Glamorgan constrained to borrow small sum so f money from various friends . I t must havebeen with a pleasing expectation of recognitionfor past service that Glamorgan saw his belovedKing’s son restored to the throne

,but, though

Charles I I . had been profuse in h is promises tohis needy adherents during their mutual exile

,in

th e catch word o f the day “ he seemed to havepassed not only an act of indemnity fo r hisenemies

,but a finer act o f oblivion fo r hi s friends

when he was restored to h is kingdom ,

” and,though

he afterwards rai sed Glamorgan’s so n to the

dignity of a Dukedom , he permitted the man whohad served h is royal father so nobly to pass h iso ld age in penury . During their exile Charles I I .wrote to Glamorgan in answer it would seem tosome request made by h is lordship for c o nfirma

I Afterwards created Duke of B eauf ort by Charles I I .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

64

returned to him they were denuded Of woods, andhis castle of Raglan

,but an untenantable ruin . I t

never transpires that any money passed from theroyal treasury to Glamorgan

,though

,by his own

statement,he and h is father had disbursed over

£9 1 8,000I in the service o f His Maj esty o f blessed

memory,Charles I . I t is true that King Charles

II. was himself hard pressed for money we knowthat he constantly demanded funds from hisParl iament

,setting forth that his means were

inadequate to support the state of a King o f England , but the case of Glamorgan was at once sodeserving of recognition and so utterly piteous

,

that o n e fails to comprehend the coldness o f thatKing who

,at least

,was possessed o f a certain easy

kindness o f heart .Meanwhile Charles I I . deigned to visit Bad

minton,where Glamorgan ’s son

,Lord Herbert o f

Raglan,was l iving in great state . We learn from

a news letter dated Oxford,September

,1 663 , that

“ the King and Queen were right royally entertain ed by my Lord Herbert o f Ragland ,

” I t doesnot transpire whether Glamorgan and his so n wereestranged

,but it is indeed curious that the father

should be in poor circumstances while the sonentertained right royally.

” In spite o f patents,

royal promises,and great services

,the Duke

dom o f Somerset,granted to Glamorgan by

Charles I . was n o t confirmed by Charles I I . ,On the contrary

,i n 1 660

,the House o f

1 There is at B adm in ton a paper in Glamorgan's hand statingthis to have been the total of the monies spent by him for Charles I .from first to last .

65

Lords declared that i t was a prejudice to thePeers, Glamorgan made answer that the Patentwas left in hi s hands by the late King

,to create

him Duke of Somerset upon certain conditions,

which never yet were performed " that he hadmade no use of it and was will ing to del iver it upto His Maj esty . This was done

,and the

Dukedom o f Somerset was ultimately conferredo n the Marquess of Hertford . However

,the

t itles of Earl of Glamorgan and Baron Beaufort,

conferred upon the Marquess of Worcester i nthe same Patent

,were retained as settled by our

father of blessed Memory,

” Charles I I . , caused tobe written . I t was surely but a sorry andunk ingly action thus to add humil iation to theneglect of so loyal and deserving a subj ect "true

,the Dukedom o f Beaufort was afterwards

conferred upon Glamorgan ’s so n , but that wasafter the noble servitor had died in ignorance o f

the tardy reparation . I t would seem that, i n hisneed Glamorgan sought the aid o f the King’smistress

,my Lady Castlemaine , fo r there i s at

Badminton the draft o f a letter to some personn o t specified , in which the following passagesoccur : “ My Lord Arlington and my LadyCastlemaine undertake to perfect my most humblerequest to His Majesty

,so that they shall incur

no risk of denial,and yet by the same obliging

hand o f yours wh ich promotes my most humblesuit

,I shall present a thousand pieces to the

Duchess to buy her a little j ewel to what shedeserves to wear every day o f the week . And ifit pleases God I live but two years I will , out o f

E

66

the profits o f my Water-Commanding Engine ,appropriate five hundred pounds yearly, for everto her Grace’s

,and tw o hundred pounds yearly,

l ikewise,to your disposal

,all which

,as I am a

gentleman and a Christian,shall be faithfully and

most thankfully performed,though the benefi t I

pretend to by my petition will n o t amount towhat my gratitude obl iges .” Who the Duchessmay have been who was to be thus substantiallyrewarded does not transpire . I t cannot have beenmy Lady Castlemaine

,for she was only created

Duchess of Cleveland some five years after thewriting of this epistle "nor can it have been , assome have supposed

,Louise de Kero uaille ,

Duchess of Portsmouth,for that lady’s successful

career in England did not commence until severalyears later . The supposition that Ann Hyde,Duchess of York was alluded to

,i s o n e

which has more l ikelihood . Her Grace became aconvert

_to the Church of Rome about the time

that th is letter was penned,and it i s probab le that

she would have espoused the cause of a Catholici n distress . Be th is as it may

,i t is melancholy to

find Glamorgan thus reduced to a system o f

bribery in order to gain in the favour o f Charles I I . ,and it i s surely a slur upon that Monarch to haveso entirely neglected h is father’ s friend . We cannot help wondering whence Glamorgan intendedto procure the thousand pieces which he promisedto bestow,

fo r it was not impossible that the Kingwould refuse the petition

,and Glamorgan did n o t

make the stipulation that his promises were onlyto be performed in the event o f his demands

67

being granted,and if he were again denied we

know that he was so hard pressed for money as tobe constantly compelled to borrow small sumsfrom his friends in order to pay his l ivingexpenses . There i s a po stcriptum to the saidletter which puzzles us still more, i t runsBecause the profit accruing from my Water

Commanding Engine may seem uncertain,I

humbly offer in lieu thereof and in token o f mygratitude , a j udgment of ten thousand pounds ayear for four years

,at the disposal o f her Grace

,

and two hundred pounds per annum at yours . ”

This amounted to an even larger sum in thosedays than it represents to-day . Where , pendingsome large grant from the King

,did Glamorgan

propose to procure these sums " I t i s with indignation that we see h im forced to resort to promises of pecuniary reward fo r the help he craves .However

,all th is came to noth ing, and

Glamorgan spent his few remaining years infruitless petition and disappointment .Though the actual documents of h is many

pe titio n s are,as i s usual in such cases , merely

formal applications,there are o n e or two sentences

in the course of those private letters (whichpresumably accompanied the official documents)which throw some light on the more importantperiod o f th i s chequered career . In a letter tomy Lord o f Clarendon , High Chancellor ofEngland

,we have the actual proof, of what would

otherwise have been mere conj ecture, namely,that Glamorgan journeyed to Ireland to effect thetreaty with the Irish Catholics o n the understanding

68

that, were the n ego ciatio n s either discoveredby the King’s Protestant subj ects

,or by Parl ia

ment, the treaty, and the authorization thereunto

,should be denied by H i s Maj esty

,and the

entire mission repudiated . The letter to Lo rdClarendon opens by affirming that “ For HisMaj esty’ s better information , through your favourand by the channel of your Lordsh ip ’s understanding things rightly

,give me leave to acquaint

you wi th one ch ief key, wherewith to open thesecret passages between his late Maj esty andmyself

,in order to h is service "which was no

other than a real exposing of myself to anyexpense or difficulty rather than h is j ust designshould not take place, or, in effect h is honourshould suff er. An effect

,you may justly say

,

reli sh ing more a passionate and blind aff ection to

His Majesty’ s service, than of discretion and careof myself. This made me take a resolution thathe should have seemed angry with me at myreturn out of Ireland, until I had brough t h iminto a posture and power to own hi s commands

,

to make good h is instructions, to reward myfaithfulness and zeal therein

,and your lordsh ip

may well wonder,and the King too

,at the

amplitude of my commission . But when youhave understood the heigh t o f H i s Maj esty’sdesign you will soon be satisfied that noth ingless could have made me capable to effect i t"beingthat one army of ten thousand men was to havecome out o f I reland through North Wales . ”

Glamorgan continues to recount the scheme forbringing Irish and foreign armies to the assistance

69

o f the Royalists in England . I t was th is schemewhich the Parliamentarian s used as a most powerful tool with which to stir up and excite the fearand indignation o f half England against Charles I .and his faction The nation regarded th is asnoth ing short o f murder

,and , indeed , i t was no

pleasant prospect to have immense hordes o f

mercenaries turned loose upon England . As weknow the proj ect was never accompli shed . Therei s another point o f importance in this letter tomy Lord o f Clarendon : The maintenance o f

this army o f foreigners was to have come fromthe Pope and such Catholic Princes as he shoulddraw into it . F o r th i s purpose I had power totreat with the Pope and Catholic Princes withparticular advantages promised to Catholics fo rthe quiet enjoying their reli

gion

,without the

penalties which the statutes in orce had power toinfl ic t upon them . And my instructions fo r thispurpose

,and my powers to conclude and treat

thereupon,were signed by the King under his

pocket signet,with blanks for me to put in the

names of Pope or Princes,to the end the King

might have a starting hole to deny the havinggiven me such commissions

,if excepted against

by hi s own subj ects "leaving me as it were atstake

,who for His Maj esty’s sake was will ing to

undergo i t,trusting to his word alone . ” Here

we have Glamorgan ’s d irect evidence that he hadwillingly undertaken the sacrifice o f his honourable word and reputation to shield the King, hisMaster . We cannot fail to be struck by the toneo f this letter " there is no reproach levelled at

7 0

Charles I. , no bitterness at speech o r thought, andwhatever Glamorgan may have suffered

,he uttered

no harsh word against the King,who had

repudiated him .

The documentary evidence is very sl ight fo rthi s portion of the sad life it has been our privilegeto chronicle "and indeed there i s little more totell . I n the year 1 663 Charles I I . caused an actto pass through Parl iament granting protectionfo r the famous water-commanding engine

,but

even th i s act i s not made in an entirely generousspir it , fo r we find that “

o n e tenth part o f thebenefit accruing therefrom ” was to be reservedfo r the King and h is heirs . Thus

,however,

Glamorgan had at least the satisfaction of knowinghis invention to be recognised as one of importance " and we have in th is offic ial paper anevidence that the great engine actually exi sted atthat time

,though what became of it afterwards

we cannot say .

There are no more records o f Glamorgan’ s l ife,

and also no further mention of him in contempo rary memoirs . He died in April, 1 667 , i nLondon , and was conveyed with funeral solemnityto the Church of Raglan

,where he l ies interred .

In the Historical and Descriptive Accounts o fthe Ancient and Present state of Ragland Castle( 1 806) there i s an account o f how, owing to thefall ing in o f part of the pavement o f this church ,one

,Mr . Tregoze

,writer o f the above-mentioned

work, was enabled to descend into the vault whereGlamorgan lies . Since that vi sit the vault hasbeen closed up in such a manner that in all human

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

7 2

called into action when we are speaking o f thecharacter of an h istoric personage . The fac ts o fth e past are chronicled in archives , proved byofficial documents

,preserved fo r ever in the annals

o f a nation but the motives which movedfactions are merely to be read between the lines o fsuch chronicles

,and the eternal factor o f the

personal character o f the promoters of these factsi s almost entirely forgotten in the press o f achievement

,or in the strenuous movement of endeavour .

And yet the vast enterprises , the great upheavals ,both the wars and the peaces o f all time , have beencaused and determined either by the greatcharacteristics o f a man

,or by the predominant

forces at work in the minds and temperaments o fa group o f men . I t i s exactly th is which theintrospective spirit of to-day recognizes

,and it

demands,not merely the tell ing o f the actions o f

men,but an exposition of the character o f the

actors of other days , to explain , as i t were , thenature o f the force, or forces , which propelled andoften created the actual facts of History . Whenwe consider

,however, how scant i s o u r knowledge

Of the characters of those we have occasion tostudy from life to-day, we can real ize how perforce ,imaginary and incomplete

,must be the summary

o f the character of a man who i s separated fromus by a gulf of years

,and of the changes o f

the entire habit of life. Owing to these facts it i salmost impossible for the product o f one age toj udge and estimate j ustly the thought and charactero f the product of another age . Time , however ,focusses the mental vision , and we may see clearly

7 3

the great determining traits in a character,perhaps

with a truer vis ion than we are able to bring tothe examination of those beings who movearound us to-day . And yet we must recollectthat we are utterly dependent upon the evidenceof such contemporaries as have left personalnotes in memoirs

,letters or diaries

,for other

wise we know only the larger facts o f h istory .

Again , in sifting this evidence we must bear inmind several th ings " first, that the chroniclerso f other days were lim ited by exactly thosesame disadvantages as are the observers ofto-day

,such disadvantages as render each estimate

of the character of another but the half picture ofour own inmost being. Secondly, we mustadmit that the chronicler ’s mood o f the momentboth o f observing and of recording, must deeplyinfluence h is perception and h is account . Again

,hi s

opportunity of j udgment must be considered , alsothe personal charm or the reverse , exercised bythe subj ect upon hi s portrayer. Indeed , thoughHistory has repeatedly shewn how potent a factori s th i s personal charm

,i n matters great as well as

merely social,we are all too apt to forget the due

consideration of i ts absence, or presence in theperson of note i n the days gone by . Consider

,

fo r instance,the immense power o f exactly this per

sonal charm,or magneti sm exercised by Charles I .

I t was not only the devotion to a cause, to a princ iple , o r to an ideal , which caused men to give theirl ives

,their fortunes

,their homes to his service "

i t was also h is wonderful capacity for inspiringloyalty and devotion

,which undeniably counted

74

more than we can gauge,i n the great civil war of

England .

Having set forth the diflic u lties o f formingo ur estimate we will proceed to recountsuch characteristics of Glamorgan as we haveg leaned in the few personal records which wepossess . We would say that he was a mandowered with that vast capabili ty for devotionwhich i s invariably

,and of necessity

,more

strikingly exhibited in times o f trouble in allnations

,but which most peculiarly is the posses

sion of the Englishman of every generation . InGlamorgan ’s devotion lay his strength and thegreat elevation of his character . Doubtless hewas a man of an unbounded generosity

,and one

o f those large natures which gave ungrudgingly.

Whether he was in truth destitute of the shrewdness which caused his father, Lord Worcester ,to mistrust King Charles I. , or whether he wasbl inded by his affection

,duped by promises, or

weakly dominated by the influence of the Monarchhe idolized

,we cannot say . Evidently h is father

warned h im , but great natures, rich in trust, haveever preferred to give their all to the obj ect oftheir respect and aff ection

,without pausing to

consider the worthiness of the recipient.As a soldier Glamorgan was unsuccessful

,and

we would j udge h im to have been lacking inthat method , and discipline which must ever bethe attribute of a commander.In h is I rish mission we have evidence that he

did not possess the powers for successfu l intrigue .But we must recollect that he was pitted not only

7 5

against the bigotry o f the Rel igious factions,and

the stern anti-Popish prej udices of an Ormond,

but against the practised cunning o f the Nuncio .

Intrigue i s a fine art, and the successful intriguermust be a person dowered by nature with anaptitude for double-deal ing, to which should beadded the practised skill of years of conspiracy.

I t i s n o t o ur intention to claim such powers fo rGlamorgan

,n o r in our estimation would the

beauty o f his character have been enhanced bthe possession of such Machiavellian subtleties

,

though doubtless h i s career,notably throughout the

Irish n ego c iatio n s , would have proved more satisfactory had he been gifted with these powers .In fine

,Glamorgan stands accused o f a great

and en rossing devotion to hi s King, and o f alack o the diplomatic, or intriguing faculties .He may have been possessed o f a certain impetuo sity of enterprise which led h im to place to oeasy reliance in unreliable persons , but to thefau l t of weakness of which he i s accused i n sundryo f the King’s letters to Ormond , we cannot findhim guilty . Glamorgan’s contemporaries regardedhim as a dreamer, as a fantastic person half—crazedby strange theories

,but Time has proved some o f

his dreams to be real ities , and many o f his theoriesare now universally accepted facts . His achievements may be counted as unimportant by studentso f the wonderful matured machines , and scientificknowledge of to-day . I t has ever been that thegreat discoveries

,the wild dreams o f o ne age , have

formed the ordinary heritage of accepted thought,

and theo xy of the next century. To estimate

76

with a measure Of justice the work o f a pioneer o fscience such as Glamorgan was

,we must put o ff the

incurious eye of custom and endeavour to studyhim with the mental vi sion of h is generation ,aided by our superior knowledge of the ultimateutility o f h is inventions . ’ Thus we unhesitatingly

p roclaim Glamorgan to have been the greatestinventive genius of h is time .

He apparently suff ered from a stammer, o r

some other defect of speech,for he wrote to

Charles I I . that he wished to save His . Majestythe trouble of hearing h is natural defect o f

utterance,

” and therefore he presented h is petitionsin writing instead of beseech ing H i s Maj esty’sfavour in person . We would say that he wasessentially a scholar, a man of grave manners ,decorous and austere of habit

,a cavalier o f the

t ime o f Charles I . (a far diff erent person from the‘

gay and dissolute courtier of Charles II. ’

s reign):His was a sad l ife , unsuccessful and neglected ,but becau se loyal ty is very beautiful and devotionvery rare

,surely the story Of Glamorgan is worthy ,

o f a page in the annals o f England ’s heroes,

tell ing o f his love and service to h is King .

FINIS .