THE ELECTOR'S ALLIANCE WITH THE PARLIAMENT. EDWARD'S MARRIAGE.
ASSASSINATION OF D'EPINAY BY PHILIP
Before their departure from England, Rupert and Maurice had received a
visit from their brother, the Elector. The Thirty Years' War was
drawing to a close, and the Peace of Munster which was to restore
Charles Louis to the Palatinate, was already under consideration. But
the Elector could not make terms with the Emperor without the consent
of his brothers, and therefore June 30th, 1646, he wrote to the
Parliament:
"Having received information from Munster and Osnaburgh, that in
whatsoever shall be agreed at the general treaty concerning my
interests, the consent of all my brothers will be required, I am
desirous to confer with my brothers Rupert and Maurice, afore their
departure out of this kingdom, about this, and other domestic affairs
which do concern us. Whereby I do not at all intend to retard my said
brothers' journey; but shall endeavour to efface any such impressions
as the enemies of these kingdoms, and of our family beyond seas,
(making use of their present distresses,) may fix upon them, to their
own and our family prejudice."[1] The desired interview was permitted
by the Parliament, and on July 1st the Elector met his brothers at
Guildford. What reception he had we do not know, but it cannot, in the
nature of things, have been very cordial.
With all their faults, which were many, Rupert and Maurice were
incapable of the meanness to which Charles {206} Louis had descended,
and for which he did not conceal the mercenary motive. During the
King's prosperity he had lived much in England; and from the King he
had received nothing but kindness and affection, though the Queen
apparently gave him cause of complaint. In 1642 he had accompanied the
King to York, but, finding war inevitable, he had quitted the Court at
a moment's notice, and returned to Holland, just when Rupert and
Maurice were hastening to their uncle's assistance. The Parliament
"expressed a good sense" of this desertion, pretending to believe that
Charles Louis had discovered secret designs of the King to which he
could not reconcile his conscience.[2] And for some time the Elector
watched events from a distance, taking care to detach himself from all
connection with his brothers by declarations, and messages to the
Parliament.
By 1644, it appeared to him that the Parliament was likely to have the
better in arms, as it certainly had in money, and in the August of that
year he suddenly arrived in London. In a very long, and very pious
document he stated his reasons for his conduct. The Puritans, as "the
children of truth and innocency who are not changed with the smiles or
frowns of this inconstant world," were, he declared, his "best friends,
and, under God, greatest confidants," and he wound up with a direct
attack on Rupert. "Neither can His Highness forbear, with unspeakable
grief, to observe that the public actions of some of the nearest of his
blood have been such as have admitted too much cause of sorrow and
jealousy, even from such persons, upon whose affections, in respect of
their love and zeal to the reformed religion, His Highness doth set the
greatest price. But, as His Highness is not able to regulate what is
out of his power, so is he confident that the justice of the
Parliament, and of all honest men, will not impute {207} to him such
actions as are his afflictions, and not his faults."[3]
Princes were scarce with the Puritans, and Charles Louis was well
received, lodged in Whitehall, and granted a large pension.[4] In
recognition of this he took the Covenant, and begged leave to sit in
the Assembly of Divines, then debating on religious "reforms". His
request was readily granted, and it is to be hoped that he suffered
some weariness from the long-winded debates to which he thus condemned
himself.
The King regarded his conduct with quiet indifference, only remarking
that he was sorry, for his nephew's sake, that he thought fit to act in
such a manner. It has been suggested that he willingly connived at
this hypocrisy as the only means by which the Elector could obtain
money, but Charles Louis' own letters to his mother disprove that view.
In 1647, when the King was a prisoner, he often received the visits of
his eldest nephew, and the Elector thus described their mutual attitude
to Elizabeth: "His Majesty, upon occasion, doth still blame the way I
have been in all this time, and I do defend it _as the only shelter I
have_, when my public business, and my person, have received so many
neglects at Court. Madame, I would not have renewed the sore of his
ill-usage of me since the Queen hath had power with him, but that he
urged me to it, saying that I should rather have lived on bread and
water, than have complied with the Parliament, which he said I did
'_only to have one chicken more in my dish_'; and that he would have
thought it a design more worthy of his nephew if I had gone about to
have taken the crown from his head. These and such-like expressions
would have moved a saint. Neither do I know of anyone, but Our
Saviour, that would have ruined himself for those that hate one."[5]
{208}
The King seems to have entertained no suspicions of actual treachery on
the part of his nephew, but it is by no means unlikely that Charles
Louis really did cherish some vague design of "taking the crown from
his head". If the King were deposed, and his children rejected as the
children of a Roman Catholic Queen, then the Elector, after his mother,
was the Protestant heir to the throne. Probably the aspersions cast
upon Rupert would have better fitted his elder brother, and the French
Ambassador did not hesitate to assert plainly in 1644: "Some entertain
a design for conveying the crown to the Prince Palatine".[6] But,
whatever his degree of guilt, the political conduct of Charles Louis
could be regarded only with contempt by Rupert and Maurice, though
concerning their "domestic affairs" they seem to have been of one mind
with him.
During the years of turmoil in England the Palatines on the Continent
had not been inactive. Edward and Philip, clinging together as did
Rupert and Maurice, had resided chiefly in Paris, where they seem to
have led a very gay life, if Sir Kenelm Digby is to be credited. "All
my conversation is in the other world, and with what passes in the
Elysian fields," wrote that romantic personage to Lord Conway;
"gaieties of Paris, gallantries of Prince Edward, his late duel with
Sir James Leviston, who extremely forgot his duty. In a word, it was
impossible for a young man, and a noble prince, to do more bravely than
His Highness did."[7]
A month later, Edward, inspired probably by Queen Henrietta, wrote to
Rupert to suggest that he also should come over to fight for his
uncle's cause. "I have a letter from my brother in France who desires
my order to come to me; if it be His Majesty's desire I should send
word presently," Rupert wrote to Legge in April 1645; and he {209}
added a postscript curiously indicative of the haste and want of
thought with which he must have written. "Since I wrote I remember the
King was contented, and therefore I will send an express for my
brother."[8]
The express was sent: "This day arrived a gentleman from Prince Rupert
to fetch his brother Edward into England," wrote Jermyn to Digby.[9]
But ere the messenger could arrive Edward had eloped with a fair
heiress, for whose sake he joined the Roman Church. Jermyn hastened to
inform Rupert of the event. "Your Highness is to know a romance story
which concerns you here in the person of Prince Edward, who is last
week married privately to the Princess Anne, the Duke of Nevers'
daughter. This Queen,[10] the thing being done without her consent,
hath been very much offended at it, and, notwithstanding all the
endeavours of your brother's friends, he hath received an order to
retire himself into Holland, which he hath done,... But there will
come no further disadvantage to him than a little separation from his
wife. She is very rich, L6,000 or L7,000 a year is the least that can
fall to her, maybe more; and she is a very beautiful young lady."[11]
Edward's bride, Anne de Gonzague, was in fact a very distinguished
personage,--famous already for her startling adventures, and destined
to become more famous as a political _intrigante_.[12] The displeasure
of the Queen Regent was speedily softened by the intercession of Queen
Henrietta, and still more by Edward's conversion, which went far to
palliate his fault. On his own family it had precisely the opposite
effect. His mother was furious; and the Elector, moved by fear of the
English Parliament's disapproval, wrote indignantly that Edward could
not be really "persuaded {210} of those fopperies to which he
pretends."[13] He also ordered Philip to quit Paris, where "only
atheists and hypocrites" were to be found, and he exhorted his mother
to remove a Roman Catholic gentleman from attendance on the boy, and to
lay her curse upon him should he ever change his religion.[14]
Philip had no sooner returned to the Hague than he distinguished
himself in a way which won him the affectionate admiration of all his
brothers, and the lasting displeasure of his mother. Elizabeth's
favourite admirer, at that period, happened to be the Marquis d'Epinay,
a French refugee, remarkable for his fascinating manners and
disreputable character. The young Palatines detested him, but the man,
notwithstanding, became intimate at the Court, and was soon acquainted
with the Queen's most private affairs. The intimacy produced scandal
without, and dissension within the household. D'Epinay boasted of his
conquest, and Philip, a boy of eighteen, could not endure his insolence.
On the evening of June 20, 1646, D'Epinay, and several of his
countrymen encountered Philip alone. They greeted him by name,
insulting both him and his mother, but eventually fled before the
fierce onslaught of the youngest Palatine. The affair could not end
thus. On the following morning, as he drove through the Place d'Armes,
Philip caught sight of his enemy. Without a moment's thought he sprang
from his curricle, and rushed upon D'Epinay. D'Epinay was armed, and
received Philip on the point of his sword, wounding him in the side.
Philip had no sword, but he was a Palatine, and he plunged his
hunting-knife deep into the Frenchman's heart. D'Epinay fell dead, and
Philip, flinging his knife from him, regained his curricle and drove
off to the Spanish border.[15]
Then arose a mighty storm. The Queen, passionately {211} bewailing her
misfortune in having such a son, vowed that she would never look on
Philip's face again. But Philip's brothers and sisters rose up in his
defence. The Princess Elizabeth boldly averred that "Philip needed no
apology,"[16] and, finding her position in her mother's house
untenable, retreated to her Aunt at Brandenburg. And both Rupert and
the Elector warmly espoused Philip's cause. "Permit me, madame," wrote
Charles Louis, "to solicit your pardon for my brother Philip,--a pardon
I would sooner have asked, had it ever entered my mind that he could
possibly need any intercession to obtain it. The consideration of his
youth, of the affront he received, and of the shame which would, all
his life, have attached to him had he not revenged it, should
suffice."[17] Rupert wrote, in the same strain, from Oatlands, and his
letter was accompanied by a second from the Elector, in which he
declared that the very asking pardon for Philip would "more justly
deserve forgiving than my brother's action."[18] The Queen ultimately
accorded a nominal pardon to the unfortunate Philip, for in July 1648,
he was again at the Hague, under the protection of Rupert and Maurice,
whom he accompanied to a dinner at which Mary, Princess of Orange,
entertained her two brothers and three cousins.[19]
He had, in the meantime entered the Venetian service, rather to the
annoyance of the Elector, who wrote: "I could wish my brother Rupert or
Maurice would undertake the Venetian business, my brother Philip being
very young for such a task."[20] But neither of the other two brothers
had any intention of deserting the Stuart cause, and the Elector
obtained leave from the Parliament for Philip to raise a thousand men
in England. For this purpose, Philip {212} visited his eldest brother
in London, but stayed only a few weeks.[21] Returning to Holland, he
completed his levies in the states, with some assistance from
Maurice;[22] and in the autumn of 1648 he departed to Italy, whence he
wrote to Rupert that the Venetians were "unworthy pantaloons."[23]
Rupert was, meanwhile, watching over the Stuarts in France, and Maurice
remained quietly at the Hague with his mother and sisters. We find him
with no more exciting occupation than the paying of visits of
compliment on behalf of his mother; or walking meekly behind her and
his sisters, when they met distinguished visitors in the garden of the
Prince of Orange. Perhaps his health had suffered from his two severe
illnesses in England, and he needed the long rest. But, whatever the
reason, at the Hague he stayed, until May 1648, when he was summoned by
Rupert to join the Royalist fleet.
[1] Cary's Memorials. Vol. I. p. 120.
[2] Clarendon. Hist. Bk. VII. p. 414
[3] Rupert Transcripts. Declaration of the Prince Elector.
[4] Whitelocke, 85, 101.
[5] Forster's Eminent Statesmen. 1847. Vol. VI. pp. 80-81
[6] Von Raumer's History of England in 17th Century. III. p. 330.
[7] Cal. Dom. State Papers, 13/23 Feb. 1645. Chas. I. DVI. f. 43.
[8] Warburton, III. p. 75.
[9] Cal. Dom. State Papers. Jermyn to Digby, 12 May, 1645.
[10] Anne of Austria, Queen Regent of France.
[11] Warburton, III. p. 82. 5 May, 1645.
[12] Memoirs of Anne de Gonzague. Ed. Senac de Meilhan. Memoirs of
Cardinal De Retz, and of Mademoiselle de Montpensier.
[13] Bromley Letters, p. 127, 28 Nov. 1645.
[14] Bromley, pp. 129-131.
[15] Soeltl's Elizabeth Stuart, 1840. Bk. IV. Chap. 7, pp. 402-403.
[16] Strickland's Elizabeth Stuart, p. 209.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Bromley Letters, p. 134.
[19] Queen's Princesses, VI. p. 149.
[20] Bromley Letters, p. 136. Elector to Elizabeth, Jan. 9, 1646-7.
[21] Whitelocke, p. 306.
[22] State Papers, 20 April, 1647.
[23] Rupert Transcripts, Sept. 30, 1648.
{213}