Death of Richelieu--Bassompierre is offered his liberty on
condition that he shall retire to his brother-in-law Saint-Luc’s
Château of Tillières--He at first refuses to leave the Bastille,
unless he is permitted to return to Court--His friends persuade him
to alter his decision--He is authorised to reappear at Court--His
answer to the King’s question concerning his age--He recovers his
post as Colonel-General of the Swiss--His death--His funeral--His
sons, Louis de Bassompierre and François de la Tour--His nephews.
At length, on December 4, 1642, Richelieu succumbed to the one enemy
whom he was unable to subjugate, in full possession of all the power and
splendour for which he had laboured so unceasingly. Save to his family
and his immediate followers, his death brought little regret, for all
classes had felt his iron hand, and even the King seems to have
experienced a sense of relief at the thought that the short span of life
that remained to him would be free from that overshadowing presence.
It was not, however, without considerable difficulty that the
distinguished prisoners of the Bastille succeeded in obtaining their
freedom. Mazarin and Chavigny demanded that they should be set at
liberty; but Sublet des Noyers opposed it. The order of release was only
signed by the King on January 18, 1643, and, as the liberated captives
were not authorised to return to Court, Bassompierre refused to leave
his prison. His friends, however, persuaded him to do so, and he
retired, in accordance with the King’s orders, to the Château of
Tillières, belonging to his brother-in-law, the Comte de Tillières.
Henri d’Arnauld, Abbé of Saint-Nicolas d’Angers, in a journal addressed
to the wife of Président Barillon, describes the incidents of this
deliverance, which the invisible influence of Richelieu seemed still to
be hindering:
“_January 4, 1643._ ... Hope is held out to the two marshals who
are in the Bastille that they will be liberated before the end of
this month.
“_January 7th._ ... The prisoners of the Bastille entertain great
hopes of an approaching liberation.
“_January 11th._ ... I do not see that the hopes which have been
given to these gentlemen of the Bastille are based on too sure a
foundation. I greatly wish that I am wrong in the opinion I have
formed.
“_January 18th._ ... Since the letter I wrote I went to the
Bastille, to which M. de Romefort came, on behalf of M. de
Chavigny, to inform MM. de Bassompierre, de Vitry and de Cramail
that the King gave them back their liberty, but on condition that
the first shall go to Tillières, M. de Vitry to Châteauvilain, and
M. de Cramail to one of his houses. The two last received this news
with joy; but M. de Bassompierre is up to the present very decided
to refuse to go out on that condition, and all his friends and
servants are quite unable to influence him in the matter. They
ought to go out to-morrow. Perhaps, between now and then he will
alter his decision.
“_Wednesday, January 21, 1643._--On Monday, MM. de Bassompierre, de
Vitry, and the Comte de Cramail left the Bastille, the last two
with great joy. As for the first, his relatives and friends had all
the difficulty imaginable to persuade him to accept his liberty on
condition of going to Tillières, and a hundred times I believed
that he would refuse to do so. I was at the Bastille from 10
o’clock in the morning until 9 o’clock in the evening on the day on
which they went out.... They are to remain here for three or four
days. They have visited all the Ministers. There is some hope that
the Maréchal de Bassompierre will not remain long where he is
going.
“_January 25._ ... The three persons who had come out of the
Bastille were forbidden to visit _Monsieur_. They have taken their
departure. The Marquis de Saint-Luc brought to the King a letter of
thanks from the Maréchal de Bassompierre. The King, after reading
it twice, observed: ‘I refuse to allow people to make terms with
me, and the Maréchal de Bassompierre is one of the first who told
me that I ought not to do it. If he had not decided to go to
Tillières, I should have left him in the Bastille, to be maintained
there at his own expense. I gain by the release of these persons
45,000 livres a year.’[150] ‘Yes, Sire,’ answered Saint-Luc, ‘and
100,000 blessings.’
“_Tuesday, January 28._ ... The Maréchal de Bassompierre has left
Chaillot this morning and will reach Tillières to-morrow.
“_March 11._ ... The Maréchal de Bassompierre is so bored at
Tillières that he declares that he repents of having left the
Bastille and followed in that the advice of his friends.”
Some weeks later, and very shortly before his death, Louis XIII
authorised the Maréchaux de Bassompierre and de Vitry and the Comte de
Cramail to reappear at Court.
It is related that when Bassompierre went to pay his respects to the
King, his Majesty received him very graciously and inquired how old he
was. “Fifty, Sire,” was the reply. “Surely you are much older than
that?” exclaimed the King, in surprise. “I deduct the twelve years
passed in the Bastille, since they were not employed in the service of
your Majesty.” And on being presented to a beautiful young girl, he
observed: “Mademoiselle, how much do I regret my youth when I see you!”
Nevertheless, so greatly had the tone and manners of fashionable society
changed since that fatal day when he had lost his liberty, that poor
Bassompierre--Bassompierre who had formerly passed for the marvel of the
old Court!--appears, with his habits of magnificence and gallantry, to
have been regarded as a trifle antiquated, though, in the opinion of
Madame de Motteville, “the remains of the Maréchal de Bassompierre were
worth more than the youth of some of the most polished of that time.”
The young men to whom Madame de Motteville refers formed the cabal of
the “_Importants_,” whose ephemeral reign was terminated by the
imprisonment of the Duc de Beaufort (September, 1643). To this cabal
belonged the Marquis de la Châtre, who, on the death of Coislin, who had
died in 1641 from wounds received at the siege of Aire, had succeeded
him as Colonel-General of the Swiss. He was obliged to surrender this
post, of which the marshal resumed possession, on condition of paying Le
Châtre the 400,000 livres which he had received from Coislin.
Bassompierre’s resignation was considered as null and void, and the post
as not having been vacated.
Bassompierre did not long enjoy this return of favour. On October 12,
1646, his servants found him dead in his bed at Provins, where he had
stopped for the night, while returning to Paris from a visit to the
elder Bouthillier’s country-house. He had evidently passed away
peacefully in his sleep, “as he was found in his customary position, one
hand under the pillow at the place where his head rested, and his knees
a little raised.”[151] His body was brought in a coach to Chaillot; the
intestines, the tongue, and the brain were buried in the parish church
before the high altar; the heart and the rest of the body were delivered
by the curé to the Minims of Migeon, whose convent was close to the
château, and deposited in a chapel to the left of the high altar, in the
choir of their church. The Duc de Chevreuse and “other nobles and ladies
of high quality, with a great number of bourgeois and inhabitants of
Chaliot (_sic_),” assisted at the funeral ceremony.
The Maréchal de Bassompierre left two sons; one by Marie d’Entragues,
the other by the Princesse de Conti. The first, who was called Louis de
Bassompierre, took Holy Orders, and, after being provided, doubtless
through his father’s influence, with two rich abbeys, was consecrated
Bishop of Oloron, a see which he subsequently exchanged for the more
important one of Saintes. He was, in later years, appointed almoner to
_Monsieur_, brother of Louis XIV; but this post he resigned, in order
that he might reside continuously in his diocese, in which respect he
set an example which other bishops would have done well to follow.
The Bishop of Saintes was a pious and worthy man, beloved by the poor
and esteemed by everyone. During the troubles of the Fronde he laboured
to maintain in their allegiance to the Crown, or to bring back to their
duty, the population of Saintes, Brouage and the surrounding country,
and it was he who negotiated the accommodation of the Comte, afterwards
the Maréchal, du Daugnon with the Court. He died in Paris, whither he
had come on business connected with his diocese, on July 1, 1676.
“_Hélas!_” writes Madame de Sévigné, “_à propos_ of sleeping, poor M. de
Saintes has fallen asleep this night in the Lord in an eternal sleep. He
had been ill for twenty-five days, bled thirteen times, and yesterday
morning he was without fever. He talked for an hour with the Abbé Têtu
(these kind of improvements are nearly always deceptive), and on a
sudden he fell back in agony, and, in short, we have lost him. As he was
extremely lovable, he is extremely regretted.”
“The worthy prelate,” says the _Gazette de France_, “has left his
friends sensibly afflicted, the poor of his diocese in the extremity of
grief, and all those who knew him edified by the exemplary actions of
his life, and his Christian resignation at death.” By a will, made the
year before his death, he left all his property to the poor and the
churches of his diocese.
The marshal’s son by the Princesse de Conti was known as François de la
Tour. He is described by Goulas as “one of the handsomest and bravest
men of the Court”; and Tallemant des Réaux writes:
“He [Bassompierre] had a son by the Princesse de Conti, who was
called La Tour-Bassompierre; it is believed that he would have
recognised him, if he had had the leisure. This La Tour was brave
and well made. In a duel in which he took part as second, having to
fight with a man who for some years had had a disabled right arm,
but had accustomed himself to make use of his left, he allowed his
right arm to be bound and, nevertheless, beat his adversary.”
François de la Tour appears to have resembled his father in other
respects besides courage and good looks, as, in September, 1639, we find
Bassompierre complaining that “a person who was very nearly related to
him, named La Tour, had been gambling and had expended in a prodigal
fashion a great deal of money, which had occasioned him much vexation.”
François de la Tour was wounded on August 10, 1648, at the taking of
Vietri, in the kingdom of Naples, and appears to have died of his
wounds. “It is,” observes the Marquis de Chantérac, “without doubt of
him that the _Gazette de France_ speaks in announcing, under date
January 27, 1648, that the Sieur de Bassompierre, naval captain, had
distinguished himself in the engagement which had taken place between
the King’s forces, commanded by the Duc de Richelieu, and those of
Spain, under the orders of Don Juan of Austria, in the Gulf of Naples.”
Of the three nephews of the marshal, the eldest, Anne-François, Marquis
de Bassompierre, was killed in a duel in May, 1646, without having
married. The second, Charles, Baron de Dommartin, married Henriette
d’Haraucourt; but his male posterity continued only to the second
generation. The third, Gaston-Jean-Baptiste, Marquis de Baudricourt and
de Bassompierre, left descendants who were attached successively to the
service of Lorraine and of France. The last male representative of this
branch was Charles-Jean-Stanislas-François, Marquis de Bassompierre, who
died in 1837. The families which to-day bear the name of Bassompierre
would not appear to be connected in any way with the House of Betstein.
THE END
PRINTED BY THE ANCHOR PRESS, LTD., TIPTREE, ESSEX, ENGLAND.
* * * * *
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Condé, on hearing of this, remarked that Luynes was a good
Constable in time of peace and a good Keeper of the Seals in time of
war, and this jest was repeated everywhere.
[2] Créquy had been created a marshal on December 24, 1621.
[3] The Maréchal de Roquelaure recovered and lived until 1625, so
neither Schomberg nor Bassompierre received the coveted bâton.
However, shortly afterwards, the King gave Bassompierre the rank
of first _maréchal de camp_, and with it authority over the other
brigadier-generals and other privileges.
[4] From Coutré to Vivonne, a distance of about two and a half leagues.
[5] Tallemant des Réaux, little benevolent in general towards
Bassompierre, renders him justice on this occasion. “At the Sables
d’Olonne,” says he, “he acquired reputation, risked his life, and
showed the way to the others; for he plunged up to his neck in the
water.”--_Historiette de Bassompierre._
[6] Amongst those who honoured themselves by their efforts to protect
the women was the Keeper of the Seals, De Vic. Here is the tribute of
a contemporary chronicler:--
“I will tell you on this matter an act of charity on the part of
the Keeper of the Seals, who ordered one of his people, so soon as
the town was taken, to ransom the girls and women whom he found in
the hands of the soldiers, in order that by this means their honour
and their lives might be saved. This he did of those whom he met,
and brought them to the said Keeper of the Seals, to the number of
fifteen. They were conducted to his lodging, as to a place of refuge
and asylum; and some were sent back under escort to the places from
which they had fled to take refuge in Négrepelisse on the approach of
the Royal Army of his Majesty, while others were conducted to a place
of safety.” _Le fidelle historien des affaires de France_ (_Paris_,
MDCXXIII.).
The Duc de Chevreuse and Roger, valet of the King’s wardrobe, also
ransomed several women, and an officer named Pontis saved the honour
of a young girl of eighteen.
[7] Carmain, called indifferently Caraman, Carmaing, Carman, or
Cramail, had been a Huguenot town for nearly fifty years. The
principal inconvenience which it caused the inhabitants of Toulouse
was the fact that it afforded the few Protestants of the capital of
Languedoc facilities for the public exercise of their religion.
[8] Claude de Bullion, Seigneur de Bonnelles. He was successively
counsellor to the Parlement of Paris, Counsellor of State, and _maître
des requêtes_ and was appointed Surintendant of Finance in 1632. He
died in 1646.
[9] Combalet had recently married Marie Madeleine de Vignerot,
afterwards Duchesse d’Aiguillon, Richelieu’s favourite niece.
[10] He was a son of Zamet the financier, and colonel of the Picardy
Regiment.
[11] Bassompierre had protected Roucellaï after the death of Concini,
whose protégé he had been, and had lately obtained for him a rich
abbey.
[12] “The Sieur de Bassompierre, since made Maréchal de France for his
merits, ran thither, sword in hand, with some soldiers of the Piedmont
Regiment.... In the midst of the disorder into which our men had been
thrown, the Maréchal de Bassompierre showed his judgment and his
courage.”--_Histoire du Maréchal de Toiras._
[13] The Treaty of Montpellier confirmed the Edict of Nantes, and
permitted the Protestants to hold ecclesiastical assemblies without
the authorisation of the King; but political assemblies were
forbidden, unless the King’s permission had been obtained. La Rochelle
and Montauban were allowed to retain their fortifications, and it was
promised that Fort Saint-Louis, which the Government had caused to be
erected within a quarter of a league of the ramparts of La Rochelle,
and which was a serious menace to that town, should be razed. But
the fortifications of the other Huguenot towns were to be partially
dismantled, so that they might never again be capable of defying the
royal authority. The chiefs of the insurrection were restored to
all their honours and charges, with the exception of those whom the
King preferred to indemnify. Among these was Rohan, who exchanged
his government of Poitou for that of the towns of Nîmes, Uzès, and
Castries, which, however, he was not allowed to garrison, a large sum
of money and a pension of 45,000 livres. La Force had already been
indemnified for the loss of his government of Béarn.
The Protestants’ imprudent recourse to arms had thus cost them dear.
They had lost two important governments, their political organisation
and all their places of surety, with the exception of La Rochelle and
Montauban. It only remained to deprive them of these two towns to
reduce the party to a mere sect. In the position in which they were,
however, it was as favourable a treaty as they could have hoped for.
[14] After long negotiations, Richelieu had at last obtained his
promotion to the cardinalate on September 23 of that year. He was
on his way at this moment, not to receive the hat, but to offer his
thanks to the King. Hérouard tells us that the hat was given Richelieu
by Louis XIII, at Lyons, on December 10, 1622.
[15] Philip, Duc d’Orléans, the King’s brother.
[16] The Comte de Soissons.
[17] Nicolas de Bailleux, afterwards _Surintendant_ of Finance.
[18] Not only had this stipulation of the Treaty of Montpellier not
been executed, but the governor of Fort Saint-Louis was working
incessantly to strengthen this citadel.
[19] Caumartin had died on January 21, 1623, and the Chancellor had
obtained the Seals, without which his office was a sinecure.
[20] “To Seigneur Maréchal de Bassompierre, for gilded leathers,
40,000 maravedis.”
[21] Bassompierre appears to have got his dates mixed. He places the
“Guadamiciles” affair in July, but the disgrace of Ornano, whose
offence was that he had instigated _Monsieur_ to demand admission to
the Council, occurred at the beginning of June.
[22] August 12.
[23] Captain of the Gardes du Corps.
[24] There was some talk of bringing La Vieuville to trial, on a
charge of malversation, but the real motive for imprisoning him was
to prevent him from revenging himself for his disgrace by disclosing
the secret of the negotiations which were in progress. When there was
no longer anything to fear from his indiscretion, he was allowed to
escape.
[25] Gregory XV had died on July 8, 1623, and was succeeded by
Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, who had assumed the name of Urban VIII.
[26] The accusation was a true one. Richelieu had proved that nothing
would stay his arm when the interests of France were at stake.
[27] “He [Barberini],” writes Bassompierre, “was received, lodged
and entertained with all the honours that it was customary to render
to Legates. But, after several conferences had been held and divers
treaties proposed, not having got what he expected, he came to
Fontainebleau to take leave of the King, and immediately afterwards,
without waiting to receive the customary honour of being escorted and
his expenses defrayed on his journey through France, he unexpectedly
took his departure, having previously refused the King’s present.
The King summoned the princes and officers of the Crown together
with certain presidents of his Court of Parlement, and held a
famous council at Fontainebleau to deliberate upon this extravagant
departure, where nothing was resolved upon except to let him go.”
[28] The siege of Verrua was raised on November 17, 1625, as the
result of a defeat inflicted on the Spaniards before the walls of the
town. Vignolles had arrived on the 9th.
[29] _Ambassade du Maréchal de Bassompierre en Suisse, l’an 1625._
[Amsterdam, 1668.]
[30] Raymond Phelipeaux, Seigneur d’Herbault. He was one of the
Secretaries of State, and shared with Potier d’Acquerre and Loménie de
la Ville-aux-Clercs the Department of Foreign Affairs.
[31] Schomberg had been created a marshal of France in 1625.
[32] Between Louis XIII and her son-in-law Philip IV.
[33] Madame de Molteville, _Mémoires_: “The Queen did me the honour
to tell me that she did everything she could to stop the marriage of
_Monsieur_ ... because she believed that this marriage, which the
Queen-Mother desired, was altogether contrary to her interests, being
assured that, if the princess were to have children, she would no
longer enjoy any consideration.”
[34] “A few days afterwards there was a report that a council had been
held, which was attended by nine persons ... at which it was resolved
to go and kill the Cardinal at Fleury.”
[35] Henri Martin.
[36] _Mémoires d’un favori du duc d’Orléans. Archives curieuses de
l’histoire de France. Tome III._
[37] Roger de Gramont, Comte de Louvigny, second son of Antoine, Comte
de Gramont. He was killed in a duel on March 18, 1629.
[38] The Comte de Candale was the younger son of d’Épernon and brother
of the Marquis de la Valette.
[39] According to Bassompierre, they were both in love with the
Duchesse de Rohan.
[40] François de Montmorency, Seigneur de Bouteville. He was beheaded
in 1627. See p. 505 infra.
[41] On July 2.
[42] Among the things which Louvigny appears to have invented was the
accusation that Chalais meditated the death of the King, by scratching
him on the neck with a poisoned pin when, as Master of the Wardrobe,
he was adjusting his ruff.
[43] Here is a specimen: “If my complaints have moved with compassion
the most insensible of hearts, when my sun failed to shine in the
alleys dedicated to love, where will be those who do not share my
tears in a prison into which the sun’s rays can never enter, and in
which my lot is so much the harder in that I am forbidden to make
known to her my cruel martyrdom? In this perplexity, I felicitate
myself on having a master who makes me suffer only in body; and murmur
against the marvels of that sun whose absence is killing the soul,
and brings about such a metamorphosis that I am no longer myself save
in the persistence of adoring it; and my eyes, which survive for that
alone, are justly punished for their too great presumption by the
shedding of more tears than ever love caused to flow.”
[44] The horrible tortures inflicted on the condemned man are
accounted for by the fact that the executioner of Nantes had hidden or
taken away his axe, and that his substitute was obliged to make use of
unsuitable weapons: “They brought from the prisons of the town two men
destined for the gibbet, one of whom played the part of executioner,
while the other served as his assistant. But the former was so clumsy
that, besides two blows with a Swiss sword, which had been purchased
on the spot, he gave him [Chalais] thirty-four with an adze such as
carpenters use, and was obliged to turn the body round to finish the
severing of the head, the victim exclaiming up to the twentieth blow:
‘_Jesus, Maria et Regina Coeli!_’”
[45] There can be no possible doubt that, had the marshal lived
a little longer, he would have shared the fate of Chalais. “I
am infinitely vexed that the death of the Maréchal d’Ornano has
forestalled the judgment of the court,” wrote Richelieu to the King.
“The justice of God wished to anticipate yours.”
[46] Bassompierre appears to have been addressed frequently by Louis
XIII and _Monsieur_ by the German form of his name.
[47] Enormous as were these revenues, the King was able to sequestrate
them by a stroke of the pen, and Richelieu took care that _Monsieur_
should not have in his hands a single fortified place. It was a wise
precaution, since Gaston’s first treason was to be followed by others.
[48] “_Monsieur_ was playing cards when the news was brought to him.
He did not interrupt his game, but went on with it, as though, instead
of Chalais’s death, he had heard of his deliverance.”--_Mémoires d’un
favori du duc d’Orléans._
[49] When Louis lay on his death-bed, the Queen swore, with tears in
her eyes, that she had been innocent of any such intention. “In the
state in which I am,” was the reply, “I am obliged to pardon you, but
I am not obliged to believe you.”
[50] Tyburn Tree would appear to have stood on the spot which is now
the junction of the Bayswater and Edgware Roads.
[51] “They [the Bishop of Mende and the other ecclesiastics of the
Queen’s Household] abused the influence which they had acquired over
the tender and religious mind of her Majesty, so far as to lead her a
long way on foot, through a park, the gate of which had been expressly
ordered by the Count de Tilliers [Tillières] to be kept open, to go
in devotion to a place (Tyburn), where it has been the custom to
execute the most infamous malefactors and criminals of all sorts,
exposed on the entrance to a high road; an act, not only of shame
and mockery towards the Queen, but of reproach and calumny of the
King’s predecessors of glorious memory, as accusing them of tyranny
on having put to death innocent persons, whom these people look upon
as martyrs, although, on the contrary, not one of them had been
executed on account of religion, but for high treason.”--Reply of the
Commissioners of his Majesty the King of Great Britain, to Monsieur
le Maréschal de Bassompierre, Ambassador Extraordinary from his Most
Christian Majesty.
[52] The orthography of this letter is, of course, modernised.
[53] Sir Lewis Lewkenor, Knight. In 1603 an office had been
instituted, or rather revived, for the more solemn reception of the
Ambassadors by the title of Master of the Ceremonies, with a salary
of £200 per annum. Sir Lewis Lewkenor was the first holder of the
post. The worthy knight’s emoluments were not confined to his salary,
for Stow tells us that when, in March, 1605, he was sent by the Lords
of the Council to the foreign Ambassadors to contradict officially
a report of James I’s death which had been spread, the Spanish
Ambassador was “ravished with a soddaine joy, and gave unto Sir Lewis
Lewkner (_sic_) a very great chaigne of gold, of a large value.”
[54] Greenwich Palace, on the site where now stands the Naval
Hospital, had been a favourite residence of Henry VIII and Elizabeth,
but the Stuarts appear to have resided there but little.
[55] Sir Edward Sackville, fourth Earl of Dorset (1591-1652). He
was one of the handsomest men of his time, and in 1613 had become
notorious as the hero of a duel, fought on a piece of ground specially
purchased for the purpose near Bergen-op-Zoom, in which he had killed
Edward Bruce, second Lord Kinloss, and been himself severely wounded.
He had been ambassador in France for a short time in 1621 and again in
1623.
[56] It was customary for Ambassadors Extraordinary to be lodged
and entertained at the expense of the sovereigns to whom they were
accredited, and we have seen how splendidly Bassompierre was treated
at Madrid. Why this practice was departed from on the present occasion
was no doubt due to the ill-feeling existing between the two Courts
and to the fact that his mission was an unwelcome one, and not to any
motive of economy, for in 1610 the Ambassador sent to announce to
James I the accession of Louis XIII had been lodged in Lambeth Palace
and most lavishly entertained.
[57] It is singular that Bassompierre omits to mention where he lived
during his stay in London. It might be supposed that it was at the
house of the permanent Ambassador, the Marquis de Blainville, were
it not that he states elsewhere that it was in a _maison de louage_.
There was in those days no French Embassy in London, that is to say, a
house purchased by the French Government for the accommodation of its
representative, and the Ambassadors made their own arrangements. We do
not know where Blainville lived, but his predecessor, Bassompierre’s
brother-in-law, the Comte de Tillières, rented for a time Hunsdon
House, in the Blackfriars. It was during his tenancy of this house,
in October, 1623, that a most terrible accident occurred. Some three
hundred Catholics had assembled there one evening to hear Mass, when
the floor of the room in which the service was being held gave way,
with the result that a great number of them were killed or severely
injured. The bodies of nearly fifty are said to have been afterwards
buried in the garden. This disaster was called the Fatal Vespers. “The
Protestants,” observes Croker, “considered it as a judgment of Heaven;
the Roman Catholics as a treachery of the Protestants, both sides
overlooking in the blindness of bigotry the weakness of an old floor
and the weight of the inordinate number of persons crowding upon it.”
[58] François de Rochechouart, Knight of Malta, known also under the
name of the Commandeur de Jars, third son of François de Rochechouart,
Seigneur de Jars, and Anne de Monceaux. He had been exiled from the
Court of France at the time of the arrest of Ornano, and had come to
England, where he had been well received.
[59] Buckingham was much incensed against the Court of France, owing
to its refusal to receive him as Ambassador Extraordinary in the
autumn of the previous year, though what else he could have expected
after his audacious attempt to make love to Anne of Austria is
difficult to understand. He had also, it appears, a personal grievance
against Richelieu upon a point which was then considered of great
importance--the right to the title of _Monseigneur_. The Cardinal had
addressed letters to _Monsieur_ le Duc de Buckingham, and the omission
of the _Monseigneur_ had given mortal offence to Buckingham.
[60] York House. It had belonged originally to Charles Brandon,
Duke of Suffolk; but in the reign of Mary, Heath, Archbishop of
York, purchased it for the see. Whence the name which so perplexed
Bassompierre. In the reign of James I, Matthews, Archbishop of York,
disposed of it to the Crown, and after Lord Chancellors Egerton and
Bacon had had it, probably as an official residence, it was granted to
Buckingham, who converted it into a sumptuous palace.
[61] “It does some credit to the taste at least of the English Court
at that period,” observes Croker, “that Bassompierre, himself a man
of distinguished taste in decoration and furniture (he nearly ruined
himself by fitting up that celebrated house at Chaillot, which his
gaoler Richelieu used to borrow), and who had seen all the courts in
Europe, should consider this as the finest and best fitted house he
had ever seen.”
[62] William Cecil, second Earl of Salisbury, son of Sir Robert Cecil,
the first earl, and grandson of the great Lord Burleigh.
[63] Philip Herbert, Earl of Montgomery, afterwards fourth Earl of
Pembroke (1584-1650), Lord Chamberlain, second son of Henry, second
Earl of Pembroke, by his celebrated wife, Mary Sidney, sister of Sir
Philip Sidney. It was to him and his brother William, third Earl of
Pembroke, that Heminge and Corleton dedicated the first folio of
Shakespeare as “to the most noted and incomparable pair of brothers,
who having prosequted these treffles [the immortal plays] and their
authour living with so much favour, would use a like indulgence
towards them which they have done unto their parent.” Herbert was a
generous patron of Massinger and Vandyck as well as of Shakespeare,
but, in other respects, a far from estimable person, though much of
the abuse heaped upon him by contemporary writers is no doubt due to
his desertion of the King’s cause during the Great Rebellion. The
charges that he was quarrelsome, dissolute, and wanting in physical
courage would seem, however, to be only too well founded. His devotion
to the sport of cock-fighting is recorded in the old lines:--
“The Herberts every Cockpitt Day
Doe carry away
The gold and glory of the day.”
[64] He was at one time the owner of the famous Sancy diamond, which
afterwards figured amongst the crown jewels of France, and later
amongst those of Russia.
[65] The King’s fear lest his consort “might commit some extravagance
and weep in the sight of everyone” was, after all, well justified for,
after the audience, Bassompierre writes to d’Herbault: “The Queen
would have come near to weeping in this great assembly, if Madame de
la Trémouille had not led her away.”
[66] Edward, Baron, afterwards Viscount, Conway. He had been one of
the Secretaries of State since January, 1623. He was subsequently
removed from that office, “for notable insufficiency,” says Clarendon,
and in December, 1628, appointed Lord President of the Council. It is
somewhat singular that Bassompierre, very particular as a rule to give
the English nobles whom he met during his mission their titles, does
not do so in the case of Conway. “But it is to be observed,” remarks
Croker, “that the office of Secretary of State was still (both in
England and France) considered a subordinate one, and even the peerage
did not exempt the possessor from the plebeian appellation of ‘Mr.
Secretary.’”
[67] In Bassompierre’s dispatches to his Court we find further details
of the stormy interview. “I was treated,” he writes to Louis XIII,
“with great rudeness, and found the King very little disposed to
oblige my master.” Charles complained bitterly of the intrigues of
the Queen’s French attendants; of their malice in seeking to wean his
wife’s affection from him, and their insolence in prejudicing her
against the English language and nation. The King grew at length so
warm as to exclaim to the Ambassador: “Why do you not execute your
commission and declare war?” “I am not a herald to declare war,” was
the answer, “but a marshal of France, to make it when declared.”
[68] The favourite’s presumptuous behaviour towards his sovereign was
not always so delicately reproved as it was on this occasion by the
well-bred and courtly Bassompierre. “On the eventful day of Dr. Lambe
[an astrologer, who went by the name of the ‘Duke’s Devil’] being
torn to pieces by the mob, a circumstance occurred to Buckingham,
somewhat remarkable, to show the spirit of the times. The King and
the duke were in the Spring Gardens, looking on the bowlers; the duke
put on his hat; one Wilson, a Scotchman, first kissing the duke’s
hands, snatched it off, saying: ‘Off with your hat before the king.’
Buckingham, not apt to restrain himself, kicked the Scotchman; but
the king interfered, saying: ‘Let him alone, George; he is either
mad or a fool.’ ‘No, sir,’ replied the Scotchman, ‘I am a sober man,
and, if your Majesty will give me leave, I will tell you of this man
which many know and none dare speak.”--Disraeli, _Curiosities of
Literature_, Vol. II.
[69] John Egerton, Viscount Brackley, created Earl of Bridgewater in
1617, son of Lord Chancellor Egerton.
[70] Sir George Goring, afterwards Earl of Norwich (1583-1663). He was
at this time vice-chamberlain to the Queen.
[71] William Herbert, third Earl of Pembroke, elder brother of Philip
Herbert, Earl of Montgomery.
[72] There were at this time only two dukes, _viz._, Buckingham and
James Stuart, Duke of Lennox and Richmond; but, as the latter was a
lad of fourteen, it is very natural for Bassompierre to speak of the
King’s favourite as “the duke.”
[73] Bassompierre also expresses his dissatisfaction with his
reception in England, and with the English generally, in a letter to
the Bishop of Mende, formerly Grand Almoner to the Queen. “I found,”
he writes, “condescension amongst the Spaniards and civility and
courtesy amongst the Swiss in my embassies to those nations, but the
English would abate nothing of their natural pride and arrogance.” So
we see the charge of “insular pride” is nearly three centuries old, at
any rate. The bishop replies: “I am not surprised that you found more
courtesy and satisfaction amongst the Spaniards than in the island
upon which the tempest has cast you. I have always found the English
as unreasonable as the Swiss, but less faithful to their honour than
the Spaniards.” No doubt the bishop thought it very unreasonable of
the English government to deprive him of his post, but, unless all the
charges brought against him by the commissioners appointed to reply to
Bassompierre’s complaints are to be disbelieved, he had only himself
to thank for it.
[74] Madame de Motteville goes so far as to assert, on the authority
of Henrietta, that, not only had Buckingham fomented the dissensions
between husband and wife, but that he had openly avowed to the Queen
that such was his deliberate intention. Whether or no he is to be
credited with so perilous a candour, it can scarcely be doubted that
his attitude towards the young Queen was a hostile one, and, on one
occasion he is said to have told her insolently to beware how she
behaved, since in England queens had had their heads cut off before
now.
[75] Charlotte de la Trémoille, daughter of Claude, Seigneur de la
Trémoille, Duc de Thouars, and Charlotte of Nassau, daughter of
William the Silent, Prince of Orange. She had married James Stanley,
Viscount Strange, afterwards seventh Earl of Derby--“the loyal Earl of
Derby”--who was beheaded in 1651. She is celebrated in history for her
heroic defence of Latham House against the troops of the Parliament.
[76] Presumably, these were Charles’s private jewels, for many of the
Crown jewels had been pawned to the States-General. “Warrants are
extant,” says Croker, “authorising Buckingham and Sackville Crow to
pawn jewels to the amount of £300,000; _viz._: ‘a great rich jewel of
goulde, call’d the Mirror of Great Britain, having twoe faire litle
dyamonds, cut lozenge wise, garnish’d with small dyamonds, and a
pendant with a faire dyamond cutt in fawcetts without foyle, etc.’”
[77] During Bassompierre’s embassy, Henrietta Maria wrote her mother a
letter which the marshal regarded as a proof that she distrusted him.
On learning of this, the Queen wrote to him as follows:--
“My Cousin, Understanding that you had been vexed respecting a letter
I wrote to the Queen my mother, and that you think that I distrust
you, I beg you to dismiss the idea and to believe that I am not so
ungrateful for the services which you have rendered me as to avoid
you. M. le Duc [probably the Duc de Chevreuse] will tell you about the
affair as it happened; and, as for myself, I can assure you that my
intention never was to offend you, for I should be most blameworthy to
act thus against persons who testify affection for me, particularly
against you, whom I honour, and to whom my obligations are so great
that I shall ever remain,
“Your affectionate cousin,
“HENRIETTE-MARIE.”
It is perhaps to this episode that Bassompierre here refers.
[78] Perhaps Robert Ker, afterwards Earl of Roxburgh.
[79] Probably, Endymion Porter (1587-1649), groom of the bedchamber to
Charles I, whom he had accompanied on his journey to Spain, where he
sometimes acted as interpreter, having been educated in that country.
He was a generous patron of literature and art, and Herrick declares
that poets would never be wanting so long as they had a patron like
Porter,
“who doth give
Not only subject for our art,
But oil of maintenance to it.”
Porter was devoted to Buckingham, to whose favour he owed his rise to
fortune, and in his will, dated the year before his death, he “charged
all his sons, upon his blessing, that, leaving the like charges to
their posterity, they did all of them observe and respect the children
and family of his Lord Duke of Buckingham, deceased, to whom he owed
all the happiness he had in the world.”
[80] Charles de Brouilly, Marquis de Piennes.
[81] Pierre Gobelin, counsellor to the Parlement in 1618, was
appointed _maître des requêtes_ in 1624.
[82] Wallingford House. It stood near Charing Cross, upon the site of
the Old Buildings of the Admiralty.
[83] There were at this time two Duchesses of Lennox: Catherine
Clifton, widow of Esmé Stuart, the first duke, and Frances Howard,
widow of Ludovic, the second duke, whom James I had created Duke
of Richmond, in the peerage of England. As the latter was a vain,
ambitious, and intriguing woman, and possessed of considerable
influence at Court, it is probable that it was to her that
Bassompierre’s visit was paid. The duchess had been married three
times. She began her matrimonial experiments with a merchant, a Mr.
Prannell; continued them with an earl, Edwin, Earl of Hertford, and
concluded with a duke of royal blood. If, however, we are to believe
the gossip of the time, she would fain have made yet another, and
secured a yet more exalted consort. “For, finding the King (James) a
widower, she vowed, after so great a prince as Richmond, never to be
blown with kisses or eat at the table of a subject; and this vow must
be spread abroad that the King might notice the bravery of her spirit.
But this bait would not catch the old king, and she, to make good her
resolution, speciously observed her vow to the last.”
[84] Mary Villiers, to whom by letters-patent of August, 1627, the
duchy of Buckingham was granted in default of heirs male. Like the
lady just mentioned, she was married three times: first, to Lord
Herbert, son of Philip, Earl of Pembroke; secondly to James Stuart,
Duke of Lennox and Richmond, and, finally, to Thomas Howard, a brother
of the Earl of Carlisle. She had no children by any of her husbands.
[85] Presumably, a French translation.
[86] An indignant newsmonger thus enumerates the penances to which the
Queen had, or was supposed to have, been subjected: “Had they not also
made her, on St. James’s Day, dabble in the dirt, in a foul morning,
from Somerset House to St. James’s, her Luciferian confessor riding by
her in his coach? Yea, they have made her spin, to go barefoot, to eat
her meat out of treen dishes [dishes made of “tree,” _i.e._, wooden
trenchers], to wait at table and serve her servants, with many other
ridiculous and absurd penances; and if these rogues dare thus insult
over the daughter, sister and wife of so great Kings, what slavery
would they not make us, the people, undergo?”--_Ellis’s Letters, Pory
to Mead_, July 1, 1626.
[87] The fogs of England have been in all ages a sore trial to
foreigners. Gondomar, Spanish Ambassador in the time of James I, when
someone who was going to Spain waited on him to ask whether he had any
commands, replied: “Only my compliments to the sun, which I have not
seen since I came to England.” Caraccioli, Neapolitan Ambassador to
the Court of George II, in a conversation with that monarch, took the
liberty of preferring the _moon_ of Naples to the _sun_ of England.
[88] In a letter to d’Herbault, Bassompierre gives details of this
agreement: “First, she [the Queen] has re-established--and this is
for her conscience--a bishop and ten priests, a confessor and his
coadjutor, and ten musicians for her chapel; that of St. Gemmes is
to be finished with its cemetery, and another is to be built for her
in her palace of Somerset, at the expense of the King her husband.
In attendance on her person she will have of her own nation, two
ladies of the bedchamber, three bedchamber-women, a sempstress, and a
clear-starcher. In regard to her health, two physicians, an apothecary
and a surgeon. For her household, a grand chamberlain, an equerry,
a secretary, a gentleman usher of the privy chamber and one of the
chamber of presence, a baxter-groom, (_i.e._, baker), a valet. All her
officers of the mouth and goblet will be French.” This was, in all
conscience, a sufficiently numerous foreign establishment; but it was
scanty in comparison with the army of more or less useless persons
located at the English Court on the strength of the first treaty,
which, including the servants of the higher officials, amounted to
more than four hundred.
It was further stipulated that all the priests detained in prison
should be set at liberty, and that the pursuivants, or officials whose
duty it was to prosecute Catholics who offended against the Penal
Laws, should be abolished.
[89] The Danes, like the Germans, were at this time proverbial
throughout Europe for their too great indulgence in the pleasures of
the table, and it would appear that Bassompierre’s guest was, as an
ambassador should be, a worthy representative of his country.
[90] The royal coaches of this and, indeed, of a much later period,
were huge structures, not unlike four-poster beds on wheels, for
they had no glass and were sheltered by leather curtains. They were
capable of holding eight persons, two of whom were perched on niches,
called boots, at each door. These places were usually reserved for
some favoured guest or friend of the King or Queen. When Philip V of
Spain left Versailles to take possession of his kingdom, Louis XIV
took his grandson the first stage of his journey in his own coach,
which accommodated the whole Royal family. “The two kings and the
Duc de Bourgogne,” says Saint Simon, “sat on one side, the Dauphin,
the Duchesse de Bourgogne and the Duc de Berry on the other; the Duc
and Duchesse d’Orléans at either door.” A most illustrious coachful!
Coaches were introduced into England in the latter part of Elizabeth’s
reign. When the Queen went to St. Paul’s to return thanks for the
defeat of the Armada, “she did come in a chariot-throne, with four
pillars behind to bear a canopy, on the top whereof was a crown
imperial, and two lower pillars before, whereon stood a lion and a
dragon, supporters of the arms of England, drawn by two white horses.”
Two horses would appear to have been the usual number for some time.
Buckingham was the first who ventured on six, which, we are told,
was looked upon with strong disapproval, as a mark of the “mastering
spirit” of the favourite.
[91] The Moorfields were a walk planted with trees, on the north
of the city, comprising the Moorfields property, so called, the
Middle Moorfields and the Upper Moorfields. Until the beginning of
the previous reign, the Moorfields were, according to Stow, “a most
noisome offensive place, being a general laystall, loathsome to both
sight and smell, ... but, through the pains and industry of Master
Nicholas Leate they were reduced from their former vile condition into
most fayre and royale walkes.”
[92] “M. Harber” was no doubt Edward Herbert, the celebrated Lord
Herbert of Cherbury, who had been Ambassador in France in 1619.
[93] Pembroke was Lord Steward.
[94] The English “country dance” was a corruption in name of the
French _contredanse_.
[95] “The ground on which this palace stood,” observes Croker,
“shelved down from the Strand, where the principal entrance was to the
river. The principal floor and state rooms were probably on the level
with the entrance on the Strand side, but must have been a story above
the ground on the river side; and this story was probably the vaulted
apartments which Bassompierre mentions. It seems odd that he should
think the _vaulting_ a peculiarity worth mentioning, as the ground
floor of the Tuileries and the Louvre, in which he passed most of his
life, were vaulted; but vaulted domestic apartments were probably
then, as now [1819], extremely rare; and the singular and magnificent
effect of vaulted rooms, furnished for the purpose, must have struck a
person of Bassompierre’s taste.”
[96] A newsletter preserved in the British Museum, which has been
published by Isaac Disraeli, in his _Curiosities of Literature_, gives
the following account of this _fête_:
“Last Sunday, at night, the duke’s grace entertained their
majesties and the French ambassador at York House with great
feasting and show, when all things came down in clouds, among
which one rare device was a representation of the French King and
the two Queens [Anne of Austria and the Queen-Mother], with their
chieftest attendants; and so to the life, that the Queen’s majesty
could name them: it was four o’clock in the morning before they
parted, and then the King and Queen, together with the French
ambassador, lodged there. Some estimate this entertainment at five
or six thousand pounds.”
Sir Philip Gibbs, in his admirable biography of Buckingham, says
that this “rare device,” was a political allegory, arranged by the
duke himself, with the assistance of his master of the ceremonies,
Balthazar Gerbier. “It represented Maria de’ Medici, the Queen-Mother,
enthroned in the midst of Neptune’s court upon the sea dividing
England and France, and welcoming Frederick and Elizabeth of the
Palatinate, with her three daughters and their husbands, the Kings of
Spain and England and the Prince of Piedmont. It was Buckingham’s new
ideal of foreign policy. France as the ally of England, the Elector
Palatine restored to his throne, and peace with Spain. Buckingham’s
ideal, alas! was no more substantial than the pasteboard and tinsel
and flowing draperies of his actors, and, like the masque, a mockery.”
[97] Although Bassompierre could have been no very good judge of the
excellence of an English play, it is to be regretted that he does not
tell us what it was. Very probably, it was one of Shakespeare’s, as
his patron Montgomery was Lord Chamberlain, in whose department the
selection of the plays to be performed before their Majesties lay.
[98] Thomas Howard, Viscount Andover, second son of Thomas Howard,
Earl of Suffolk. The title of Earl of Berkshire had been revived in
his favour in February, 1626.
[99] English horses were much prized on the Continent, and
Bassompierre had been presented with quite a number. Carlisle had
given him six, Holland three, and Goring two, and very possibly he may
have received others which he does not mention. Unfortunately, as we
shall see, few, if any, of these poor animals survived to reach the
shores of France.
[100] As Carlisle was a convivial soul, it is not improbable that Lady
Exeter’s hospitality may have been responsible for this mishap.
[101] See page 489 _supra_.
[102] “Seventeen would have been nearer the truth,” observes Croker.
“Rymer has preserved the warrant under the sign manual, 27 November,
1626, ‘for the release of and permitting to go abroad of sixteen
priests at the intercession of the Maréschal de Bassompierre,
Ambassador Extraordinary from the Most Christian King, our dear
brother, the Ambassador engaging to carry them abroad.’ Particular
care seems to have been taken to express that this was done in
compliment to Bassompierre, as the deed runs: ‘to gratify the said
Maréschal.’ Bassompierre, in his _Ambassades_, gives the same list as
Rymer.”
[103] _Monsieur_ was the chief president; the others were the Cardinal
de la Valette, Archbishop of Toulouse, and the Maréchal de la Force.
[104] He had fought a duel shortly before with Jacques de Matignon,
Comte de Thorigny, whom he had killed. La Frette had called
Boutteville out, through resentment that he had not accepted him as
his second.
[105] This duel, like the one with La Frette, had arisen from the
Thorigny affair. Beuvron was a cousin of Thorigny, and he had vowed to
avenge his death.
[106] Boutteville left three children: a son, François, afterwards
the celebrated Maréchal de Luxembourg, and two daughters, the younger
of whom, Isabelle, who was one of the most finished coquettes of her
time, became Duchesse de Châtillon and was for some time the mistress
of the Great Condé. The poet Charpy celebrated her charms in verses
wherein he drew an ingenious comparison between the destruction
wrought by her father’s sword and the havoc created by the lady’s
_beaux yeux_:--
“Quand je vois de rapport de votre père à vous,
Divinité mortelle, adorable Sylvie!
Il tenait dans ses mains et la mort et la vie:
Vos yeux se sont acquis les mêmes sur nous.”
[107] So called from the Christian name--Michel--of Marillac, the
Keeper of the Seals, who had compiled it.
[108] The news of the condition to which the garrison was reduced had
been brought to Fort Louis by a soldier named La Pierre, one of three
volunteers who had offered to make an attempt to swim across to the
mainland. Of his two companions, one was drowned and the other from
exhaustion obliged to surrender to the English. La Pierre himself had
a narrow escape from being captured, as he was sighted by some English
sailors in a boat and hotly pursued; but, by repeatedly diving, he
contrived to elude them. Louis XIII subsequently rewarded his brave
deed by a pension of 100 crowns.
[109] Their negotiator and admiral Guiton stipulated that the English
should not retain the Île de Ré or any fortified place on the coast
after the termination of hostilities. Thus La Rochelle, as Michelet
with justice observes, remained faithful at heart to France.
[110] Clément Métezeau, a celebrated architect, born at Dreux in 1581.
Jean Tiriot was a master-mason of Paris.
[111] Beaulieu Persac was captain of a ship-of-war, which had assisted
in the defence of the Île de Ré.
[112] The Emperor Ferdinand, who naturally did not desire to see a
prince so closely connected with France as Charles of Gonzaga in
possession of Mantua and Montferrato, had confiscated both the duchy
and the marquisate. The Duke of Guastalla, whose pretensions were
supported by Spain, claimed Mantua; while Charles Emmanuel had long
coveted Montferrato, which, once in his hands, would bar the way from
France into Italy. Casale, a very strong place, was the key to the
whole difficulty, being then to Italy what Alessandria afterwards
became.
[113] Henri d’Escoubleau, at first, Bishop of Maillezais, in Poitou,
and, afterwards, Archbishop of Bordeaux. He died in 1645. In 1648 the
see of Maillezais was transferred to La Rochelle.
[114] At the north-east point of the Île de Ré.
[115] The passage between the islands of Ré and Oléron.
[116] There were forty cannon in the batteries at Chef de Baie,
“which made fine music and were very well served,” and twenty-five at
Coreilles.
[117] According to English reports, the whole fleet lost only six
men on this occasion; but Bassompierre declares that it lost “nearly
200 men,” and “that one of their best sea-captains, who was in a
boat which was badly damaged by a shot from the French batteries,
was amongst the slain.” According to the marshal, the French had
twenty-seven men killed, of whom four were killed at Coreilles by a
shot from the Tour de Saint-Nicholas at La Rochelle. This incident
caused great astonishment, as Coreilles had always been considered out
of range of the cannon of the town.
[118] Claude Bouthillier, Seigneur de Pont-sur-Seine; Secretary of
State, 1628; _Surintendant des Finances_, 1642; died 1651.
[119] Guiton was banished for a time, when the Cardinal caused him to
be recalled and made him captain of a ship-of-war.
[120] See page 311 _supra_.
[121] The Princess of Piedmont subsequently petitioned her brother for
the release of this officer; and Louis XIII gave Tréville, to whom he
had surrendered, a valuable diamond by way of ransom for his prisoner.
[122] He means the nobles who served as volunteers.
[123] Claude, afterwards Duc de Saint-Simon, father of the author of
the famous _Mémoires_.
[124] The intentions of his Majesty, at least so far as the garrison
of Privas was concerned, may be gathered from a letter which he wrote
the same day to the Queen-Mother. “They are the best men whom M. de
Rohan has, and, in causing them to be hanged, _as I shall do_, and
Saint André the first, I shall cut off M. de Rohan’s right arm.”
[125] His followers had apparently obliged Saint-André to surrender
himself.
[126] Such is the account given of this lamentable affair by
Bassompierre, but, according to other contemporary relations, there
would appear to have been some excuse for the barbarous conduct of the
Royal troops. “Those who had remained in the fort,” writes Louis XIII
to the Comte de Noailles, “seeing that they were unable to escape the
evil which pressed them, likewise surrendered to my discretion; but,
since it was God’s will to destroy them and avenge upon themselves
their rebellion and disobedience, He permitted that some among them,
inured more and more to evil, deliberately set fire to a great sack
containing a quantity of cannon-powder, which blew up him who had set
alight to it and some others, both of these wretches and soldiers of
the Guards, French and Swiss, whom I had ordered thither to secure
this fort and prevent any disorder. My Guards, excited by this evil
action, and believing that a mine had been fired against them, were
transported with fury, and, contrary to my intention and my orders,
killed the greater part of those who had thrown themselves into the
said fort.”
But if there were extenuating circumstances in the case of the
soldiers, there was certainly no excuse for Louis XIII following up
the massacre by the execution of a number of the survivors. He even
wanted to hang the brave Saint-André, and would have done so, but for
the intervention of Richelieu. There was between the King and the
Cardinal this great difference--that the latter was rigorous only when
his interests or policy demanded it, whereas the former was cruel by
nature.
[127] Now the chief town of the arrondissement of Castel-Sarrasin, in
the Department of Tarn-et-Garonne.
[128] Donatien de Maillé, Marquis de Kerman, Comte de Maillé. He was
killed in a duel in 1652.
[129] Richelieu’s niece, Madame de Combalet, afterwards Duchesse
d’Aiguillon, was _dame d’atours_ (mistress of the robes) to Marie de’
Medici.
[130] Charles de la Porte, afterwards Duc and Maréchal de la
Meilleraye, was Captain of the Queen-Mother’s guards.
[131] _Monsieur_ had returned to France at the beginning of February,
1630, after the King had granted him the duchy of Valois, as an
addition to his appanage, the lieutenancy-general in the Orléanais,
and a large sum of money.
[132] Henri Auguste de Loménie, Seigneur de la Ville-aux-Clercs,
Secretary of State.
[133] Charles Guillemeau, physician-in-ordinary to the King.
[134] With the Queen-Mother.
[135] For Versailles.
[136] See p. 402 _supra_.
[137] Jean d’Armaignac, one of the King’s _valets de chambre_.
[138] “On the morrow, the Maréchal de Bassompierre, who had come to
Senlis to meet the King, was arrested in the morning by de Launay,
lieutenant of the Gardes du Corps, and brought by the Musketeers
and the Light Horse of the King to the Bastille. He was very much
regretted in Paris on account of his open-heartedness and good-nature.
He was the least distressed by it of all, and took his misfortune as
a jest. He was imprisoned, not so much for what he had done as for
what he might do.”--Copy of a journal of the Court in the Godefroy
collection, cited by the Marquis de Chantérac. _Mémoires du Maréchal
de Bassompierre_ (Édition Société de l’Histoire de France).
[139] Charles Le Clerc, Seigneur du Tremblay, younger brother of Père
Joseph.
[140] Montmorency met his death with calm resignation and Christian
fortitude, and, after hearing his sentence, begged that the time of
his execution might be hastened by two hours, in order that he might
die at the same hour as his Saviour. As a proof that he died with no
feeling of resentment against Richelieu, he bequeathed to the Cardinal
a painting of the martyrdom of St. Sebastian, one of the finest
pictures in his possession.
[141] Madame de Motteville, _Mémoires_.
[142] _Ibid._
[143] Nicole Henriette de Bassompierre.
[144] Anne Mangot, Seigneur de Villarceaux. He was Intendant of
justice and Finance in the Three Bishoprics.
[145] Not long after this, the Cardinal asked Bassompierre for the
loan of the house with the magnificence of which he had taunted him.
It is needless to say that the request was granted, though the marshal
was obliged to turn out the Duchesse de Nemours, to whom he had lent
it.
[146] In the summer of 1636, an army of Spaniards and Netherlanders
invaded Picardy, crossed the Somme, took Corbie and threatened Paris,
in which for a time the greatest alarm prevailed.
[147] The Comte de Cramail had been arrested and brought to the
Bastille in 1638. He had been so ill-advised as to speak against the
Cardinal in the presence of the King.
[148] Marie Criton d’Estourmel, dame de Gravelle. Tallemant des Réaux
asserts that she had, while in the Bastille, where she remained
several years, an amourette with Bassompierre.
[149] Son of Saint-Luc and the marshal’s sister, Henriette de
Bassompierre.
[150] The Governor of the Bastille was allowed thirty-six livres a day
for the maintenance of a marshal of France.
[151] Tallemant des Réaux, _Historiettes, art. Bassompierre_.