Proceedings in Parliament 1624: The House of Commons. Originally published by British History Online, 2015.
This free content was born digital and sponsored by the History of Parliament Trust, with the support of the Leverhulme Trust and Yale Center for Parliamentary History. All rights reserved.
THURSDAY, 4 MARCH 1624
I. JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, PA, HC/CL/JO/1/13
[CJ 726; f. 28]
Jovis, 4 Martii
L. 1. An act for the ratifying and confirming of his Majesty's charter to the Company of Gold Wyre Drawers of the City of London. [Blank]
SIR WILLIAM STRODE against the bill. This to confirm a monopoly by act of Parliament.
SIR EDWARD VILLIERS. To decline the manufacture as well as the bill. Spend [£]1,000 a week.
This bill, upon question, rejected.
[CJ 727] Ordered, that this patent of gold wyre drawers shall be brought in tomorrow to the committee of grievances.
L. 1. An act for confirmation of letters patents.
SIR DUDLEY DIGGES reports from the conference from the Lords yesterday. The Prince present.
- 1. Overture, the causes of the conference.
- 2. 1. To add the knowledge of some particulars.
- 2. To deliver such reasons that had been the ground of our advice.
Of the particulars, 2:
1. Out of a declaration to Bristol; heretofore, to Somerset, for Prince Henry. A correspondence in that/
A practice from Spain to entangle our Prince; to keep him from marriage. A note, by the way, that strange the same person should set the marriage on foot again, being it was declared by them that unless our Prince would turn Catholic, could be no treaty.
[f. 28v] Came to the relation of Sir Robert Cotton that he had with the Spanish ambassador, 1614. Spanish ambassador came to his house, pretending to see his rarities. 10 February, acquainted his Majesty with it. Somerset warrant[s] then to sound the life of the intention. Told him, he doubted he had no warrant to set any such thing afoot. 16 March, Spanish ambassador dealt with him and endeavoured to make Somerset Spanish, and to further this match. Answered him.
Divers rubs and difficulties in it. 9 April, gave a pill in a paper. 3 reasons: that if the King of Spain would set down verbo regio, fide Christiana, and not urge unreasonable things in matter of religion.
- 1. Would have it done verbo regio, because some wrong done to this kingdom by treaties with Spain.
- [2.] [Blank] Further, some letters of Charles the 5th, wherein appeared that he wooed the King to this match, and did this to break the marriage with France, and drew him into a contract to set upon France and to divide the world between them. Fide Christiana; quia fides non servanda cum haereticis.
- 3. For religion.
After, Sir Robert Cotton for to the ambassador of Spain. A packet from Spain. Opened these letters. Said the King of Spain was satisfied in his conscience that he might do it. His divines had resolved him and his confessor would write a book in defence of it.
1616, his Majesty told Sir Robert Cotton that Gondomar had counterfeited these letters and that he was a juggling jack. [Blank] Archbishop said that this year, Bristol obtained a warrant to treat of this marriage. An occasion offered to mention Chancellor Exchequer. He a discoverer: had dealt so clearly and honestly, when he came back, that said, he would ever love him. Prince the like, and my Lord Chamberlain.
[f. 29] SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. A particular addition to this of the Prince. That he had directions to sum together the effect of his negotiation at Brussels but not yet finished. Inducement enough.
Prince replied, "This work to be done for the satisfaction of my father". After this, my Lord Canterbury remembered the 3 supplements delivered the day before by my Lord Keeper. 1. That this overture first came from Spain. Prince mentioned a letter of Sir John Digby, 3 January 1614. So that appears, they did not only invite us, but on purpose to abuse us. That letter here. Then descended to the second supplement, concerning the Palatinate, wherein appeared the fickleness of the Spanish promises. That answer to tripartite proposition: to the last, negative, contrary to former promises, as appeared by sundry letters. The effect of all, that that state would assist; the King of Spain would assist our King by arms against the Emperor. Third supplement, the remembrance of an heroical and princely act of his Highness.
Sent to the commissioners this message: that although affection and desire of alliance had brought him in that manner here, yet would never be so base as to go in the same manner out of Spain. Told Graham he should say nothing of these reports but, if he heard he were stayed, should tell his Majesty that he should not any longer respect him and think on him as his son but reflect his royal thoughts.
Duke of Buckingham omitted something the last narration: supplied it now. Remembered that Gondomar formerly offered the King the title of the United Provinces; only used it to keep us from giving them assistance and, further, after a commission sent into Spain to treat, never revived that proposition. Here my Lord Duke spoke of the vast and unlimited ambition of the Spanish state. Aimed at the universal monarchy of the whole world; could not be master of the sea if we and the Low Countries joined together. Then fell an occasion to speak. A member of this House, employed in Savoy, tended to these ends: 1. to show that this artifice of treaty no new thing with the Spaniard. Instanced the marriage of Savoy with Spain.
[f. 29v] Sir Isaac Wake [sic]. After this, pleased the Prince to remember another passage: that my Lord Bristol, being to negotiate with the Emperor and meeting Spinola, told him now he hoped we should have a full restitution of the Palatinate. Spinola replied, "It may be so, if our rebels here may be suppressed." To fortify this, Buckingham remembered that upon conference with Gondomar, [he] told him impossible to make it a match unless our King would assist them against the Low Countries. Called, my Lord Chamberlain remembered that, when the Archduchess's ministers here, the reply was, "In case the rebels of the Low Countries may be reduced to the obedience of Spain." This confirmed by my Lord of Carlisle. Prince remembered one thing more: that when Bristol delivered what passed between Spinola and him, King answered, "Stands not with my honour to permit it. Found them a free state and so would leave them."
Then pleased one of the committee to make some short introduction to their Lordships; gave some reasons of his own.
- 1. By these treaties, the King, by them, would suffer a diminution in point of sovereignty. A great increase of those persons that would depend on Spain.
- 2. Observed what they put upon us, when the dispensation came from Rome accompanied with this charge, that the King of Spain should take an oath in hostile manner to invade the King of England if he should not perform. When we treated as lovers, they treated as enemies, by cannons. First, reason in charge to deliver an immoderate demand of connivance. Secondly, the increase of the popish party. Thirdly, their deluding his Majesty with hope of peace and, under colour of that, to afflict. Fourthly, in professing friendship to us, professes enmity to the King's children. Fifthly, their delaying his Majesty with multiplicity of treaties. Lastly, their uncivil pressing of the Prince to change his religion.
2 or 3 particulars remain. 1. Prince pleased to say that not meant to insist strictly, to insist on these articles, [blank] but that intended only for his Majesty's satisfaction and to justify our proceedings. Desired to have a copy of these reasons of ours. Duke of Buckingham intimated that he had lately written to his Majesty what time both Houses [f. 30] should attend him. Answered, not well disposed in his health. Should certainly know next morning. Yesterday, received from him that he had not been well. Should hear further from them before long. Their Lordships would meet at 8 o'clock and desired our committee to meet them at 10.
MR. TREASURER. A short particular concerning Gondomar. When he came out of France, where managed the treaty there, Gondomar visited him often. Told him, they had outbid France 12 score thousand. They offered [£]600,000. Said true, they would be ready to give that and a greater sum, so that they might obtain their desire in advancing their religion. Spain needed not seek to advance themselves by alliance. The best blood among them in Christendom. But to advance their religion would bring their Indies. The thing his master aimed at was to advance his religion.
Next time he came to him, asked him plainly 1 [CJ 728] question: which of his 2 languages he should believe; that to him, or others. That it was at conclusion. Blushed at it, and informed the Prince.
SIR EDWARD COKE. A little relation to him. Committed Sir Robert Cotton, when Chief Justice, and understood he had intelligence with the Spanish ambassador. Questioned him for it, for no subject ought to converse and with ambassadors without the King's leave. But for the offense he committed him, his general pardon from the King.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS. Not added any reasons of his own, but enlarged them. Come one thing suggested to him by a member of this [?House]. The Spanish state wrought with an engine upon all the King's subjects. This concerned the King in point of sovereignty: for that religion has immediate dependence on the King of Spain. The Protestants in France depend on no foreign state. To have some of the committee to withdraw and add his supplement to the former reasons.
[f. 30v] SIR JAMES PERROT. Not to deliver these reasons in writing. To have them delivered by word of mouth.
MR. RECORDER. Not to deny a delivery of them. To have Sir Edwin Sandys and 2 reporters retire into Committee Chamber and set down that new enlargement of the other reasons. Then to read them, then to order that they may be delivered into the Prince's hand, if he please to communicate them.
MR. RECORDER. Upon Tuesday, the committee of privileges sat. Yesterday, when the committee went to the Lords, the report made, being but one side then heard. Can show the practice wholly on the other side. To forbear the sending for the mayor until the other side heard at committee. To respite it until tomorrow.
MR. [JOHN] GLANVILLE. This will draw in a breach of the privileges of the House. Not a negative voice at committee, but that he ought to be sent for.
SIR ISAAC WAKE reports his part. Yesterday morning, declared somewhat at the command of his Highness. He himself employed to the Duke of Savoy. The difficulty represented the matter of dispensation; sent to Spain and brought back word that it was not feasible. Savoy sent to Rome himself. In less than six months, that it was lawful. Clogged with no other conditions but this: that she should procure as favourable conditions as might be for the Catholics in England.
Our committee went up again to the Lords. [Blank]
[f. 31] L. 2. An act to admit the subject to plead the general issue.
Ordered, to be engrossed.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS. This afternoon, committee for matter of trade. This day sevennight, committee began to sit, set the matter in an order and resolved to begin with the causes general of decay. 3 heads: overcharge; restraint; and want of money. Resolved likewise to begin with restraint of trade. Probable that a great supply to be made to his Majesty upon the breach of these treaties; therefore to enable the subject. 3 or 4 propositions. Took into consideration how that his Majesty's commissioners have already taken a great deal of pains in it. The desire of the committee, to have a sight of their labours. To have some choice messengers sent to my Lord Treasurer to desire him to send to this House the labours of the last Parliament. 3. Motion, they desire to have another day added. 4. Motion, to set forward the bill against exportation of wools.
Ordered, that the labours of the King's commissioners for trade shall be brought to the committee, and my Lord Treasurer to be requested to send to the Chancellor Exchequer the labours of the last Parliament. Sir Arthur Ingram, Sir Nathaniel Rich to be the men.
L. 1. An act restoring the free trade of merchants of the staple.
SIR DUDLEY DIGGES. A strong [blank]. The Prince desired to have a subcommittee. Spent the morning in examination of Sir Richard Weston's negotiation, in which they find other things to communicate to us. Gave great approbation of our reasons yesterday. Some explanation in some things. [f. 31v] When Chancellor treating for accommodation, Heidelberg lost and after, the Electorate given away.
After this, Lord Steward spoke. Would have it added that at no time they had given respect due to his Majesty.
Conclusion: Prince [blank]. To have a subcommittee and come to them about the drawing of the articles. Their number 8. Recorder added one thing, spoke[n] by my Lord President, whether any need of any further information.
SECRETARY CALVERT. One thing material: the Bergstraat given away, contrary to a late treaty; after, Heidelberg, Mannheim and Frankenthal to be offered into their hands by way of sequestration. Voiscol came over to them. A treaty made: one article, that no innovation should be. Contrary to this, they gave away this to the Bishop of Mainz.
Mr. Treasurer, Sir Isaac Wake, Mr. [John] Coke. These added to the former 13 for a subcommittee to confer with the Lords.
Sir Edwin Sandys to make the report and be the penman to join with the Lords. The Lords desire it this afternoon.
Mr. Secretary Calvert sent to the Lords with message that our subcommittee will be ready to meet the subcommittee of their Lordships at their own time.
The committees for concealments and monopolies to be prepared with all expedition.
This afternoon, for concealments, Court of Wards.
[f. 32] SECRETARY CALVERT reports from the Lords. They are very glad of the correspondence. Appointed this afternoon, 2 o'clock, Painted Chamber.
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. This letter, now read, of 1614. Sir John Digby. This to show that/
SIR EDWIN SANDYS delivers in the reasons from the committee, which were read.
SIR NATHANIEL RICH. To have some addition [illegible] 1 words, which cannot [be] so conveniently done during these treaties.
CHANCELLOR EXCHEQUER. The occasion of his sending to the Archduchess: 1. reason excepted against the validity of his commission. Every day after, some defect or other in the commission. The Infanta no power when he came. At this time my Lord Digby speaks of, wrote also to him in the same language. When Mansfeld passed into the Provinces, they would not admit of any cessation unless the King would declare.
The letters read in the House which were delivered in yesterday at the conference.
MR. SECRETARY. [Blank]
II. DIARY OF JOHN HAWARDE, WILTSHIRE AND SWINDON ARCHIVES, 9/34/2
Jovis, 4 Martii 1623
Le reporte fait par SIR DUDLEY DIGGES.
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. I founde them a free state, so will I leave them. It stands not with my honour to doe otherwyse. In point of sovreignitie, a greate diminution.
SIR ISAAC WAKE. Fait reporte. [p. 174] 9 Augusti 1622, Bristol al Roy; 21 October 1622, Bristol al Roy; 5 December 1622, Bristol to the Secretary.
SIR DUDLEY DIGGES et SIR ISAAC WAKE. Fait reporte del conference ove les seignours in addicion del former narracion et supplements del Spaine ove Savoy, in quex manifestment appeare par mults desceits, jugglinges, fraud et null performance mes ambitious ends et enlargments de dominions, lour sole scope et finall intentions esteant le sole et universall governmente del Christian monde. Ove addicon auxy par SIR RICHARD WESTON in ses negociations ove le Archduches, ed de SIR THOMAS EDMONDES in France sur le treatie pur mache la ove Prince Henry et le Spanishe diversion al mesme temps.
Le conference contineue ove les seignours in quex touts conference nota que le Prince fuit touts foits present in person et parle sepe gravemente et sapientemente al comforte de tout.
Diverse letres fuerent lie in le Huise, et subcommittee attend le conference pur traher les propositions en escrie de presneter al Roy.
[p. 175] Post meridiem, in le [ex]cheque[r] chamber
Committee pur privileges lou le confusion et multitude fait tiel que touts crie, "le Huise, le Huise". Le committee agree que cest doit este resolve par question ou par polle, et several responce del committees par question ne poet le multitude et confusion fuit tiel go par voice, issint fuit adjourne al Huise.
Mr. [John] Glanville in le chaire, et ore fuit debate de chivalers pur Cambridge. Sir Edward Peyton, Sir Simeon Steward returne par le [souez-]vicomte et Sir John Cutts et Mr. [Toby] Palavicino pretende d'avoir le vere election. Issint ils complaine, et ont counsel John Finch, Mr. Jarrette et Mr. [William] Hakewill. Et produce diverse tesmoignes et multitude de affidavits, mes null afidavit fuit lie et modo fuit order que cest course de affidavits sera ousterment et finalmente rejecte. Et nota que 3 or 4 witnesses on either side are usuallye hearde and no more to proove the manner of the election.
[p. 176] In quil nota est chose d'observacion le temps del jour betwene 8 and eleaven, le manner del publication del brief, le severance del parties et sur viewe par [souez-]vicomte son declaracion del election, son juste et faire behavyoure et determinacion par poll et jurete del freeholders si soit requyre. Et super totam materiam fuit resolve par tout le committee d'avoir novel election. In regard le Huise fuit pleine, fuit dit que avoit este use sur question touts qui stand up twise goe with the I, and those that stand up once go with the no.
III. DIARY OF JOHN HOLLES, BL, HARL. MS 6,383
[4 March 1624]
SIR DUDLEY DIGGES. Report from the committees of both Houses. There was a treaty of a match made to Somerset [sic] by the Spaniard. Don Alonso, the Spanish ambassador, being asked by my Lord of Canterbury what authority he had to motion this match, said the King his Majesty was master of his life, his fortune, but not his honour, that therefore he would do nothing without warrant. That [Sir Robert] Cotton did tell the Lords that the 26th of January 1614, Gondomar came to his house pretending to visit his antiquities, and then motioned the match as by the way, and returned the next day. But Cotton refused to harken to it, saying Prince Henry had had foul play there and he would see by what warrant Gondomar had from Spain. The 10th of February, after Gondomar showed him a letter beginning Yo el rey with a warrant to make overture thereof, whereupon Cotton acquainted Somerset herewith, who considering that Charles the 5th had entertained Henry the 8th 15 years with a treaty of 2 several marriages, 2 Marys, sister and daughter to Henry the 8th; for the one there was a solemnization facie ecclesiae, for the other a sponsalitia or contract verbo de praesenti at Calais, whereby Henry the 8th made him Emperor, with the expense of above £100,000, and that at last Charles the 5th, by remonstrance from his council, broke off the treaty. For these reasons, Somerset desired some assurance from the King of Spain verbo regio et fide Christiana. So the 10th of July [sic], after a packet came from Spain and in one letter 2 lines of the King's own hand that these demands coming only from Somerset and the caballero, Cotton he could not in honour answer them, but he had given evidence to the Duke of Lerma's letter (which was signed el Duque) and did profess that the King of Spain means really. Hereupon, December following, Digby had warrant from our King to deal in it.
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. Part of report. Digby's letter to the King, that the King of Spain was ready to assist our King with council and arms for recovery of the Palatinate. Buckingham, leaning to the Prince, remembered him of a thing omitted: that Gondomar had offered the King and Prince the title of the United Provinces but never after spoke of it, nor was answer made to it in Spain. [f. 91] Buckingham added, the King of Spain's ambition and desire of Christendom, whereof he had already a great share, which was to be maintained by armies, they by money, money from the Indies, for which he must have the sea open, which he cannot have without the Low Countries or us. Digby saying to Spinola he hoped shortly his master should have the Palatinate: "it may be", answered he, "but upon condition our Low Country rebels be reduced to obedience". The Prince remembered when Digby told this to the King, that the King answered it stood not with his honour; he had found them a free estate and so would maintain them.
Sir Edwin Sandys's reasons for breaking the treaties:
- 1. The King, in point of sovereignty, would receive diminution, the papists increasing the number of the King of Spain's servants.
- 2. The dispensation clogged with an invitation to the King of Spain to take arms against the King of England, if he performed not other conditions.
- 3. During the treaty, they used hostility and took away the Palatinate, which is a disproportionable way of wooing, and afflicted and endeavoured to suppress the whole state of all the reformed churches.
- 4. Delaying and abusing the King by multiplicity of treaties.
- 5. Their inhospitable dealing with the Prince in labouring to convert him.
Phelips concluded: if I have not done what I should in my report, I have done what I could; hereafter, let your better choice give you a better account.
SIR THOMAS EDMONDES said Gondomar visited him often at Paris and told him whereas France had offered but £240,000, they were ready to give £600,000, so as the Catholic religion might be advanced; for otherwise they would not proceed, for alliance they needed none. Yet he told a gentleman that Edmondes sent unto him that all things were almost concluded. To reconcile this, Edmondes asked Gondomar himself and charged him with these double answers; he replied, he spoke according to occasion, and blushed.
SIR EDWARD COKE. Subjects must not treat with foreign princes without allowance.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS. The danger if the papists should have toleration by the Spaniards' mediation, and which, if not granted, the King of Spain bound to take arms by the Pope, whereby they would become in manner his subjects; but in France it is not so, the Protestants there depending upon no prince but their own.
Sir Robert Cotton began his first treaty for Prince Harry, 1611.
[f. 91v] SIR ISAAC WAKE. The Duke of Savoy, treating of marriage with Prince Henry, sent into Spain to the divines there and to the King, to procure a dispensation. They made it very difficult, whereupon he sent to Rome and in 6 months had it granted with a condition that the lady, once married, should procure the best conditions she could for the Catholics in England. At this Duke of Savoy's marriage with Spain, wherein they preferred him before the Emperor's son, the portion promised was 800,000 crowns. The Duke of Savoy himself went into Spain, was met at his landing by the Duke of Infantado, then the greatest privado, who wished him as his servant to refer himself wholly to the King of Spain, which he did, married, carried home his wife and never had penny, a few jewels only; and after, in the wars between France and Spain, the King of Spain wrote to his own daughter to have the castle of Turin or some other pieces delivered into his hands, which she asked her husband but he denied, wherefore he would never after give his daughter his blessing.
At the committee or conference with the Lords
The Lord Chamberlain said the Lords conceived fit to be added that the King of Spain had not observed sincerity in any one of his treaties, as cessation of arms being promised and sequestration of the Bergstraat into the Infanta's hands; it was given the Bishop of Mainz, who had an ancient claim to it, and the Electorate to Bavaria, contrary to the express articles in Boischot's treaty. That the King of Spain had received great benefits from the King, witness the voyage to Algier[s], and many other particulars, for which the thanks lasted not above 10 hours. They had appointed a subcommittee of 8 Lords and desired 16 from us, to pen the reasons of breaking the treaties to present the King.
The occasion of Sir Richard Weston's going to Brussels was the Emperor's invitation by Count Schwarzenberg to treat, our King being advised to treat to supply the Palsgrave's defects, he being proscribed; and yet they questioned Weston's commission because it was not signed by the Palsgrave, which he thus excusing, it passed their affairs then uncertain. But after their arms proved victorious in Germany, they found every day some defect or other with Weston and gave him worse answers, and sometimes the Infanta had power, sometimes not, and would agree to no cessation unless the King would declare himself protector of their Low Countries, Flanders and Brabant, Count Mansfeld being then come down into the Netherlands. This Weston said to disprove [f. 92] Digby's truth, for presently, after this answer, Digby had sent from Spain assurance of good conditions.
In Digby's letter to the King, October 1622, he mentions the King of Spain's promise to take arms to recover the Palatinate for the King. In his letter to [Sir George] Calvert, 21[sic] of December 1622, he said he thought our King had not in all Christendom so many great men and councillors his servants as in the Court of Spain.
IV. DIARY OF SIR THOMAS JERVOISE, HAMPSHIRE RECORD OFFICE, 44M69/F4/20/1
Thursday, 4th March, in the forenoon
A bill for the water in London.
[p. 38] Report, SIR DUDLEY DIGGES. To add unto us to particulars, which although some of the House did know, yet all did not. A declaration of a match for Prince Henry that is gone, by the Spaniard's own seeking.
Lord Canterbury. That unless that if the Prince would not be a papist, there could be no match. Year 1611, a pro[position] with the [sic] by the Duke of Savoy with the Lady Elizabeth with the Prince of Piedmont.
Lord Canterbury. Alonso was questioned at the council table what authority he had to make this proposition. He justified he had, but was in disgrace a[nd] the Duke of Lerma did afterward get him a suit.
Sir Robert Cotton's relation of one whole year's correspondency with Gondomar. Gondomar desired a match might be with us. [p. 39] Gondomar desires Sir Robert Cotton to acquaint my Lord of Somerset and set some such business on foot. The 16th of March, Gondomar dealt with Sir Robert that he would be a means to make the Lord of Somerset Spanish. Maximilian did entertain with Mary the sister and Mary the daughter. H. 8, 15 years while this treaty was. H. 8, by his ambassador and money, did obtain the Empire for the then Maximilian [sic]. A pac[ket] of letters came to Gondomar out of Spain. One letter came from the King himself, which he showed to Sir Robert Cotton there, was that he had given power to the Duke of Lerma. The King told Sir Robert Cotton in the year 1616, that those letters which Gondomar did show [p. 40] him were counterfeit and that he was a juggling jack.
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS'S relation. The Prince's speech. That thought there were reasons enough yet to break with Spain, yet he would have them spoken of to satisfy his father.
My Lord Canterbury's relation. The treaty that Spain had with us for the deliverance of the Palatinate, which they promised to do or to assist with their armies, but that they did still prolong the time and did indeed delude the King. Gondomar did offer the Low Countries as a part of the portion, but after the business was afoot did never make more speech of it, which only showed a trick to draw us from our friends the sooner to swallow them up. It is the use of Spain to make many treaties but it is faithful in none.
[p. 41] The Prince. That my Lord Digby negotiated his Majesty's business in Germany, spoke with Sp[inola]. He said that he hoped now the King of England, his master, should [have] a full and true delivery of the Palatinate. "It may be so", said Sp[inola], "but then the King, your master, must assist us against our rebels, the Dutchmen."
Prince. When my Lord of Bristol had delivered what passed between my [sic] him and Sp[inola] to his Majesty, the King answered that he found them a free state and so he would leave them. That holding this treaty would be a great diminution of our religion and drawing with them so great a party in dependence of the King of Spain, as our papists be. In professing love to us, they did naught else but show all malice to his Majesty's children and taking from all them [p. 42] the land and honours.
SIR THOMAS EDMONDES. He being in France, Gondomar coming after to see him, he told him then Spain would outbid France for money in marriage. "Aye", said he, Gondomar, "so we may have our desire, which is to propagate the Catholic religion, we will give not only 600,000 but would likewise bring the whole Indies."
SIR EDWARD COKE. Did commit Sir Robert Cotton when he was Chief Justice. No man ought to confer with any foreign ambassador without leave from the King.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS. The Protestants of France depend upon no foreign king, but the papists of England depend wholly upon the King of Spain.
SIR ISAAC WAKE. The Duke of Savoy did send to Rome to try whether he could get a dispensation for the marriage of a daughter of Spain with our Prince that is now with God. He had a grant of it with [p. 43] no more clog but that when she came into England, he should be good to the Catholics there.
CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER. The cause of his going unto Brussels was upon a letter of the Emperor. They would not have any cessation of arms unless the King of England would profess himself the defender of their Low Countries.
A letter from my Lord Digby to Secretary Calvert, [10 December] 1622, wherein he desired him to acquainted [sic] the King that all his negotiations go well in Spain, and that he may be confident that there is no council in the world more affectionate to him than his council nor do with more deliberation debate his business, neither more desire to give him any satisfaction.
[p. 44] Reasons/
V. DIARY OF JOHN LOWTHER, CUMBRIA ARCHIVE CENTRE, CARLISLE, DLONS/L/2/1
[4 March 1624]
Report by SIR DUDLEY DIGGES of reasons for the advice agreed at committee when the King would call. First, that overture of marriage was made to Somerset for Prince Henry, yet religion they desired to be forsaken. Yet again new proposed, though they refused. 1611, particulated and ambassador from [Duke of] Savoy for Prince Piedmont with Elizabeth and the Prince with Spain. That [Duke of] Lerma entertained it from Digby until France marriage proceeded, then a second daughter proposed. Then the Archbishop said that the ambassador said his master gave direction for Infanta Major, standing for his honour. The Ambassador that proposed this a while suffered, yet for his wrath, in the end, by Lerma sent for and rended.
Sir [Robert] Cotton and Gondomar having showed some passages of Prince Henry's match. Then Gondomar proposed a new match and showed a letter to confirm his power to offer it. The ambassador desired the Lord of Somerset to become Spanish, he made duty. Yet desired that Somerset would propose it sincerely fide Christiana verbo regis. That it was good for the kingdom and that they [f. 20] desired no unreasonable conditions for religion, and showed his reasons how they had broke up former espousals published tibi Rosa englia by a remonstrance from France. That Gondomar did counterfeit the letters and was a Juggling Jack. 1616, the Lord of Bristol procured a warrant to treat the match. Sir Richard Weston testified by the Prince, Archbishop and [Lord] Chamberlain to have first discovered their intelligence.
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. That there being said there was enough delivered, the Prince said no, for these vows for his father's satisfaction. 3 January 1614, they invited [us] but with purpose to abuse. That the King of Spain promised to join in arms for recovery of Palatinate, if not recovered by treaty. [Buckingham said] that Gondomar offered us the title of the United Provinces; after, never offered when the King sent to treat about the match. The Duke said they [sic] designs as well as affections tended to the Empire of the whole world. He showed he could not do it but by arms. [?No] arms without money nor money but by Indies. No Indies thence but by the permission of us and Low Countries, who, if joining, may defeat if we masters at sea, may take from him all he holds by arms. [f. 20v] Spinola's answer: that they might have the Palatinate when we had reduced the Low Country rebels to their obedience, which Gondomar continued to Buckingham, confirmed by the Lord Chamberlain. That the King said, he found therein a free estate and so would leave them.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS. That the King, in lieu of addition, should suffer diminution by his own proper subjects. That what was proposed by love was infused by the Pope's direction to join arms if we refused to admit a connivance. That the Jesuits sworn for temporalities to depend of Spain as of Pope in spirituality. That treating with us, they destroyed our children and country. The abuse to the Prince. That the Prince said these reasons were [sic] not satisfy the world but the King. The King not well to receive our answer. They agreed to perfect this day at ten, both committees.
SIR THOMAS EDMONDES. Upon his return from France, said Gondomar coming often to him, he told him that they had outbid France, which was £240,000, they [£]640,000 [sic], [f. 21] and he said they would do more, yea, bring the Indies, if the religion was established as they desired. He asked him, when he had made several professions, one, that it could not be but upon terms of religion to be tolerated or we to convert, and, to another, that it was done. He blushed and said he spoke according to occasion.
SIR EDWARD COKE. That no subject may have conference and treaty with ambassadors without the King's leave.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS. That the general liberty that was desired should have been at the King of Spain's entreaty and to be maintained by the King of Spain's oath or by war. That this was derogation in point of sovereignty, and drew the English Catholics to depend of Spain.
SIR ISAAC WAKE. That Spain offered Infanta Major to Savoy, and got a dispensation for the marriage without any conditions but that she should get a [sic] what liberty she could after. That Katharine should have 600,000 crowns and restitution of divers countries he hastened into Spain at their request. [f. 21v] Duke de Infantado's relation. [Blank]
The proceedings of free trade to be called for, and the committee to sit Thursday and Tuesday.
[Conference with the Lords]
The Lord of Canterbury made stay and did show how they did desire to cooperate, and showed out of Sir Richard Weston's embassy to discern, their fraud commended our proceedings and Sir Edwin Sandys's reasons.
The Lord Chamberlain. That they were not sincere. One, ambassador; two, Heidelberg given to Elector; the Prince; then Bergstraat. How told that in no point they respected us, notwithstanding Algiers. They give not thanks but for 10 hours. That the Prince desired a subcommittee.
The Lord President desired if they would [f. 22] have more additions, a subcommittee of 8 and 16. That upon an embassy for sequestration of Frankenthal, and other things since the Prince's coming into England, and they have seized all contrary their own articles. January 1614, Sir John Digby's letter of their offers, of his distrust for their proceedings formerly was so strange. August 1622, Digby's letter that the King of Spain would take upon him and go through with the restitution of Palatinate; that Gondomar does bravely proceed; Father Fasta entreated for his brother.
Sir Richard Weston. King sent conditions to entreat of peace, else to be in war, and invited the King to it. They did daily except to the commission. That they had no power, he got it from the Emperor. [Illegible] prevailing in war delayed. The Lord Digby writ like letters to him; he still denied. That no cessation if the King would not join against Flanders. Lord Digby assures no delay shows Olivares large promises, the King to join in arms. [f. 22v] That the King has not so many noble friends in any state as in this court. Before 3 October, after 9 September, having got King [of] Spain's answer to join in arms and our King so satisfied that he wills not proceed upon 3 October. But the Lord Digby proceeding, they went on with the match. But gone away the Electorate presently, upon the Prince's coming into England.
The reasons. First, not content with what others are, desired a dependence other as Spain. Second, Spain an enemy to our religion. That the party at home to be suppressed. Third, the Protestants oppressed by treaty. Fourth, by treaty, disinherited his son. When restitution offer, delays infinite and to draw education to another religion. Fifth, the abuse of the Prince in their power. They true to nothing but their own maxims.
VI. DIARY OF EDWARD NICHOLAS, TNA, SP 14/166
Thursday, 40 Martii 1623
An act for ratifying and confirming of his Majesty's charter to the Company of Gold Wyre Drawers within the City of London.
SIR EDWARD VILLIERS said that the manufacturers of gold wire do waste £1,000 a week in this manufacture.
This bill, by question, is ordered to be cast out of the House.
MR. RECORDER said that there was a warrant from the whole Council Board to Mr. Attorney [General] for the drawing of this bill, for without such a warrant Mr. Attorney was tender to draw the patent. That this patent is a great grievance in the City of London. It is true, as the patentees allege, that any man that will may be of this corporation, but then must they pay certain 6 pences and 8d. for an imposition toward the stock and charge of that company.
It is ordered that this patent concerning the making of gold wire shall be brought into the committee of grievances Friday next.
An act for [blank] confirmation of letters patents granted by his Majesty [blank] to the Governor and Company of the New River of London and for giving power to the said company to make ordinances.
[f. 46v] SIR DUDLEY DIGGES reported from the committee at the conference between both Houses concerning [blank]. That there was a treaty which moved from Spain concerning a match to be between Prince Henry and an Infanta of Spain, which was rejected. That there was ever a clause in this treaty, so the point of religion was propagated, but this match brake off by the Spaniards upon a pretence of a former engagement with France. That Sir Robert Cotton said he had a correspondency with Gondomar and was by him employed to procure the Lord Somerset to move a match between our Prince and the Infanta, and making of Somerset Spanish. Sir Robert Cotton did offer Gondomar that the King of Spain word set under his hand:
- 1. Verbo region.
- 2. Fide Christiana.
- 3. That it might not be prejudicial to our religion, that we might be sure that Spain would go on with the match and did seriously intend. That our King said he would not treat with Spain until the match with France, which was then in treaty, were broken off.
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. Report of the same conference with the Lords. That by several letters from Digby, it appears that the Spaniards promised to assist our King by arms for the recovery of the Palatinate, if it should not on treaty be restored by the Emperor. That the Duke of Buckingham spoke of the vastness of the Spanish desires, but withal said that Spain had no means to maintain his greatness nor effect his ends but with masses of money, which he must have from the Indies, which he could not have thence unless he were master of the seas, which he could not be if we and the Hollander join our strength. That Spinola told Digby that we might not have the match with Spain and a restitution of the Palatinate, unless we should reduce the rebels of the Low Countries to Spain's obedience. This was also said by Gondomar in Spain to the Duke of Buckingham. That the Prince said that when Digby told [f. 47] our King of this speech of Spinola's, his Majesty said he found the Low Countries a free state and would so leave them.
MR. TREASURER EDMONDES said that when he came out of France, where he was employed in the treaty of a match for our Prince with the lady of France, Gondomar came to visit him when Mr. Treasurer told him that Spain had outbid France, for France promised but twelve score thousand pounds sterling, and Spain did offer £600,000 sterling. Gondomar said that so they might propagate the Catholic religion, Spain would give the whole West Indies.
SIR EDWARD COKE said that he committed Sir Robert Cotton for conferring with the Spanish ambassador and having too much correspondency with him. [Blank] For it is not lawful for any subject to confer with a foreign ambassador nor to entertain him in his house without the leave of the King.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS said that it was a great point against the sovereignty of our King that the Pope should make the King of Spain take an oath that if our King should not agree to put in execution the articles for the liberty of the Catholics here in England, he should take arms against our King, for this would draw an immediate dependency of all the Catholics in this kingdom upon the King of Spain, which no prince in Christendom will ever agree unto. That the Protestants in France have the liberty of their religion by the laws of that kingdom, and they have dependency on no prince but their own King and they are the fastest subjects of France.
[f. 47v] It is ordered, at the motion of SIR EDWIN SANDYS, that the committee for trade shall sit Tuesdays and Thursdays; that Sir John Suckling shall deliver the fruits of the pains of a committee which was appointed by commission from the King to consider of the decay of trade; that a desire of the House shall go to the Lord Treasurer that he will deliver his notes of what was done at the last meeting concerning trade.
An act for the restoring of free trade to the Merchants of the Staple for the exportation of cloth and other manufactures made of wool.
SIR DUDLEY DIGGES reported that at the conference, that the Lord Chamberlain said that the state of Spain had not used sincerity, for:
- [1.] While the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in treaty at Brussels, Heidelberg was taken.
- 2. While Boischot was here in treaty from Spain, the Electorate was given away by the Infanta.
- 3. That shortly after the Prince's return from Spain, where he had done them the honour to come to them, the Bergstraat (being the best part of the Palatinate) was given away to the Bishop of Mainz, who had an ancient claim to it. That the Prince, being in Spain, asked what was the reason of the transferring of the Electorate to Bavaria; they in Spain denied that there was any such thing and cried shame of it.
SECRETARY CALVERT said that there was an agreement after the taking of Heidelberg [f. 48] that there should be nothing done to alter the treaty, and yet notwithstanding [blank] the King of Spain had proceeded against the treaty and agreement with us.
SIR RICHARD WESTON. That in his treaty at Brussels, the Emperor's arms growing victorious in the Palatinate, they quarrelled with his commission and found defection with it. That the Archduchess would, as she pleased, say she wanted powers when she liked not his demands. That when he demanded a cessation of arms (upon Mansfeld's retiring by our King's command out of the Palatinate), he received a bad answer from the Archduchess, and she said there should be no cessation of arms in the Palatinate unless our King would declare himself publicly a defender of the King of Spain's Low Countries.
VII. DIARY OF SIR WILLIAM SPRING, HOUGHTON LIBRARY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, MS ENG. 980
Thursday, the 4th of March
An act for confirming of the King's letters patents granted to the Company of Gold Wyre Drawers in London. This bill was thrown out at the first reading, and the patent is commanded to be brought in tomorrow to the committee of grievances.
SIR EDWARD VILLIERS moves that the whole manufacture of gold and silver thread may be suppressed because it does waste £1,000 a week of bullion.
Quare, who had the first benefit of that trade? He.
An act for confirmation of the letters patents granted to the Company of the New River brought from Chadwell and Amwell to London by Sir Hugh Middleton and others.
[p. 78] The Archbishop observed that it was ever the practice of Spain to keep the Prince from marriage, as appeared by their diligence when they thought we might incline elsewhere and the backwardness when it was in treaty with them; for when it was entertained here, at first they [p. 79] confessed they were engaged to France before, notwithstanding that Alonso, their ambassador here, did avow he had command from his master to treat of it, yet they disavowed him and his authority in that; he had said that his master was lord of his life and his fortunes, but for his honour and the truth he proceeded with, he would stand to justify that to the world.
Sir R[obert] Cotton was called to relate the passages between Gondomar and him, which was to this effect. That upon occasion of conference, Gondomar wished that the like treaty of amity and alliance were between these 2 kingdoms that heretofore had been in H. 8 time and others. But Cotton answered that the ill measure of those proceedings offered by Spain and some late occurrents made us stand doubtful to admit such a motion, and propounded doubt that Spain intended it not, etc. That Gondomar, the 13th of February 1624, showed him a letter of the King of Spain to allow Gondomar to propose the match, and moves Cotton to solicit Somerset to declare it to the King. Cotton requires, first, to be assured of the reality of this intent fide regia, and fide Christiana, that both in the word of a king he might confidently propound it, and that it might appear that their faith and church did allow it; for the first, former treaties had so often failed, he could require no less assurance and, for the last, their church seemed to oppose it, and that the maxim of fides non habenda cum, etc., did imply an impossibility of such a near conjunction. That a treaty of marriage had held here 15 years before and after the espousals in verbo de preasenti, and another solemnized in facie ecclesia with a King of Spain, yet by a pretence of a Parliament of Toledo the last was annihilated, and the first took none effect; notwithstanding that that King of Spain was indebted in the greatest bands of thankfulness to King H[enry] the 8 for procuring him the Empire at infinite charge, and after, by agreement, being jointly to war and divide France, the King of Spain never performed covenants, sent no army, paid no charges and made a peace and excluded the King of England. As for religion (if it allowed the match), it was necessary that the conditions might be reasonable, and if that the King of Spain's demands might be as others had formerly had, privatum sacellam in domo regia sine scandalo, happily it might succeed. About this, Gondomar sent into Spain and received from there a packet and sent for Cotton to the breaking it open, and there the King, by the Duke of Lerma, did answer fide regia that he intended it, that for the lawfulness of it they would set forth a book before long, and that [p. 80] 2 chaplains or 4 at the most should serve her. But when that our King was acquainted with this, he answered he had now a treaty on foot with France and would not, like a merchant, entertain two treaties; yet Gondomar pressed that the conference of this might proceed cum conniventia and that it might so be as non notum nisi peractum, etc. The Prince and the Archbishop did justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Weston, to be the first that ever did discover the foul and false play of the Spanish proceedings, for which the Archbishop said he should love and honour him, etc.
That by a letter in 1614, it appeared they invited the match and yet intended to delay it all that might be. That it was proved by several letters of 1622 in October and December, that, by advice of the Council, the King of Spain undertook to assist to the recovery of the Palatinate with arms if the treaty failed. The Duke of Buckingham remembered that Gondomar had, as a motive of the match, offered the right of the United Provinces to the Prince to withdraw our assistance, and that after the treaty was begun they were never spoken of. He took occasion to speak of the vast ambitions of Spain after the western monarchy, which in part, and a great one, they had effected but what remained must be gotten with arms, arms maintained by money, money with the Indies, the profit of the Indies must come by sea, and if the King and the Low Countries join, they shall be masters of the sea and Spain's monarchy will have a stop. Here was Sir Richard [sic] Wake's relation of the proceeding between Spain and Savoy in conformity and by way of parallel of the passages between them and us, only the marriage was there effected and the villainous and false dealings of the Spaniard the more discovered. They performed no conditions, they withdrew all ancient rights and profits belonging to that state from Naples, Messina, etc., and attempted the possession of the fort at Turin, which, not granted, the Spanish King would never acknowledge his daughter nor bless her.
[p. 89] Part of Thursday, the 4th of March
The Prince remembers that when Digby came out of Germany by Spinola, he asked Spinola if the Palatinate should be restored, who answered, yes, if the King of England would bring the rebels of the Low Countries under the King of Spain's obedience, the Prince hereby noting their intent to deprive us of our friends. And the Duke said that Gondomar had once told him that the match could not proceed but upon those term. The Lord Chamberlain affirmed he heard as much, and the Prince said that when Digby told this to the King, he answered, "I found them a free state and I will leave them so and maintain them."
[p. 90] Sir Edwin Sandys's relates the reasons that were conceived fit to be yielded the King to confirm the advice given for the breach of the treaties.
- 1. First, for that the demands of Spain for religion were immoderate and unreasonable.
- 2. For that by the continuance of these treaties, the popish part increases and they are strengthened in number and in unity, being once divided in themselves, now united and so stronger against us, and for that their unity and strength is dangerous as being dependents on Spain and Rome.
- 3. For that under the hope of peace and the treaties of it, they still afflict Christendom, and ruin the Protestant part.
- 4. For that under colour of love and amity with us, they have taken occasion to spoil the King's grandchildren of their inheritance.
- 5. The abuses, manifold and strange delays of the treaties, together with the inhospitable usage of the Prince to urge him in point of religion when he was there, as also the impossible demands of the eldest son of the Palatinate, and other things.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS said these were the grounds which were thought fit to raise such reasons from as might satisfy the King and the world. To these Sir Edwin propounds, not by way of addition but of enlargement, these 3 of his own.
First, that by continuance of these treaties, the King should receive diminution of sovereignty by the increase of the dependents of Spain here at home.
Second, the dishonour that was put upon us in the dispensation for the match, wherein was conditioned that if the King of England would not condescend to these particulars, that then the King of Spain should invade his estates, etc.
Thirdly, that even then when the Prince was with them and treated of love, they proceeded in hostile manner and roared the cannon, an unfitting way of wooing.
He said that other nations, though not professing the same religion with their king, yet depend upon none other, but our papists here hold all dependency on Spain.
An act for the subject to plead the general issue, not guilty, for intrusions, etc.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS moves that since money is the mother and daughter of trade, and trade the life of the state, that the bill of clothing [sic], which is the principal part of trade, may be especially considered; it is the 9th part of 11 for the trade of this kingdom, and he desires that the bill of clothing may have his two days appointed for to be considered by a committee and that the labours of private men concerning it, which they collected last Parliament, might be seen, as also the collections of the now Lord Treasurer, then Sir Lionel Cranfield, may be entreated of him, and that this bill may have all furtherance of convenient haste that may be.
All is ordered according to SIR EDWIN SANDYS'S motion.
SIR WILLIAM SPENCER moves the bill of Staplers might be read. It was answered to be a private bill, but he said it was allowed by the House to be a public one and had so passed the House the last convention.
It had a present reading.
An act for transportation of manufactures of wool by the Merchant Staplers.
[p. 75] SIR DUDLEY DIGGES reports the conference with the Lords upon the committee, and said that the Lords had declared that they had examined Sir Richard Weston's relation, by which they yet discovered more fraud therein from Spain. That they approve of our reasons and say, with a little enlargement, it may well pass for a satisfaction of the Christian world. That the Lord Chamberlain (Pembroke) did say that in all the treaties, there never was sincerity but advantages still sought and taken, as appeared by the seizing of the Palatinate, after of the Electorate, and that when they had the Prince with them in Spain, the Bergstraat, which is part of the Palsgrave's inheritance, was delivered over to the Bishop of Mainz. That they had given no good respect to the Prince or the King in the treaties; this was the Marquess of Hamilton's observation. The Lords concluded to appoint a subcommittee of 8 of their part and desired a proportionable number of ours to confer further and to unite their reasons and ours.
The RECORDER, SIR HENEAGE FINCH, told the House the Lord President did demand of the committee whether our House would demand any more information of the business of the treaty, and we should have it.
SIR DUDLEY DIGGES said that the Prince said at the committee that when he was in Spain, he expostulated the transferring of the Electorate, and they denied that it was so or that they knew of any such thing.
SECRETARY CALVERT said that my Lord Chamberlain did say that the delivery of the Bergstraat (as aforesaid) was expressly against an article of the treaty, which was that no innovation should be made in [blank] months, and that in the meantime that was delivered.
A subcommittee is appointed to go this afternoon according to the motion the Lords made, and it is ordered that none go but they of the committee, and to give knowledge of this a message is sent to the Lords.
[p. 76] The letters delivered us at the conference at Whitehall to prove the relation true are now read.
By a letter sent by Sir John Digby, the 3rd of January 1614, it appears that the Duke of Lerma did offer to him the desire that a peace and unity between that King and ours might be confirmed by a match with either of the 2 daughters of Spain, and that upon Digby's answer that the last motion of that nature had so ill success and was so ill seconded as that he dared not move his master again in such a thing, and that Lerma replied that cases did alter by circumstances, that this Prince was fitter now than the other was, and promised to Digby to give him assurance of the reality of their intendments. And that presently, after this conference, the Spanish ambassador's lieger [sic] here in England did signify that the treaty of a match between England and France was concluded, and upon that Lerma did urge this no further. But after that he was assured that that treaty succeeded not, then he urged this motion again, to which Digby requires that reasonable conditions may be proposed or else he would never acquaint the King with it, which Lerma answered should be done to the full satisfaction of all could be demanded. After this, at a private conference between them, Lerma wished that our Prince might be the happy means of union of these two great estates in amity, protesting that both the King his master and himself desired the effecting it and requested of Digby to know our King's mind, who told him that our King and Council, out of the distaste of the former proceeding, were altogether unwilling to incline to the motion, not for particular dislikes but for the ill success of the other, professing for his private part that he was willing to forward it if the conditions might be fit to be presented to the King. [p. 77] Lerma replies that he thought that few conditions concerning religion would be required that should any way hinder the good success of this design, and that his master would make no scruple to declare himself fully for the match and to that end had already moved the Pope and the divines in Spain. Digby moves the danger of the breach of amity if the match succeed not, but Lerma doubted it not, assuring that there should be no defect on their part for he would go as far as honour and religion would permit.
This letter proves the first overture did absolutely proceed from them.
Another letter of the [blank] proved that they had promised the assistance of arms for recovery of the Palatinate if that mediation could not obtain it. By another of the 9th of August 1622 of the Lord of Bristol (Digby) to Secretary Calvert, it appears plainly that the King of Spain did promise to assist our King with arms against the possession of the Palatinate if he could not else obtain it, and that the King of Spain's secretary was sent to Bristol, and showed him the letters that the King of Spain did write to the Emperor in plain words to that purpose, and hereupon Digby thinks that the Palatinate and the business of it will do well if it be not our fault.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, SIR RICHARD WESTON, gives an account to the House of the success of the affairs that he did treat of at Brussels with the Archduchess and the ambassadors of the Emperor and Spain, concerning a peace for the Elector Palatinate. That at first, his commission was allowed but after, when reports came of some victorious success of their armies, then they took exceptions against it; and that the Archduchess did pretend sometime to have power to treat from the Emperor, sometime none; and that, in conclusion, they would admit of no succession or arms unless the King of England would take order that the Low Countries might be restored to the King of Spain.
[p. 78] In a letter the 21st of October 1622 of the Lord of Bristol's, he said that from the King of Spain's own mouth he had it that if the Palatinate could not be procured by him to be restored by entreaties, that then he would assist our King by arms, and that if they do not intend the same really, Bristol concluded they are all worse than the devils in hell.
In a letter to Sir George Calvert from the Earl of Bristol, it was advertised that the Council of War had proposed some difficulties and impediments of the aid and assistance of arms, but concludes that he did think and affirm that in all Christendom the King of England had not so many faithful friends and counsellors as in the Court of Spain, nor greater affection than of that people, wherein he much commended by Mr. [George] Gage for his carriage to the King of Spain to all their likings, and that Mr. Gage had advised the Catholics there to depend upon the King of England's and the Prince's word and not stand upon other terms. Bristol moves further that care be taken for supplies and necessaries for the solemnization of the marriage (or espousals) and the lady's journey. This letter was written the 10th of December 1622.
It appears that the portion demanded was 2 millions because some Spaniard should say it was not fit that the King should give it because the world would say he had bought his sister an husband.
VIII. DIARY OF SIR THOMAS HOLLAND, BODL., TANNER MS 932
4 Martii 1623
An act for ratifying and confirming of his Majesty's charter to the Gold Wyre Drawers of London.
It is ordered that the patentees of gold and silver be brought to the committee of grievances tomorrow.
[f. 22] First read, private. An act for the confirmation of a patent made to the Governor of the company for bringing the water from Ware, Amwell and Chadwell.
[SIR DUDLEY] DIGGES. Report. The Archbishop. Conde d'Avila, 1611. Alonso questioned. 1614, Sir Robert Cotton: Gondomar wished that he would sound the Lord Somerset. Verbo rege solemiza fide Christiana. [Blank]
[f. 22v] TREASURER. That at his coming from France when he had the treaty, Gondomar [blank]. xx France 12,000 [sic]; 600,000 pound [sic] from Spain. That for religion, he would bring the whole Indies; but except their religion was advance the saints would suffer. Gondomar told a gentleman all was at a point at his next coming. [Blank]
[SIR EDWARD] COKE. Having Cotton in ex[amination], committed to an alderman because of his conference with the ambassador. But when he did see who was interested in it, he forbear; but for the matter he did commit him for, Sir R[obert] has the King's pardon.
[SIR] EDWIN SANDYS. Report. That they wrought with the engine that no others do other does [sic]. That he would not be content with the religion to the Infanta for her family, but that if he did no[t] get religion confirmed here, that the King of Spain should invade England and take an oath to do so.
[SIR JAMES] PERROT. That we do not deliver our reasons in writing to the Lords until we hear what the Lord's reasons are.
[f. 23] [SIR] ISAAC WAKE. Report. That Infanta Maria was in treaty for the Prince of Wales. That contrary religions was not feasible was resolved. Then was sent from the Pope that it was lawful, but the wish was the Infanta should mediate for lenity. 800,000 crowns. 3,000 crowns. [Blank]
An act to admit the subject to plead the general issue in cases of intrusion. [Blank]
[SIR EDWIN] SANDYS. For Trade. The overburdening of trade, the restraint of trade and the want of money. That the merchants may bring in what they have collected; next, that the Lord Treasurer be sent to to communicate to us his labours of the last Parliament. [Blank]
An act to restore the free trading of wool merchants of the staple for exportation of cloth and all stuff made of wool.
When Sir Richard Weston was a Brussels, Heidelberg was lost. Boischot was here, the Electorate was given away. The[n] when the Prince was in Spain, they gave the Bergstraat to the Bishop of Mainz. [f. 23v] That the King was never satisfied in any request. The Prince said, being [in] Spain, he charged the Infanta's ambassadors there with the delivery of the Bergstraat. They answered it was by the direction of her nephew, and they there denied it.
[SIR GEORGE] CALVERT. Frankenthal being only left was propounded to be deposited into the Infanta's hand that [blank]. No innovation during the treaty was to be had, yet they gave away, contrary to the treaty, the Bergstraat, which is a fruitful place of the Palatinate, to the Bishop of Mainz.
Sir John Digby to his Majesty, the 3rd of January 16214 [sic]. That the Duke of Lerma had discourse with me for a match. If he knew sincerity, he would listen to it, if the overture was not for winning of time; but a post from the Spanish ambassador sent word that the match with Spain [sic], that it was concluded. Then Lerma fell off, but after he came to me to know whether it was concluded, which I told him was not yet. There was no hope to set the treaty of [sic] foot for Spain exc[ept] he would upon reasonable conditions, which was assured should. [f. 24] At my coming to the court again after my being in England, he used some speech of the rumour of the Armada. The Duke one morning came into my house, fell into the aforesaid business with some questions of the Prince and wished the means of near alliance, and asked whether the King of England was as forward; and my answer was that there was no intention in our King except by reason of religion, so distasteful will it be. The Duke would move the King that 2 or three might meet to confer with me, but the causes of religion would be no let. An agreement was made not to interest the Kings in the treaty because the breach, if occasion should be, should not reflect upon either of the Kings. The reasons that moved them is to stagger the match with France. [Blank]
[f. 24v] The second letter, 9th of August 1622. The match of the Prince, the difference of religion and the full restitution of the Palatinate. 10th [December 1622], Digby to [Sir George] Calvert. That the King of Spain would make it his work to procure the restitution of the Palatinate with the Electorate. The King of Spain word[s] for the restoring both and our King's promise, the Palsgrave's submission. No question. The King of Spain holds himself engaged and the Duke of Bavaria declined the Electorate. The King of Spain had written plainly.
CH[ANCELLOR] [EX]CHEQUER. The conditions for Palsgrave, the first ex[ception] the validity of his commission because the Palgrave's hand was not to it. They cavilled every [blank]. The Infanta sometime would acknowledge her power and sometime not. Promised a suit of Spain daily; after articles propounded, they would [not] admit of any cessation of arms except the King would aid their King about the Low Countries.
[f. 25] Another letter from Digby to the King, the 21st October 1622. The proposition for the speeding of the match and the treaty of the Palatinate. Gondomar assured it without delay. For the Palatinate, I told him while the treaty was at Brussels, Heidelberg was taken. They took no knowledge of it. Answer was made that our King had declared himself an enemy to his son if he should not submit; therefore, that was not sufficient. Then he declared that if his letters could not take effect, he would with arms recover it.
Digby to [Sir George] Calvert, 10 December 1622. That the King of Spain retuned what was formerly promised, that our King have not so many great men and councillors so affected to him as in this court, and the whole applause of the general state.
SECRETARY [CALVERT]. Instructions when Bristol went that he should treat for the match and Palatinate, yet the last no part of the match. [Blank].
[f. 25v] Reasons to fortify: pressed a connivance of religion. The popish faction increased, now depending of Spain and the Pope. Next, the[y] keeping our King in hope have [blank] the Protestant parties in Christendom. Next, with all hostility, set upon the Palsgrave and turned apparent probabilities to impossibilities; abused our King; importuned his Highness to perversion contrary to the laws of nations; and their endless delays. [Blank]
[f. 26] [Afternoon,] at the committee of privileges on Thursday, the 4th of March
[William] Hakewill, [John] Finch, for. The elections [sic] was the 22nd of January. That Sir John Cutts did make no means for it. The high shrieve was absent and [Edward] Ingrey was under-shrieve. 2 points offered: that they were duly elected by the greater number of freeholders. Secondly, set forth the abuses by the under-shrieve. The great number of freeholders for Sir John Cutts could not be equalized in the county. For the second, the under-shrieve did privately confer with [Sir Edward] Peyton and Spalding. When the writ was read and the sides parted, the under-shrieve confessed the majority of number of voices to be for Sir John Cutts. Afterwards, Cutts pressed the poll but could not have it. He went to Sir Edward Peyton, where were many scholars, as he said, carried him away to the Falcon; was locked up in the chamber where [Sir Edward] Peyton was and there made his election, and being asked if he had made his election, he said, no, but he thought to return [Sir Edward] Peyton and [Sir Simeon] Steward. Afterward, there he made the election and told it out of the window and there sealed it, and some were not freeholders.
[f. 26v] [William] Hakewill. Proof of freeholders he makes, and practice of the under-shrieve.
[Thomas] Malet. For the justification of the under-shrieve. For plurality of voices, they have many affidavits of good quality. For the poll, the [under-]shrieve offered it at the first but it was refused by the servants and special agents of Sir John Cutts. [Sir Edward] Peyton divided his company, and [Sir Simeon] Steward, Cutts and [Toby] Palavicino was jointed upon the first and second view. The [under-]shrieve did judge it when the company was gone. Cutts required the poll. Out of 60 persons brought, 16 were not freeholders. The [under-]shrieve said then he had not made the return. He said, no, because that was the certificate, but his declaration was his election. The [under-]shrieve was offered £10 to return Cutts; when they could not obtain it, he was threatened. The [under-]shrieve was ill-handled.
[f. 27] Gerrard, for Cutts, offered affidavits, which were not allowed because the witnesses are present.
Carlton affirmed that Cutts had the greater number by view and that their companies was [sic] distinct. The [under-]shrieve came not until ten of the clock and half an hour after poll was demanded, but it was denied and he was carried away or went away about eleven of the clock. The poll was demanded six times by Cutts; neither did [Sir Edward] Peyton ask the poll, to his knowledge, and [Sir Simeon] Steward told the [under-]shrieve it was after eleven of the clock and he needed not go to the poll.
Oxford says that the [under-]shrieve came not until 10 of the clock, and the poll was demanded at 10 of the clock because of a trick. He was sometime absent, sometime present with the [under-]shrieve. [Under-]shrieve said he was carried violently out of the yard and two of [Sir Edward] Peyton's men carried the [under-]shrieve especially; neither did he ever hear [Sir Edward] Peyton ever call for the poll. The [under-]shrieve being asked whether he had made his return said, no; neither did he [f. 27v] know who he should return, and the [under-]shrieve answered he would be advised by his father-in-law. The high shrieve's son said he would entreat them to pardon his father, for Cutts had manifest wrong, that Cutts had 500 voices more than [Sir Edward] Peyton.
Dockwray. The [under-]shrieve came between 9 and 10 of the clock. After they came into the yard, they separated and then joined. That the under-shrieve confessed the greater number of Cutts. He heard the poll demanded by Cutts and presently after [Sir Edward] Peyton's company went away. After the parties were separated, the [under-]shrieve confessed Cutts had the greater number of voices. When they were parted, there was in his opinion 300 odd of Cutts his side, but Cutts and Palavincino was never separated, but he asked them if they were for both and they cried both.
Watson. The [under-]shrieve came at 10 of the clock. He went to the [under-]shrieve and told him the time was out for reading of the writ. [f. 28] The [under-]shrieve went away and stayed by the way half an hour, so it was 10 of the clock. He demanded the poll before eleven of the clock and Cutts had 400 voices more than [Sir Edward] Peyton. He did not have the poll demanded for [Sir Edward] Peyton. After [Sir Edward] Peyton was gone, the [under-]shrieve said he had not made either election or return and said he would go back to the poll, but did not. The [under-]shrieve was going to the castle back again and some came to him and told him [Sir Edward] Peyton would speak with him. The [under-]shrieve went to [Sir Edward] Peyton and was private with Peyton, and he was told he must not come in. The under-shrieve stayed in [Sir Edward] Peyton's chamber and either could not or would not come out, and about one of the clock sent out and did let them know the election was made.
Crofts, for [Sir Edward] Peyton. The [under-]shrieve came between 8 and 9 of the clock and read it at 9. After the writ was read, Cutts, Palavicino came, one body; the other was several. After a quarter of an hour, [Sir Edward] Peyton and [Sir Simeon] Steward joined. He viewed the company and judged [Sir Edward] Peyton's company to be the greatest, and never did hear the poll demanded. Mr. Hynson and he talked, saying 200 were more for [Sir Edward] Peyton than for Cutts. [f. 28v] The [under-]shrieve went away between 10 and 11 of the clock.
Jo[?hn] Prime. The [under-]shrieve did offer the poll and Sir John Cutts's company said if they would go to the poll they might, but Cutts had it by the view, and the [under-]shrieve had his papers and his book and was reading, but the other company did so disturb them that he went away. Afterward, the [under-]shrieve did by two views the last declare [Sir Edward] Peyton and [Sir Simeon] Steward. Then Sleg told the [under-]shrieve it might cost him £500. The first offer of the poll was at 9 of the clock and the other demand was between ten and eleven. About 11 of the clock, Oxford, Watson and one of Cutts's men did hale and pull the [under-]shrieve to go to the castle. He confessed that he is bound for the under-shrieve's office.
Auger. The [under-]shrieve did offer the going to the poll to Cutts's side if he did think he had done any wrong by declaring [Sir Edward] Peyton and [Sir Simeon] Steward.
[f. 29] Sir Thomas Steward. The election began between 8 and 9 of the clock. He entreated overnight if it could not be decided, that they would go to the poll. By view, [Sir Edward] Peyton had far the greater voice. He said he did offer to save the [under-]shrieve harmless before the certificate sealing and after declaration.
Wickstead. When Steward went to [Sir Edward] Peyton, Peyton's company was the greater. He knows not of any poll demanded. When the [under-]shrieve went up, it was but 8 of the clock and went away between 11 and twelve.
[Sir] Simeon Steward moves that in respect of the [under-]shrieve's attendance, that a further day/
Benjamin Paine. The [under-]shrieve commanded that he should proclaim a poll; it was about 10 of the clock and none came.
Williams, for Cutts. That if the [under-]shrieve would do right, it might be worth £10 to him. [Blank]
[f. 29v] [Mr. John] Wylde excuses Spalding.
[Sir Edward] Coke. To cashier all affidavits and to admit of none.
[Mr. John] Glanville. [Blank]
[Mr. Christopher] Brooke. That if the plaintiff's witnesses may be believed, there is no election. He went out and pronounced his election. No judgement given, therefore, no election.
[Mr. William] Coryton. That the [under-]shrieve came in his due time and offered the poll.
[Mr. Edward] Alford does concur to a new election.
[Sir Edward] Coke. There must be a due election by the shrieve; if there be no due election, a warrant must go to the shrieve to make a due election. He is of opinion that there is no due election for there were [f. 30] scholars and went away without electing.
[Sir George] More. [Blank]
[Sir Walter] Earle. [Blank]
IX. DIARY OF JOHN PYM, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE RECORD OFFICE, FH/N/C/0050
Martii 4, 1623
An act for ratifying his Majesty's letters patents to the Company of Gold Wyre Drawers.
The contents of the bill were partly of constitution:
- 1. A corporation of a Governor and 22 assistants.
- 2. Power to choose that Governor and the assistants, and to give the oaths.
- 3. That the Governor and 10 assistants might make laws to impose and levy penalties.
- 4. Take bond for keeping of orders; partly of direction:
- 1. Not to use base gold.
- 2. That it should be prepared at the Tower [of London], registered by a warden for that purpose, tried by assay of the Mint.
- 3. To bring in as much bullion as should be consumed in this manufacture.
This bill was spoken against by SIR WILLIAM STRODE and MR. [JOHN] GLANVILLE.
SIR EDWARD VILLIERS. That either the bill might pass or the manufacture be put down.
But the House being informed by MR. RECORDER that some out of the city intended to complain of the manufacture and that the patent was passed by order of the lords of the Council, it was for the present only ordered that the patent should be brought in and examined at the committee of grievances.
An act for confirmation of the patent to the Governor and Company of the New River.
A report was made of the last conference with the Lords, wherein Sir Isaac Wake and Sir Robert Cotton did again act their own parts, in which consisted the first supplement and in a letter from Sir John Digby, 3 January 1614. The second supplement in these letters from my Lord Digby, 9 August 1622, 21 October 1622, 10 December [blank], per [Endymion] Porter, which were now read in the House. The third supplement was the particular of the Prince's heroical behaviour.
SIR THOMAS EDMONDES. That Gondomar passed through France while he was there in a treaty for the French match and came to visit him, and taking occasion to speak of £240,000, which he heard was the portion, whereas they had offered £600,000 sterling, Gondomar said they were ready to give that and a greater sum, so as they may be satisfied in the advancement of religion. Otherwise, they had no need to strengthen themselves by alliance, being the best blood in Christendom. And that it was impossible to make any alliance where there was any difference in religion. And herein he professed the contrary to Sir Robert Cotton. He advised him to ask him this free question, which of his two languages they should believe.
SIR EDWARD COKE. That upon the fall of my Lord of Somerset, he had Sir Robert Cotton in examination, found there was intelligence between him and the Spanish ambassador contrary to that rule omnia iure hospitalitatis cum legatis prohibentur. But when he understood his warrant, he withdrew his hand and for the principal offence [f. 18] he procured a pardon.
An act for the general issue upon informations of intrusion.
At the committee with the Lords
The Lord Archbishop delivered the Lords' approbation of our reasons with a desire (which began, first, upon the Prince's motion) that the clause containing the insincerity of their proceedings might be explicated in divers particulars, whereof some were then propounded and a subcommittee of 8 appointed for the contriving of them in writing.
In the House
SIR DUDLEY DIGGES made the report of this conference.
The Clerk proceeded in the reading of the letters aforementioned, which was interrupted by the conference.
CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER made a short relation of his negotiation, and therein observed these points:
- 1. Much delay bred by exceptions to the validity of his commission, and the first being satisfied, new defects were propounded.
- 2. The Infanta sometimes vowing, sometime denying to have power to grant a cessation.
- 3. Divers confident letters received from my Lord Digby of the Spanish intentions to adhere to his Majesty for the restitution of the Palatinate, but he never had worse answers than after those letters.
- 4. After Count Mansfeld's passage, they would admit of no cessation unless his Majesty would declare himself a defender of their title to the Low Countries.
Eodem die, at the committee for privileges
The case of the election for Cambridgeshire was examined, the state whereof appears in the report.
It was agreed that the parties might stay in the House during the examination and at the debate, but not at the sentence.
X. DIARY OF SIR WALTER EARLE, BL, ADD. MS 18,597
Thursday, the 4th of March
Ordered that the patentees should tomorrow bring in the patent to the committee of grievances.
Bill for confirmation of the grant made to the company for the bringing in of the new river to the City of London.
[f. 48v] Report made from the last conference added.
MR. TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD. To inform of one particular passage with Gondomar. I told him they had outbid France, for France had offered but £240,000, they £600,000. He answered it would be made good so they might advance the Catholic religion. And rather than fail, we should have all the monies of the Indies. It was not possible to make alliance with Spain without liberty of religion.
SIR EDWARD COKE. I had the examination of Sir Robert Cotton, finding he had intelligence with the Spanish Ambassador. No subject ought to confer with an ambassador, nor entertain him in his house without leave.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS made his apology and added that some might object. Question, why should not England grant liberty as well as France? Answer:
- 1. Their liberty the estates.
- [f. 49] 2. They have no manner dependency on any foreign prince, as in this case.
The committee of 48 went up to the Lords.
The Lord Chamberlain said, to these weighty reasons agreed on by your House, this one is by us thought fit to be added, the want of sincerity in all their proceedings, as:
- 1. In the negotiation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during his treaty, Heidelberg taken, Mannheim besieged.
- 2. When the Lord of Boischot was here in treaty, the Electorate was given away contrary to agreement.
- 3. When the Prince was returning out of Spain, some part of the Palatinate given away to the Bishop of Mainz, namely the Bergstraat.
He said, moreover, that the delivery of the Bergstraat was expressly contrary to one of the articles of the treaty made with Boischot. Also, that the Archduchess gave the title of Elector to the Duke of Bavaria, at which exception being taken, she said she did it in imitation of the King of Spain, her nephew. Yet the Prince being then in Spain and there being some expostulation about it, [f. 49v] they all there disavowed it and said it was false.
When report of this was made to the House, SECRETARY CALVERT showed that Frankenthal being not able to hold out, it was agreed it should be sequestered into the King of Spain's hands, and a cessation for 18 [sic] months, yet they delivered over Steinrec unto the Bishop of Mainz.
Report being made of this, there was by the House appointed a subcommittee of 16 to join in penning the reasons.
Thursday afternoon, [committee for privileges]
Sir George More delivered the petitions of divers boroughs' petitioners the last Parliament, that anciently had burgesses, which now having new charters with grant of burgesses, they desire to be admitted.
The case of the knights of Cambridgeshire, Sir John Cutts and Mr. [Toby] Palavicino complainants, the petitioners alleging an undue return by the under-sheriff, one [Edward] Ingrey, of Sir Simeon Steward and Sir Edward Peyton. The election made 22nd of January at Cambridge, the sheriff himself not present. It was alleged that Sir John Cutts and Mr. Palavicino had the greater [f. 50] number of voices and that the under-sheriff, upon the view, acknowledged it to be so at first and was offered to go to the poll if he doubted. That the under-sheriff went to a tavern and in Sir Edward Peyton's chamber made the election, excluding such as came for Sir John Cutts and Master Palavicino.
Proofs offered by freeholders and strangers.
On the other side, answered that they had the plurality of voices. And that at first, the under-sheriff desired to go to the poll but it was opposed by Sir John Cutts his part, who desired to divide companies. Hereupon the [under-]sheriff resolved to make his return. Afterward again the [under-]sheriff made offer to go to the poll but it being denied by Sir John Cutts, they went to the view again.
But it was proved that Sir John Cutts demanded the poll 5 or 6 times but the [under-]sheriff absolutely denied it. That Sir Simeon Steward at last told the [under-]sheriff it was past 11 a clock [f. 50v] and he needed not go to the poll.
300 or 400 freeholders cried, "a poll, a poll", a quarter of an hour before the [under-]sheriff went away. Some of Sir Edward Peyton's company carried away the [under-]sheriff violently. The [under-]sheriff when he was gone said he had made no election, neither knew whom to return. The under-sheriff confessed Sir John Cutts had the greater number. The company of Cutts and Palavicino was never severed but all affirmed that they were both for Cutts and Palavicino. The [under-]sheriff was promised to be saved harmless.
Witness produced on Sir Edward Peyton's part.
Mr. [Christopher] Brooke. In elections, the sheriff has a judicial part and likewise a ministerial part. The [under-]sheriff should, upon view, have pronounced the election.
Sir Edward Coke. This was no due election for there might be scholars and others no freeholders.
Resolved, by the question, that the election was not due, ergo a new writ. And the under-sheriff to be sent for.
XI. JOURNAL OF SIR SIMONDS D'EWES, BL, HARL. MS 159
March 4, Thursday
An act about the New River [Company] brought to London, that their letters patents granted about it may be confirmed by act of Parliament.
A report of the conference the day before with the Lords, where was addition of other particulars of the Spanish business, viz. that this match was first moved from them for Prince Henry, anno 1611. They being urged with it, said it was done by Alonso without commission from that King, whereupon as a man in disgrace he retired into the country. The Duke of Lerma came to him and asked him why he made no suit to the King for his service done in England. He answered, because he was no creature of his and without his assistance no suit prevailed; whereupon he both found out a suit for him and got it granted. And this was all the check he had but he avowed that he had commission for what he had done here and that though his life and state was [in] the King's hands, yet his honour was his own and that he would stand upon in this particular.
Sir Robert Cotton held correspondency with Gondomar, who came to his house January 26, 1614, and desired him to set this treaty on foot with the Earl of Somerset. He replied that he observed certain rubs and difficulties [f. 70] which would be objected against it and wished him to consider what answer he would make to you if it were so that the King his master should be tied to deal in it verbo regia [sic], fide Christiana, and not urge things unreasonable in matters of religion as, viz. that Charles 5 entertained Henry 8 15 years in treaty of marriage; to the one of his daughters he was married in facie ecclesiae, to another he was contracted in verbis de praesenti at Calais, and yet all this was but to get to be Emperor, which done he broke. Afterwards, the Duke of Lerma said they desired it, but the King of Spain said no, because it came from the Earl of Somerset and Sir Robert Cotton. And the King of Spain [sic] said that for his treaty of it, Gondomar had counterfeited 2 letters. In anno 1616 the Earl of Bristol procured licence to treat of it in Spain.
Here SIR RICHARD WESTON related the cause he had to suspect insincerity at Brussels. While he treated, they took Heidelberg. And when Mansfeld came by, they protested there should be no cessation yielded unto until the King of England would declare himself defender of their Low Countries.
And Gondomar once offered the title of the Low Countries to keep off our assistance from them. But the Prince treated with them in Spain, he heard of no such proposition; and the Duke of Buckingham said, Spain aimed at all, and ergo this gradation: the King of Spain cannot hold what he has seized upon but by war; he cannot have war without men, nor men without money, nor money but from [f. 70v] the Indies; ergo we must strike there and cut him off in all the rest.
Here SIR ISAAC WAKE related a case of confirmity, how the King of Spain had dealt with the Duke of Savoy, whom at that time he preferred before the Emperor to be husband to the Infanta Dona Catherina. Articles were agreed upon and he called into Spain in person by that council and state, received by the Duke of Infantado as son-in-law to his master and husband to his master's daughter. He entreated him not to urge the accomplishment of any articles, but to leave them wholly to the King's goodness, who would give him all that he had agreed for and more, and should find what he could desire and more under the Infanta's pillow. Married they were. The portion, 800,000 crowns were not paid, but advanced into interest at 8 per centum and to be raised from the Kingdom of Naples. He was cut off from 60,000 crowns yearly by silk from Bisa, denied their promised assistance to divers honours to which he pretended. They abridged him of all and said it was portion enough for to have married one of that house. In conclusion, they solicited her to receive a Spanish garrison into the castle at Turin; her husband absent, she sent to know his pleasure; he forbids it and she obeys, whereupon she could never obtain her father's blessing to his dying day.
Spinola told the Earl of Bristol that the Palatinate was not to be restored unless the King of England assisted to subdue the rebels in the Low Countries, and Gondomar said without it there could be no match. [f. 71] And the Archduchess' ministers said the same to the Lord Chamberlain. But our King's answer was, "I found them a free state and so I will leave them."
At this conference, Sir Edwin Sandys enlarged the first reason thus. Because by these treaties the papists of England, obtaining that from the Pope and the King of Spain which our laws denied them, came to depend more upon foreign princes than their own sovereign, which was a dangerous diminution of sovereignty. For the Huguenots of France, though of a different religion from their King, do not depend but only upon the King and the edicts made by him in their behalfs. The dispensation comes clogged from Rome with articles for the King of England to observe and the King of Spain must swear to see them observed or make wars upon him, so that they must depend upon the Pope in spiritualities and Spain in temporalities. So that England treats in love, Spain by the mouth of the cannon.
Even at the same time, Gondomar told SIR THOMAS EDMONDES that the King of Spain would not only give 600,000 but even his Indies to make this match. Marry, but then it must be with the establishing of the Catholic cause, which denied; no treaty upon those terms. To another, he said the match was upon point of conclusion, which 2 reports being contrary one to the other, he was charged with it by Sir Thomas Edmondes, and Gondomar's answer was that he speak then but according to occasion.
Subditis omnia iura hospitalitatis et familiaritatis quo hibentur cum legatis (scilicet) exterorum.
[f. 71v] Boischot came to treat here for no innovation for 18 [sic] months, and during that time the Electorate was translated and during the Prince his own being in Spain, the Bergstraat was given to the Bishop of Mainz, who had long pretended to it.
Then were the Earl of Bristol's letters read of January 3, 1614, and August 9, 1622, wherein he said the Count of Gondomar had bravely behaved himself in this business and the Palatinate would be restored if it were not our own faults. October 21, 1622, he labours to excuse and mince the taking of Heidelberg, before the taking whereof he assured the King of assistance in arms for the recovery of all, both from the King of Spain and Count de Olivares, and adds these words: "If that they intend not the match, they are falser than the devil of hell." And in a letter to Secretary Calvert, December 20 [sic], 1622, he had these words: "I dare affirm it for truth that his Majesty has not so many great men and councillors in all Christendom so well affected to do him service as in the Court of Spain," and desires him to acquaint both the King and the Prince with as much.
An act for restoring of free trade to the Merchants [sic] Staplers for the deporting [sic] of cloth and other manufactures of wool.
The Lords sent to acquaint the House they had appointed 8 to confer about the reasons and desired a competent number to join with them.