Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:21:09.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Interest of State”: James I and the Palatinate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Robert Zaller
Get access

Extract

The guiding policy of James I, as King of England and the acknowledged leader of Protestant Europe, had been since his accession one of rapprochement with the great Catholic powers. To this end he had determined to marry his son and heir, Prince Charles, first to a Bourbon, and then a Hapsburg princess. James saw himself not as the leader of a bloc, but as a mediator impartial in the interests of peace. To his mind this was the most exalted function of Christian kingship, and it was his hope that Spain and England, the leaders of Christendom's two camps of faith, could preserve the peace of Europe by acting in concert.

Yet James was no dreamer. While courting Spain, he retained hegemony among his fellow Protestants. If he proposed to marry Charles to a Catholic, he had matched his daughter Elizabeth to a Calvinist, the Elector Palatine Frederick V. The latter alliance, however, was to prove to be his fatal mistake, for it sucked him inextricably into the maelstrom of German politics and precipitated not only the gravest foreign crisis of his reign, but a domestic one of ultimately far greater significance as well.

Frederick was the leader of the most important alliance of Protestant powers in Germany, the Evangelical Union. He was also one of the seven electors who chose the Holy Roman Emperor. Three of these were Catholic bishops, three secular Protestants, and the last, the King of Bohemia, had for a hundred years been the emperor-designate himself, to wit, the senior male representative of the House of Hapsburg. It was evident, therefore, that any disturbance in the orderly succession to the Bohemian crown would immediately jeopardize the traditional Hapsburg claim to the imperium, and with it the entire European balance of power.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , Summer 1974 , pp. 144 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Gindely, Anton, Geschichte des dreissigjahrigen Krieges (Prague, 1880), II: 4 and 5.Google Scholar

2 James, I, “The Trew Law of Free Monarchies,” in The Political Works of James I, ed. McIlwain, C. H. (Cambridge, 1918), p. 60.Google Scholar

3 “Doncaster's Instructions,” in Letters and Documents Illustrating the Relations between England and Germany at the Commencement of the Thirty Years War, 1619-20, ed. Gardiner, Samuel R. (Westminister, 1868), XCVIII: 64 (Spanish), 69 (English).Google Scholar

4 Gardiner, S. R., History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1603-1642 (London, 1886), III: 311–13.Google Scholar

5 Digby to Cottington, September 1619, in Gardiner, , Relations…1619-20, p. 62.Google Scholar

6 Gondomur to Philip III, 22 May 1620, Spanish Transcripts, Public Record Office, State Papers, 31/12/21 (hereafter cited as P.R.O., S.P.).

7 Rumor had it in August that Mansell was to rendezvous with a large Dutch fleet for an attack on Spain. Tillieres to Puisieux, 25 August 1620 n.s., Paris Transcripts, P.R.O. 31/3/54. The Spanish ambassador was alarmed: see Gondomar to Philip III, 21 October 1620 n.s., British Museum, Add. MSS 3 1 1 1 1, p. 336 (hereafter cited as B. M.).

8 For the story of the voyage, see Aston Papers, B. M., Add. MSS 36444, 36445. For its wider implications in the history of British seapower, see Corbett, Julian S., England in the Mediterranean, 1603-1713 (London, 1904), 2 vols.Google Scholar

9 Though the enterprise was entirely Spanish, Spinola, the Italian-born general who was Europe's finest soldier, fought under the Imperial banner. Madrid felt it best to spare what offense it could in matters of form.

10 Gardiner, , History of England…, III: 370–71Google Scholar; Chamberlain to Carleton, 16 September 1620, in McClure, N. E., ed., The Letters of John Chamberlain, (Philadelphia, 1939), II: 317–18.Google Scholar

11 Gardiner, III: 372 ff.

12 E.g., Trumbull to Calvert, 15 October 1620 n.s., S.P. 77/14/224. Cr. Lando to the Doge and Senate, 12 October 1620 n.s., Hinds, A. B., ed., Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1621-1623, (London, 1911), p. 429Google Scholar (hereafter cited as C.S.P.V.).

13 Rudyard to Nethersole, S.P. 81/18\55; C.S.P.V., p. 431.

14 The Conway-Weston mission, a futile eleventh-hour tour of German capitals, served only to underline how far the situation in the Empire had deteriorated. The envoys were held as virtual hostages by the duke of Saxony, an independent Lutheran in whom James placed great hope; elsewhere, they were greeted with gibes and satire. At the end they barely escaped from Bohemia with their lives. The records of the mission are principally in the State Papers Germany, S.P. 81/17, 18. A copy of their instructions may be found in the Hardwicke Papers, B. M., Add. MSS 35832, fols. 11-12. There are also letters scattered through others of the S.P. Foreign, in the Harleian MSS, etc. For the escape from Bohemia, see Harleian MSS 1580, fol. 281.

15 Gondomar to Philip III, 21 November 1620 n.s., P.R.O. 31/12/21.

16 The twenty-one leaders of the Bohemian revolution were executed and their heads mounted on pikes, after the fashion of the times. Wedgwood, C.V., The Thirty Years War (New Haven, 1939), p. 143.Google Scholar

17 The first news of White Mountain arrived in London from Brussels in late November, o.s. For the popular reaction, see Jean-Baptiste Van Male to Charles de la Faille, 10 December 1620 n.s., B. M., Add. MSS 3 1 1 1 1, p. 342. The Venetian Lando's report was almost identical. C.S.P.V., p. 496.

18 Digby to Aston (?), 15 December 1620, B. M., Add. MSS 36444, fol. 248.

19 Digby to Aston, 15 December 1620, ibid., fol. 246.

20 Digby to Aston, 15 December 1620, ibid., fol. 248.

21 Aston to Digby, 18 December 1620, ibid., fol. 252; Philip III to Gondomar, 10 December 1620 n.s., P.R.O. 31/12/21; cf. Aston to Nethersole, 9 December 1620, S.P. 94/24. fol. 65.

22 A Saxon army had conquered Lusatia, the other federated province, the preceding summer.

23 Gindely, IV; 129-34.

24 S.P. 81/20, fols. 70, 96, 102, 354; C.S.P.V., 1619-1621, p. 544.

25 Frederick's reply to Sir Edward Villiers (English redaction), S.P. 81/20/298; Gindely, IV; 134-35.

26 Nethersole to Carleton (?), 9 March 1621, S.P. 81/20/263; Gindely, IV: 136-38.

27 James to the Princes of the Union, 24 January 1621 n.s., S.P. 81/20/62; Morton's Proposals (February 1621), ibid., fol. 215. Morton brought £30,000 with him, the amount raised through a benevolence, but this sum was hardly a drop in the bucket. The cost of maintaining an army comparable to Spinola's for one year was estimated by James' Council of War at £900,000. Report of the Council of War, S.P. 14/119/93.

28 Londorp, M.C., Acta Publica.… (Frankfurt, 1668), II: 307 ff.Google Scholar

29 Princes of the Union to Ferdinand II, 8 February 1621 n.s., S.P. 81/20/108; to Maximilian of Bavaria, ibid., fol. 125.

30 The Treaty of Mentz, 2 April 1621. B. M., Add. MSS 35832, fol. 71 (Latin), 73 (English).

31 Digby to Aston, 15 December 1620, B. M., Add. MSS 36444, fol. 246.

32 Gondomar to Philip III, 22 May 1620; idem, 2 April 1620 n.s., P.R.O. 31/12/21.

33 In Digby's original instructions of 22 February, it seems almost an afterthought: B. M., Add. MSS 36445, fol. 53. But compare his letter to Aston two weeks later. Ibid., fol. 50.

34 Ibid., fol. 53.

35 Digby to Buckingham, 14 March 1621, in The Calendar of the Clarendon Papers, eds. Ogle, O. and Bliss, W. H. (London, 1872), I, App., p. iGoogle Scholar (hereafter cited as Clarendon Papers).

36 Aston to Carleton, 12 March 1621, S.P. 94/24/102.

37 Sir Dudley Carleton, ambassador at the Hague, was directed to use all means to prevent Elizabeth from coming to England. The king wrote directly to him, a most unusual practice, and a month before the arrival of Frederick and Elizabeth in Holland. James to Carleton, 13 March 1621, S.P. 84/100/51.

38 Frederick to James, 12 April 1621 n.s., S.P. 81/20/331.

39 James to Frederick, 13 May 1621, S.P. 81/21/18 (a more legible copy of fol. 16).

40 Ibid.

41 Carleton to Calvert, 28 April 1621, S.P. 84/100/253.

42 Whereby hangs a short but revealing tale: Frederick sent James' representative on this mission because he could spare no courtier of his own; but before settling on Nethersole he contemplated using a Dutchman. It took Carleton to point out how England's receiving a Dutch envoy on behalf of Frederick would sit with Spain. Carleton to Calvert, 11 April 1621, S.P. 84/100/176.

43 Nethersole's Proposals from the King of Bohemia, and Answers, 18 May 1621 n.s., S.P. 81/21/9.

44 Carleton to Calvert, 8 June 1621 n.s., S.P. 84/101/113, 142.

45 Emperor's Answer to the Ambassadors of the Princes of the Union, 19 April 1621 n.s. Extract from the Relation of the Ambassadors of the Union, 20 April 1621 n.s. S.P. 84/100/171-74. Denmark and the Circle of Lower Saxony sent embassies later; the French had had one in Vienna before. For the French embassy of 1620, and the role of France in this crisis, see Lucien-Tapié, Victor, La Politique Etrangere de la France et le début de la Guerre de Trente Ans (1616-1621) (Paris, 1934), pp. 498–516, 528 ffGoogle Scholar. For the lack of Anglo-French liaison at the time of Sir Henry Wotton's embassy of 1620, see p. 541.

46 Calvert to Carleton, 26 May 1621, S.P. 84/101/97.

47 Digby to Carleton, 28 May 1621, S.P. 80/4/37.

48 Aston to Nethersole, 13 June 1621, S.P. 94/24/203.

49 Aston to Calvert, 13 June 1621, S.P. 94/24/201.

50 Dighy's instructions, 23 May 1621, S.P. 80/4/22.

51 John Carpenter to Calvert, 17 June 1621, S.P. 80/4/67. For Digby's stop in Heidelberg, see also Digby to Calvert, 14 June 1621, S.P. 80/4/63; Vere to Calvert, 16 June 1621, S.P. 84/101/155; Deuxponts to James I, 2 July 1621 n.s., S.P. 81/21/100.

52 Digby to Calvert, 24 June 1621, S.P. 80/4/89.

53 Digby to James (extract), 12 August 1621, S.P. 80/4/154.

54 Digby to the Lords Commissioners for the affairs of Germany, 26 July 1621, Clarendon Papers, I, App., p. 6.

55 Digby to Aston, 26 July 1621, B. M., Add. MSS 36445, fol. 191; Aston to Digby, 13 June 1621, S.P. 94/24/207; Aston to Calvert, 17 August 1621, B. M., Add. MSS 36445, fol. 261; Philip IV to Ferdinand II, 10 June 1621 n.s., S.P. 94/24/192.

56 Digby to the Lords Commissioners, 26 July 1621, Clarendon Papers, I:6.Google Scholar

57 Cf. Digby's instructions, S.P. 80/4/22.

58 Digby lo the Lords Commissioners, 26 July 1621, Clarendon Papers, I:6.Google Scholar

59 Gindely, IV: 174-89. Saxony had announced its intention to boycott the Diet, and refused to send further assistance lo the Emperor on the pretext of a possible invasion by Jagerndorf.

60 Nethersole to Calvert, 16 August 1621, S.P. 80/4/209.

61 Gindely, IV: 190-91.

62 Digby to the Lords Commissioners, 26 July 1621, Clarendon Papers, I:6Google Scholar; Londorp, II:486. An English translation of the Emperor's reply is in B. M., Add. MSS 43217, fol. 20.

63 Gardiner, , History of England, IV:208, n. 1.Google Scholar

64 Wedgwood, pp. 132-33.

65 Trumbull to Calvert, 21 July 1621, S.P. 77/14/395.

66 This had been procured through James' personal intercession with the Spanish.

67 Digby to the Lords Commissioners, 12 August 1621, wrongly dated in Clarendon Papers, I:6Google Scholar. See S.P. 80/4/142.

68 The only real fighting took place at sea. On the loss of the year, see Isabella to Philip IV, 16 August 1621 n.s., in Lonchay, H., Cuvelier, J., Lefevre, J., eds., Correspondance de la Cour d'Espagne sur les affaires des Pays-Bas au XVIIe siècle (Brussels, 1923–1937), I:26 (no. 78)Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as Correspondance de la Cour d'Espagne.

69 Digby appealed to Frederick in a letter of 30 July 1621, S.P. 80/4/121; cf. Digby to Carleton, 26 July 1621, S.P. 80/4/132; Digby to Calvert, 5 September 1621, S.P. 80/4/216.

70 Digby to Calvert, 12 August 1621, S.P. 80/4/162.

71 Digby to Calvert. 12 August 1621, Clarendon Papers, I:17Google Scholar; Digby to Calvert, 15 August 1621, S.P. 80/4/182.

72 Digby to the Lords Commissioners, 12 August 1621, Clarendon Papers, I:6Google Scholar. The phrase “interest of state” recurs in several of Digby's letters, e.g., to Aston 26 July and 30 August, B. M., Add. MSS 36445, fols, 191, 225.

73 Digby to Calvert, 12 August 1621, Clarendon Papers, I:17.Google Scholar

74 Vere to Calvert, 9 August 1621, S.P. 84/102/20; S.P. 80/4/112. The latter document apparently circulated as a pièce justificative for the incident. See also Vere to Calvert, September 1621, S.P. 81/21/171, for a lengthy apology.

75 Digby to the Lords Commissioners, 5 September 1621, Clarendon Papers, I:11.Google Scholar

76 Ibid.

77 Ibid.

78 Ibid.

79 Even in this Digby was stretching his authority; he wrote a covering note to justify himself. Digby to the Lords Commissioners, 5 (?) September 1621, Clarendon Papers, I:14.Google Scholar

80 Maximilian to Ferdinand II, 20 September 1621 n.s., P.R.O. 3 1 1 1 2, p. 10 (no. 265).

81 These negotiations ultimately collapsed, forcing Mansfeld to flee the Upper Palatinate as best he could, Mansfeld to Frederick, 11 October 1621 n.s., S.P. 81/22/82.

82 Digby to the Lords Commissioners, 2 October 1621; to Buckingham (?), 3 October 1621, S.P. 80/4/291. For Digby's negotiations with Mansfeld, see S.P. 80/4/220, 224, 240; cf. Gardiner, , History of England, IV:219.Google Scholar

83 Gardiner, IV:222-23.

84 Vere to Carleton, 5 October 1621, S.P. 84/103/12.

85 Carleton to Calvert, 12 October 1621, S.P. 84/103/61; Frederick, to Mansfeld, 21 October 1621 n.s., S.P. 81/22/109; also 84/103/56. The Dutch soon pared down their offer; cf. Nethersole to Calvert, 29 October 1621, S.P. 81/22/134.

86 Vere to Calvert, 17 October 1621, S.P. 84/103/107.

87 Gindely, IV:382. The agreement was signed 22 September 1621 n.s.

88 Digby to Calvert, 21-24 October 1621, S.P. 77/14/524.

89 Precisely when this happened cannot be determined. However, Calvert informs Aston of Digby's recall in a dispatch of 19 October, whereas he makes no mention of it in writing to him two days before. B.M. Add. MSS 36445, fols. 259, 261. Digby intended to stay only four or five days in England before resuming his journey, and left his train in Calais. Digby to Aston, 22 October 1621, ibid., fol. 265. But he did not in fact depart for Spain until the following March.

90 Digby to Calvert, 21-24 October 1621, S.P. 77/14/524.

91 Vere to Calvert, 31 October 1621, S.P. 81/22/146.

92 Calvert to Carleton, 10 November 1621, S.P. 84/103/243; “Letter of Nobody,” n.d., S.P. 80/4/373. For Digby's relation, Calvert to Carleton, 10 November 1621, n.s., S.P. 84/103/21 I, 243; Digby to Carleton, 6 November 1621, S.P. 84/103/215.

93 Digby to Calvert, 21-24 October 1621, S.P. 77/14/524.

94 Consultas on Oñate's dispatches of 20 June and 12 July 1621, August 1621, 17 November 1621, 17 December 1621 (n.s.); Isabella to Philip IV, 18 January 1622 n.s., in B.M. Add. MSS 3 1 1 1 1, p. 370 (no. 244); 3 1 1 1 2, p. 4 (no. 255), p. 25 (no. 278), p. 47 (no. 293). For Spain's concern about England's reaction, see, e.g., Philip IV to Isabella, 23 October 1621 n.s., Correspondance de la Cour d'Espagne, VI:285 (no. 684).Google Scholar

95 Proclamation, 3 November 1621, S.P. 187, no. 98. The decision to recall Parliament was taken the day after Digby's relation.

96 James to Ferdinand 11, 22 November 1621 n.s., B.M. Add. MSS 34217, fol. 19 (also in Sloane MSS 30, fol. 9 in English; printed in Cabala, 1654, p. 239Google ScholarPubMed); James to Frederick, same date, S.P. 81/22/240; James to Philip IV, same date, P.R.O. 31/12/21.

97 Calvert to Doncaster, 12 November 1621, B.M., Egerton MSS 2594, fol. 163.

98 Notestein, W., Relf, F. H., Simpson, H., eds., Commons Debates 1621 (New Haven; 1935), II:88–91Google Scholar; V:465 (hereafter cited as C.D.).

99 Proclamation, 6 October 1621, S.P. 14/123/17.

100 C.D., III:419-24, IV:426-28; Nicholas, Edward, Proceedings and Debates in the House of Commons in 1620 and 1621 (Oxford, 1766), II:186–88Google Scholar (hereafter cited as P.D.).

101 For Philips' significant speech, see P.D., II:210-13; C.D., III:490-92, IV:437, V:211.

102 C.D., V:214, 405.

103 Commons Journal, I:654, 657Google Scholar. The petition is printed in Rushworth, John, ed., Historical Collections…, (London, 1721–1722), I:40–43.Google Scholar

104 Zaller, Robert, The Parliament of 1621 (Berkeley, 1971), ch. V.Google Scholar

105 Gardiner, , History of England, IV:405Google Scholar, V:74.

106 He was given the Lower Palatinate, and an electoral title. Maximilian of Bavaria, the last surviving actor in the story, retained what had been the Upper Palatinate, as well as the electoral title he had taken from Frederick.