No man of spirit could bear such an imputation. Berkeley, against his better judgment, set off to add another to the long list of the Queen's diplomatic failures.[343]
Another failure more personal and even more bitter was awaiting her.
In the first days of 1646 Sir Kenelm Digby appeared in Paris; he was immediately received by the Queen, and "he got three hours' conference with her and in end she seemed to be verie well pleased."[344] It appears that he brought with him for the Queen's consideration and the King's confirmation a document which he had drawn up in Rome and which had been provisionally accepted by the Pope, though a copy had been sent to Rinuccini for such emendations as he might think fit. By these articles Innocent agreed, in return for the abolition of the Penal Laws in England and the public establishment of Catholicism in Ireland, to make a grant, 100,000 crowns; but in his distrust of Charles he provided that the money should not be paid to the Queen until the King had carried out the provisions with regard to Ireland. It was further agreed that Irish troops under Catholic leaders should be taken into the King's service in England.[345]
It is hardly likely that either Charles or Henrietta relished these articles, which showed plainly enough how deeply they were distrusted at Rome, and which required so much before they could touch a penny of the coveted money. Perhaps the King was indignant with Sir Kenelm for suggesting such terms, for it was probably against his wishes that the knight, after the failure of his negotiations, was again dispatched to Rome in the autumn. He carried with him, however, the undiminished confidence of the Queen,[346] and by October he was fixed at the Papal Court waiting for the help which never came.
And, indeed, his chances of success were even slighter than before; he was, it is true, the most accomplished cavalier of his time—"the Magazine of all arts," as he was called. Distinguished foreigners who visited the Eternal City came to see him, and went away quite fascinated by his stores of learning and by his agreeable conversation; had he been dropped from the clouds on to any part of the world he would have made himself respected, said his admirers. Yes, retorted the Jesuits, who did not love him, but then he must not remain above six weeks; the trouble was that he had been in Rome a good deal more than six weeks. The Pope was tired of his endless talk and was beginning to think that he was mad, which perhaps was not far from the truth; his folly in mixing up matters of high policy concerning the King and Queen of England with an affair of purely ecclesiastical interest, such as the recognition of the Chapter, was commented on, and the extraordinary bitterness which both he and his friends displayed towards their opponents, among whom were the powerful religious Orders, was not in his favour; his position was further injured by his intimacy with Thomas White, a learned but eccentric priest then in Rome, who, afterward the elaborator of a theory of government which, like that of Hobbes, was believed to be a bid for the favour of Cromwell,[347] was already regarded with suspicion by the orthodox as unsound both in theology and philosophy; finally, the envoy suffered by the absence of Francesco Barberini, who had withdrawn from Rome. The Cardinal had not, it is true, been a very faithful friend[348] to the Queen of England, but in spite of occasional lapses he felt a certain interest in English affairs which might have counteracted in some measure the Irish influence brought to bear upon the Pope. Nor was it only Sir Kenelm who was out of favour; his cousin George Digby, through whose hands passed the negotiations of the King and Queen with the Irish, was industriously misrepresented by Rinuccini, while there were those who did not scruple to insinuate that the Queen required money for her private purposes, and that Jermyn, the heretic Jermyn, would have the spending of it. So greatly was the Pope influenced by these scandals that even those who favoured Henrietta and who would gladly have seen the Holy See unite with France to restore the King of England thought that Digby's best policy would be to plead for a grant of money for Ireland; but this course was prevented by the extraordinary conduct of Rinuccini, which has been already referred to, and which caused great wrath in the school of Catholics to which Digby belonged. It would be well, wrote White bitterly to Sir Kenelm, if the Pope could send into Ireland "such orders, or rather such a man, that may conserve the peace and seek more after the substance than after the outside of religion."[349]
Thus affairs stood in Rome at the crisis of 1647.
As early as 1645 it was believed that the Queen was inclined towards the Independents through the influence of Henry Percy and of Father Philip, who were suspected of communication with the leaders of that party;[350] in matters of religion they were less rigid than the Presbyterians; they possessed some glimmering of the idea of toleration, and they even showed some disposition to favour the Catholics. When in 1647 they gained the upper hand, Henrietta believed that the moment had come at last when the Catholics would be able to hold the balance between the King, the Presbyterians, and the Independents, and with the favour of the latter to win the long-hoped-for liberty of conscience, carrying with it the repeal of the penal laws. Never, it was thought, had the Catholics had such a chance since the days of Mary. Charles, characteristically, wished to keep out of sight in the negotiations. "You must know," wrote an English Catholic to Sir Kenelm Digby in August, 1647, "at last not only the Independents, but the King himself do give us solid hopes of a liberty of conscience for Catholics in England in case we can but gain security that our subjection to the Pope shall bring no prejudice to our allegiance towards his Majesty or that state; it is true the King will not appear in it, but would have the army make it their request unto him; and so I understand he hath advised the Catholics to treat with the army about it, and the business will be to frame an oath of allegiance."[351]
The Catholics carried on negotiations with Sir Thomas Fairfax;[352] the rationale of the penal laws had always been the suspicion that the recusants held opinions subversive of the State and indeed of all social life, and it was to overcome this difficulty that Three Propositions were drawn up by the Catholics "importing that the Pope and Church had no power to absolve from obedience to civil government or dispense with word or oath made to heretics or authorize to injure other men upon pretence of them being excommunicated."[353] It was intimated that if the Catholics, by subscribing these opinions, could "vindicate these principles from inconsistency with civil government,"[354] the penal laws would be repealed and liberty of conscience granted.[355]