Presently we shall see how this insensate belief in his friends, and misapprehension of their motives, was to operate in the drama of his marriage, which was nearly thereby shipwrecked.
He had no gifts as a letter writer (in which capacity Charles II. certainly excelled, judging from the correspondence which survives[[92]]) and in speech he even stammered slightly, for which reason he was habitually silent. But while Charles was incurably idle, letting life drift by on the surface of a jest, and unutterably bored whenever he was forced to work (though no man knew better how to apply when put to it), James was plodding, methodical, diligent, though he got little credit for it, then nor later.
[92]. Granger’s “Biographical History of England.”
This difference, apart from diversity of temperament, may be partly accounted for by the circumstances of the brothers’ early life. Charles during his years of exile was for the most part condemned to inaction, while James gained in the arena of European warfare, under the eye of the greatest generals of his day, the habit of action and of eager disposal of his time.
One more contrast is to be noted.
Charles deliberately allowed himself to sink deeper and deeper into the mire of degrading vice, successfully stifling the voice of his conscience, till to all appearance it ceased to trouble him. James, on the other hand, greatly as he had shared in the prevailing sins of his age, never lost the uneasy sense of remorse, and certainly for the last fifteen years of his life tried to atone for his stained youth by fervent and real penitence. Moreover it is to be reckoned in his favour that he never tolerated any sneers at religion in his presence.
For the rest, he loved England with even passionate fervour. To his dying day he steadily and enthusiastically extolled his fellow-countrymen, banished though he was from the land that was so dear to him; nor could he refrain from sympathetic admiration of his English sailors for their daring gallantry at La Hogue, a gallantry displayed as it was against himself, when with the navy of France he made one more fruitless attempt to regain his lost kingdom.[[93]] Grammont, gay, careless, superficial, was yet able to sum up the character of the Duke with unusual gravity and deliberation. He bore the “reputation of undaunted courage, inviolable attachment for his word, great economy in his affairs, hauteur, application, arrogance, each in their turn, a scrupulous observer of the rules of duty and the laws of justice; he was accounted a faithful friend and an implacable enemy.”[[94]]
[93]. Granger’s “Biographical History of England.”
[94]. “Memoir of the Court of Charles II.,” by Count Grammont, ed. by Sir Walter Scott, revised ed. 1846.
Lastly, let it be said of James Stuart that he cannot be denied the courage of his opinions, mistaken though they were, and grievously as he erred in enforcing them.