按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
or disown Marsilly？
Montague's position was now awkward。 On May 23； his account of the
case was read； at Whitehall； to the Foreign Committee in London。
（See Note II。 for the document。） He did not dare to interfere in
Marsilly's behalf； because he did not know whether the man was an
agent of Charles or not。 Such are the inconveniences of a secret
royal diplomacy carried on behind the backs of Ministers。 Louis
XV。 later pursued this method with awkward consequences。＇1＇ The
French Court； Montague said； was overjoyed at the capture of
Marsilly； and a reward of 100；000 crowns； 〃I am told very
privately； is set upon his head。〃 The French ambassador in
England； Colbert； had reported that Charles had sent Marsilly 〃to
draw the Swisses into the Triple League〃 against France。 Montague
had tried to reassure Monsieur （Charles's brother…in…law）； but was
himself entirely perplexed。 As Monsieur's wife； Charles's sister；
was working with Charles for the secret treaty with Louis； the
State and family politics were clearly in a knot。 Meanwhile； the
Spanish ambassador kept pressing Montague to interfere in favor of
Marsilly。 After Montague's puzzled note had been read to the
English Foreign Committee on May 23； Arlington offered
explanations。 Marsilly came to England； he said； when Charles was
entering into negotiations for peace with Holland； and when France
seemed likely to oppose the peace。 No proposition was made to him
or by him。 Peace being made； Marsilly was given money to take him
out of the country。 He wanted the King to renew his alliance with
the Swiss cantons； but was told that the cantons must first expel
the regicides of Charles I。 He undertook to arrange this； and some
eight months later came back to England。 〃He was coldly used； and
I was complained of for not using so important a man well enough。〃
＇1＇ Cf。 Le Secret du Roi； by the Duc de Broglie。
As we saw； Marsilly expressed the most effusive gratitude to
Arlington； which does not suggest cold usage。 Arlington told the
complainers that Marsilly was 〃another man's spy；〃 what man's；
Dutch； Spanish； or even French； he does not explain。 So Charles
gave Marsilly money to go away。 He was never trusted with anything
but the expulsion of the regicides from Switzerland。 Arlington was
ordered by Charles to write a letter thanking Balthazar for his
good offices。
These explanations by Arlington do not tally with Marsilly's
communications to him； as cited at the beginning of this inquiry。
Nothing is said in these about getting the regicides of Charles I。
out of Switzerland： the paper is entirely concerned with bringing
the Protestant Cantons into anti…French League with England；
Holland； Spain； and even Sweden。 On the other hand； Arlington's
acknowledged letter to Balthazar； carried by Marsilly； may be the
〃commission〃 of which Marsilly boasted。 In any case； on June 2；
Charles gave Colbert； the French ambassador； an audience； turning
even the Duke of York out of the room。 He then repeated to Colbert
the explanations of Arlington； already cited； and Arlington； in a
separate interview； corroborated Charles。 So Colbert wrote to
Louis （June 3； 1669）； but to de Lyonne； on the same day； 〃I trust
that you will extract from Marsilly much matter for the King's
service。 It seemed to me that milord d'Arlington was uneasy about
it ＇en avait de l'inquitetude＇。 。 。 。 There is here in England one
Martin〃 （Eustace Dauger）； 〃who has been that wretch's valet； and
who left him discontent。〃 Colbert then proposes to examine Martin；
who may know a good deal； and to send him into France。 On June 10；
Colbert writes to Louis that he expects to see Martin。＇1＇
＇1＇ Bibl。 Nat。； Fonds。 Francais； No。 10665。
On June 24； Colbert wrote to Louis about a conversation with
Charles。 It is plain that proofs of a murder…plot by Marsilly were
scanty or non…existent； though Colbert averred that Marsilly had
discussed the matter with the Spanish Ministers。 〃Charles knew
that he had had much conference with Isola； the Spanish
ambassador。〃 Meanwhile； up to July 1； Colbert was trying to
persuade Marsilly's valet to go to France； which he declined to do；
as we have seen。 However； the luckless lad； by nods and by veiled
words； indicated that he knew a great deal。 But not by promise of
security and reward could the valet be induced to return to France。
〃I might ask the King to give up Martin； the valet of Marsilly； to
me；〃 Colbert concludes； and； by hook or by crook； he secured the
person of the wretched man； as we have seen。 In a postcript；
Colbert says that he has heard of the execution of Marsilly。
By July 19； as we saw in the previous essay； Louvois was bidding
Saint…Mars expect； at Pignerol from Dunkirk； a prisoner of the
highest political importance； to be guarded with the utmost
secrecy； yet a valet。 That valet must be Martin； now called
Eustache Dauger； and his secret can only be connected with
Marsilly。 It may have been something about Arlington's
negotiations through Marsilly； as compromising Charles II。
Arlington's explanations to the Foreign Committee were certainly
incomplete and disingenuous。 He； if not Charles； was more deeply
engaged with Marsilly than he ventured to report。 But Marsilly
himself avowed that he did not know why he was to be executed。
Executed he was； in circumstances truly hideous。 Perwich； June 5；
wrote to an unnamed correspondent in England： 〃They have all his
papers； which speak much of the Triple Alliance； but I know not
whether they can lawfully hang him for this； having been
naturalized in Holland； and taken in a privileged country〃
（Switzerland）。 Montague （Paris； June 22； 1669） writes to Arlington
that Marsilly is to die； so it has been decided； for 〃a rape which
he formerly committed at Nismes；〃 and after the execution； on June
26； declares that； when broken on the wheel； Marsilly 〃still
persisted that he was guilty of nothing； nor did know why he was
put to death。〃
Like Eustache Dauger； Marsilly professed that he did not know his
own secret。 The charge of a rape； long ago； at Nismes； was
obviously trumped up to cover the real reason for the extraordinary
vindictiveness with which he was pursued； illegally taken； and
barbarously slain。 Mere Protestant restlessness on his part is
hardly an explanation。 There was clearly no evidence for the
charge of a plot to murder Louis XIV。； in which Colbert； in
England； seems to have believed。 Even if the French Government
believed that he was at once an agent of Charles II。； and at the
same time a would…be assassin of Louis XIV。； that hardly accounts
for the intense secrecy with which his valet； Eustache Dauger； was
always surrounded。 Did Marsilly know of the Secret Treaty； and was
it from him that Arlington got his first inkling of the royal plot？
If so； Marsilly would probably have exposed the mystery in
Protestant interests。 We are entirely baffled。
In any case； Francis Vernon； writing from Paris to Williamson （？）
（June 19/25； 1669）； gave a terrible account of Marsilly's death。
（For the letter； see Note V。） With a broken piece of glass （as we
learn from another source）； Marsilly； in prison； wounded himself in
a ghastly manner； probably hoping to die by loss of blood。 They
seared him with a red…hot iron； and hurried on his execution。 He
was broken on the wheel； and was two hours in dying （June 22）。
Contrary to usage； a Protestant preacher was brought to attend him
on the scaffold。 He came most reluctantly； expecting insult； but
not a taunt was uttered by the fanatic populace。 〃He came up the
scaffold； great silence all about；〃 Marsilly lay naked； stretched
on a St。 Andrew's cross。 He had seemed half dead； his head hanging
limp； 〃like a drooping calf。〃 To greet the minister of his own
faith； he raised himself； to the surprise of all； and spoke out
loud and clear。 He utterly denied all share in a scheme to murder
Louis。 The rest may be read in the original letter （p。 51）。
So perished Roux de Marsilly； the history of the master throws no
light on the secret of the servant。 That secret； for many years；
caused the keenest anxiety to Louis XIV。 and Louvois。 Saint…Mars
himself must not pry into it。 Yet what could Dauger know？ That
there had been a conspiracy against the King's life？ But that was
the public talk of Paris。 If Dauger had guilty knowledge； his life
might have paid for it； why keep him a secret prisoner？ Did he
know that Charles II。 had been guilty of double dealing in 1668…
1669？ Probably Charles had made some overtures to the Swiss； as a
blind to his private dealings with Louis XIV。； but； even so； how
could the fact haunt Louis XIV。 like a ghost？ We leave the mystery
much darker than we found it； but we see good reason why
diplomatists should have murmured of a crusade against the cruel
and brigand Government which sent soldiers to ki