New-York tribune., 1908-03-21
Literary Nea0s and Criticism.

mental power to fill great part. A man with
the stuff OF a statesman in him would not have
played as he played with the idea of a
Spanish marriage for the heir to the English
thronet nor would he in any circumstances have
carried through the amazing journey to Madrid
Win ms prince That, in fact. must ever re-
main enveloped In the atmosphere of a youth
ful prank. 1t was TO his credit, as the English
people thought, that he at least brought the
prince back in safety. but he ought never to
have embarked on the risky venture. The truth
is that Buckingham was a confirmed ro-nauti-
cist, as. perhaps he may well have been. in
view Of the prodigious favors the gods had be-
slowed upon him. Success like his was enough
to turn any mans head. The courtier SO friendly
with his king that he could address him in his
letters "Dere Dad and Cossope" and was
beloved by his master "Dogge Steenie,' was
tempted. If ever courtier was. to take things
lightly, and whistle responsibility down the
wind.
Buckingham did this almost unchaIIenged
while James lived. and, by one of those strokes
OF destiny which seem wellnigh unbelievable.
he wax permitted to continue the policy under
Charles I with success that seemed for long
time secure. His Irritation with Anne of Aus
tria, when the marriage with Henrietta Maria
was being arranged. did him no great harm:
opinion steadily turned against him. he never
lost the support Of the King. Felton's dagger
put an end TO career which probably could
not have been terminated by any specific fall
of Buckingharn's in his conduct Of public
affairs. On the other hand the broad drift Of
his behavior could not have been indefinitely
endured. Charles could differ with his people
If he chose as to his friends precise share OF
responsibility in such a matter as the expedi-
ton to Rochelle, but he could not have with
stood the tide Of opposition rising everywhere
against Buckinghams general dominance
Among those scathing questions which Dr.
Turner asked in the House of Commons there
were two or three which eloquently point to the
manner in which the favorite had been max
ing himself impossible. They ran as follows:
Whether the unreasonable. exorbitant and IN
gifts Of money and lands @ 6eso~ee e ,aIp On Ire
ing the Kings Revenue and iHpoVerishihs 'he
c[STat Whether the multiplicity Of Offices conferred
upon the Duke and others depending upon him
Of the e evii c;overnrrent Of this KInsdom2
Of the nd saie Tings and pro
motions "a scandal and hurt TO the hingdom) be
not through the Duke?
There was more in the blanket indictment
thus framed than in such a question rs
whether the Duke. being Admiral, be not the
cause of the loss Of the Kings Royalty in the
narrow seasc" The people were angry enough
over sins on which they could put a finger
They were angrier if anything. over those which
they could only feel vaguely as amounting 20
an aIl-pervading interference with the govern
ment They were tired of the Duke They had
had too much OF him There were many in
England who forgave if they did not applaud his
assassin. The historian, naturally, can have no
good word for that unhappy wretch Can ne
have one for Buckingham? Can he say that
was the better for the passage of that
brilliant figure across her horizon? Hardly.
But every historian possessed Of a grain OF
imasination must retain soft spot in his heart
for the beautiful. audaciOus courtier, the wllfui
eager and picturesque personality, the type Of
adventurous romance, that was George NlHlers-
Though he was no hero there was something
about him that was lovable and that fascinates
m dsy.