heavy disfavour to grant me the happiness to kiss his hands and to attend him in my place.’ To this humble representation and entreaty it was replied by Secretary CONWAY: ‘His Majesty’s answer is that the Earl has not so far appeased the exceptions which the King has taken against unkindness conceived, as yet to take off his disfavour. [Sidenote: _Ibid._, vol. lvi, p. 86; vol. xcv, pp. 51, 85, &c. _Conway’s Letter Book_, pp. 295, &c. (R. H.)] As for the Earl’s proffered duty and carriage in the King’s service, the King will judge of that as he shall find occasion.’ He found occasion ere long; but not until after BUCKINGHAM’S death. ARUNDEL rendered useful service, on some conspicuous occasions, both at home and abroad. If his successive diplomatic missions to Holland in 1632, and to Ratisbon in 1638, on the affairs of the Palatinate, failed of their main object, it was from no miscarriage of the ambassador. In the unostentatious labours of the Council Board he took during a long series of years a very honourable share. And it is much to his honour that by the men to whom the chief scandals of a disastrous reign are mainly ascribable, ARUNDEL was, almost uniformly, both disliked and feared. [Sidenote: ARUNDEL AND STRAFFORD.] [Sidenote: 1641. March and April.] As Lord High Steward of England, ARUNDEL had to preside at the trial of the Earl of STRAFFORD. He acquitted himself of an arduous task with eminent ability, and with an impartiality which won respect, alike from the managers of the impeachment and from the friends of the doomed statesman. The only person who expressed dissatisfaction with ARUNDEL’S conduct on that critical occasion was the King. The historians who have most deeply and acutely scanned the details of that most memorable of all our State Trials are agreed that in order to have satisfied CHARLES, the Earl of ARUNDEL must have betrayed the duty of his high office.