It requires considerable calmness and consideration on the part of the biographer while undertaking to become the apologist of the Earl’s conduct, particularly when wholly differing in political and religious views. But sincerity will always command respect. That he was strictly conscientious in all his conduct there cannot be the shadow of a doubt; nor can he be accused of rather tempting the monarch than being tempted by him, a man open and most anxious to adopt any measures to regain his despotic authority over the people. Charles the First was all things to all men who offered him service; he was a Catholic to the Catholics, and a Protestant to the Protestants; and it was this duality of character, united with unbounded selfishness and a fatal attachment to secrecy, that perplexed his most discreet ministers. No man’s life or property was safe in his hands. No engagements were held sacred or inviolable, all being artfully contrived to conceal some mental reservation, which expediency always found it convenient to be shifting to serve some opposite purpose or other. All this subtle strategy was perfectly consistent with the possession of the most distinguished domestic affections and habits, and tastes most refined for art and literature, which, after all, may have been but the consummation of that all-grasping selfishness which shows but little integrity beyond the confines of self and home. His Majesty united so many inconsistencies of character that he completely deluded not the Earl alone but the entire Roman Catholic party throughout the land. He had succeeded in draining the Marquis of Worcester of his enormous wealth, and had not blushed to degrade his son, the Earl, by a public accusation (which his private conduct repudiated) to give colour to his own sophisms. A letter written by the Earl to the Nuncio, in February, together with the oath he afterwards took, are not a little remarkable.[13] “MOST ILLUSTRIOUS AND MOST REVEREND LORD,