His military career in Wales appears to have terminated late in 1644, at which time the Parliament having protested against the cessation made by the Marquis of Ormond with the Irish rebels, by the King’s express orders, his Majesty determined not only on a speedy peace in Ireland, but also on the raising of troops there to be sent over to England. Difficulties, however, arising consequent on the demands made by the Irish Roman Catholics, the King devised the expedient of engaging the services of the Earl of Glamorgan in that hazardous negotiation. Adopting his customary narrow policy, he planned and plotted alike with friends and foes. Ormond was to be flattered and deceived, next Glamorgan, and in succession all his ministers, council and court, yea, the very Parliament and the public were to be hood-winked by a master-stroke of double-dealing. Such a net-work of intrigue had he woven, before the least of his measures could be finally executed, that Charles the First’s course of conduct throughout this affair, has confounded early as well as later and most dispassionate politicians. That the King was wavering and uncertain, at least in his decisions, is admitted by all, and it is very evident that expediency was with him a sufficient plea for the most perfidious treachery, without distinction of parties. He first wrote to the Marquis of Ormond that well-known letter, in which he says:[25] “ORMOND, “My Lord Herbert having business of his own in Ireland (wherein I desire you to do him all lawful favour and furtherance), I have thought good to use the power I have, both in his affection and duty, to engage him in all possible ways to further the peace there; which he hath promised to do. Wherefore, as you find occasion, you may confidently use and trust him in this, or any other thing he shall propound to you for my service; there being none in whose honesty and zeal to my person and crown I have more confidence. So I rest, “Your most assured constant friend, “CHARLES R. “Oxford, 27 Decemb. 1644. [F]“His honesty or affection to my service will not deceive you; but I will not answer for his judgment.” In this letter we detect the artful arrangement of its matter, making Lord Herbert’s real mission secondary to some private business of his own, to the forwarding of which the wily monarch solicits the kind offices of his minister. Yet, secondary as was his mission apparently, he is much lauded for his “honesty and zeal” to the royal person and crown; while the same hand adds a postscript in cipher,--“but I will not answer for his _judgment_.” Yet he was not so insufficient in “judgment,” but that the royal adept in deception could purpose his eventually superseding the Lord Lieutenant, whom he was thus cajoling meanwhile.