"My Lord Duke,
"Yr. Grace"s most obedient and most humble Servant,
"HENRY FIELDING.
"Ealing; April 27, 1753.
"His Grace the Duke of Newcastle."
_Endorsed_: "Ealing: April 27th, 1753.
Mr. Fielding."
[Footnote 3: My italics. Did Fielding abandon his belief in Elizabeth?]
II
_THE MURDER OF ESCOVEDO_
"Many a man," says De Quincey, "can trace his ruin to a murder, of which, perhaps, he thought little enough at the time." This remark applies with peculiar force to Philip II. of Spain, to his secretary, Antonio Perez, to the steward of Perez, to his page, and to a number of professional ruffians. All of these, from the King to his own scullion, were concerned in the slaying of Juan de Escovedo, secretary of Philip"s famous natural brother, Don John of Austria. All of them, in different degrees, had bitter reason to regret a deed which, at the moment, seemed a commonplace political incident.
The puzzle in the case of Escovedo does not concern the manner of his taking off, or the ident.i.ty of his murderers. These things are perfectly well known; the names of the guilty, from the King to the bravo, are ascertained. The mystery clouds the motives for the deed.
_Why_ was Escovedo done to death? Did the King have him a.s.sa.s.sinated for purely political reasons, really inadequate, but magnified by the suspicious royal fancy? Or were the secretary of Philip II. and the monarch of Spain rivals in the affections of a one-eyed widow of rank?
and did the secretary, Perez, induce Philip to give orders for Escovedo"s death, because Escovedo threatened to reveal to the King their guilty intrigue? Sir William Stirling-Maxwell and Monsieur Mignet accepted, with shades of difference, this explanation. Mr.
Froude, on the other hand, held that Philip acted for political reasons, and with the full approval of his very ill-informed conscience. There was no lady as a motive in the case, in Mr. Froude"s opinion. A third solution is possible: Philip, perhaps, wished to murder Escovedo for political reasons, and without reference to the tender pa.s.sion; but Philip was slow and irresolute, while Perez, who dreaded Escovedo"s interference with his love affair, urged his royal master on to the crime which he was shirking. We may never know the exact truth, but at least we can study a state of morals and manners at Madrid, compared with which the blundering tragedies of Holyrood, in Queen Mary"s time, seem mere child"s play. The "lambs" of Bothwell are lambs playful and gentle when set beside the instruments of Philip II.
The murdered man, Escovedo, and the "first murderer," as Shakespeare says, Antonio Perez, had both been trained in the service of Ruy Gomez, Philip"s famous minister. Gomez had a wife, Ana de Mendoza, who, being born in 1546, was aged thirty-two, not thirty-eight (as M.
Mignet says), in 1578, when Escovedo was killed. But 1546 may be a misprint for 1540. She was blind in one eye in 1578, but probably both her eyes were brilliant in 1567, when she really seems to have been Philip"s mistress, or was generally believed so to be. Eleven years later, at the date of the murder, there is no obvious reason to suppose that Philip was constant to her charms. Her husband, created Prince d"Eboli, had died in 1573 (or as Mr. Froude says in 1567); the Princess was now a widow, and really, if she chose to distinguish her husband"s old secretary, at this date the King"s secretary, Antonio Perez, there seems no reason to suppose that Philip would have troubled himself about the matter. That he still loved Ana with a constancy far from royal, that she loved Perez, that Perez and she feared that Escovedo would denounce them to the King, is M. Mignet"s theory of the efficient cause of Escovedo"s murder. Yet M. Mignet holds, and rightly, that Philip had made up his mind, as far as he ever did make up his mind, to kill Escovedo, long before that diplomatist became an inconvenient spy on the supposed lovers.
To raise matters to the tragic height of the _Phaedra_ of Euripides, Perez was said to be the natural son of his late employer, Gomez, the husband of his alleged mistress. Probably Perez was nothing of the sort; he was the b.a.s.t.a.r.d of a man of his own name, and his alleged mistress, the widow of Gomez, may even have circulated the other story to prove that her relations with Perez, though intimate, were innocent. They are a pretty set of people!
As for Escovedo, he and Perez had been friends from their youth upwards. While Perez pa.s.sed from the service of Gomez to that of Philip, in 1572 Escovedo was appointed secretary to the n.o.bly adventurous Don John of Austria. The Court believed that he was intended to play the part of spy on Don John, but he fell under the charm of that gallant heart, and readily accepted, if he did not inspire, the most daring projects of the victor of Lepanto, the Sword of Christendom. This was very inconvenient for the leaden-footed Philip, who never took time by the forelock, but always brooded over schemes and let opportunity pa.s.s. Don John, on the other hand, was all for forcing the game, and, when he was sent to temporise and conciliate in the Low Countries, and withdraw the Spanish army of occupation, his idea was to send the Spanish forces out of the Netherlands by sea. When once they were on blue water he would make a descent on England; rescue the captive Mary Stuart; marry her (he was incapable of fear!); restore the Catholic religion, and wear the English crown. A good plot, approved of by the Pope, but a plot which did not suit the genius of Philip. He placed his leaden foot upon the scheme and on various other gallant projects, conceived in the best manner of Alexandre Dumas. Now Escovedo, to whom Don John was devotedly attached, was the soul of all these chivalrous designs, and for that reason Philip regarded him as a highly dangerous person.
Escovedo was at Madrid when Don John first went to the Low Countries (1576). He kept urging Philip to accept Don John"s fiery proposals, though Antonio Perez entreated him to be cautious. At this date, 1576, Perez was really the friend of Escovedo. But Escovedo would not be advised; he wrote an impatient memorial to the King, denouncing his st.i.tchless policy (_descosido_), his dilatory, shambling, idealess proceedings. So, at least, Sir William Stirling-Maxwell a.s.serts in his _Don John of Austria_: "the word used by Escovedo was _descosido_, "unst.i.tched."" But Mr. Froude says that _Philip_ used the expression, later, in reference to _another_ letter of Escovedo"s which he also called "a b.l.o.o.d.y letter" (January 1578). Here Mr. Froude can hardly be right, for Philip"s letter containing that vulgar expression is of July 1577.
In any case, in 1576 Philip was induced, by the intercession of Perez, to overlook the fault, and Escovedo, whose presence Don John demanded, was actually sent to him in December 1576. From this date both Don John and Escovedo wrote familiarly to their friend Perez, while Perez lured them on, and showed their letters to the King. Just as Charles I. commissioned the Duke of Hamilton to spy on the Covenanted n.o.bles, and pretend to sympathise with them, and talk in their G.o.dly style, so Philip gave Perez orders to entrap Don John and Escovedo. Perez said: "I want no theology but my own to justify me," and Philip wrote in reply, "My theology takes the same view of the matter as your own."
At this time, 1577, Perez, though a gambler and a profligate, who took presents from all hands, must have meant nothing worse, on M. Mignet"s theory, than to serve Philip as he loved to be served, and keep him well informed of Don John"s designs. Escovedo was not yet, according to M. Mignet, an obstacle to the amours of Perez and the King"s mistress, the Princess d"Eboli. Sir William Stirling-Maxwell, on the other hand, holds that the object of Perez already was to ruin Don John; for what reason Sir William owns that he cannot discover. Indeed Perez had no such object, unless Don John confided to him projects treasonous or dangerous to the Government of his own master, the King.
Now did Don John, or Escovedo, entrust Perez with designs not merely chivalrous and impracticable, but actually traitorous? Certainly Don John did nothing of the kind. Escovedo left him and went, without being called for, to Spain, arriving in July 1577. During his absence Don John defeated the Dutch Protestants in the battle of Gemblours, on January 31, 1578. He then wrote a letter full of chivalrous loyalty to Escovedo and Perez at Madrid. He would make Philip master indeed of the Low Countries; he asked Escovedo and Perez to inspire the King with resolution. To do that was impossible, but Philip could never have desired to murder Escovedo merely because he asked help for Don John. Yet, no sooner did Escovedo announce his return to Spain, in July 1577, than Philip, in a letter to Perez, said, "we must hasten to despatch him before he kills us." There seems to be no doubt that the letter in which this phrase occurs is authentic, though we have it only in a copy. But is the phrase correctly translated? The words "_priesa a des.p.a.cherle antes que nos mate_" certainly may be rendered, "we must be quick and despatch _him_" (Escovedo) "before he kills _us_." But Mr. Froude, much more lenient to Philip than to Mary Stuart, proposes to render the phrase, "we must despatch Escovedo quickly" (_i.e._ send him about his business) "before he worries us to death." Mr. Froude thus denies that, in 1577, Philip already meant to kill Escovedo. It is unlucky for Mr. Froude"s theory, and for Philip"s character, if the King used the phrase _twice_. In March 1578 he wrote to Perez, about Escovedo, "act quickly _antes que nos mate_,--before he kills us." So Perez averred, at least, but is his date correct?
This time Perez did act, and Escovedo was butchered! If Perez tells truth, in 1577, Philip meant what he said, "Despatch him before he kills us."
Why did Philip thus dread Escovedo? We have merely the published statements of Perez, in his account of the affair. After giving the general causes of Philip"s distrust of Don John, and the ideas which a deeply suspicious monarch may very well have entertained, considering the adventurous character of his brother, Perez adds a special charge against Escovedo. He vowed, says Perez, that, after conquering England, he and Don John would attack Spain. Escovedo asked for the captaincy of a castle on a rock commanding the harbour of Santander; he was _alcalde_ of that town. He and Don John would use this fortress, as Aramis and Fouquet, in the novel of Dumas, meant to use Belle Isle, against their sovereign. As a matter of fact, Escovedo had asked for the command of Mogro, the fortress commanding Santander, in the spring of 1577, and Perez told Philip that the place should be strengthened, for the protection of the harbour, but not entrusted to Escovedo. Don John"s loyalty could never have contemplated the use of the place as a keep to be held in an attack on his King. But, if Perez had, in 1577, no grudge against Escovedo as being perilous to his alleged amour with the Princess d"Eboli, then the murderous plan of Philip must have sprung from the intense suspiciousness of his own nature, not from the promptings of Perez.
Escovedo reached Spain in July 1577. He was not killed till March 31, 1578, though attempts on his life were made some weeks earlier. M.
Mignet argues that, till the early spring of 1578, Philip held his hand because Perez lulled his fears; that Escovedo then began to threaten to disclose the love affair of Perez to his royal rival, and that Perez, in his own private interest, now changed his tune, and, in place of mollifying Philip, urged him to the crime. But Philip was so dilatory that he could not even commit a murder with decent prompt.i.tude. Escovedo was not dangerous, even to his mind, while he was apart from Don John. But as weeks pa.s.sed, Don John kept insisting, by letter, on the return of Escovedo, and for _that_ reason, possibly, Philip screwed his courage to the (literally) "sticking" point, and Escovedo was "stuck." Major Martin Hume, however, argues that, by this time, circ.u.mstances had changed, and Philip had now no motive for murder.
The impression of M. Mignet, and of Sir William Stirling-Maxwell, the biographer of Don John, is quite different. They hold that the Princess d"Eboli, in 1578, was Philip"s mistress; that she deceived him with Perez; that Escovedo threatened to tell all, and that Perez therefore hurried on his murder. Had this been the state of affairs, would Escovedo have constantly accepted the invitations of Perez to dinner? The men would necessarily have been on the worst of terms, if Escovedo was threatening Perez, but Escovedo, in fact, kept on dining with Perez. Again, the policy of Perez would have been to send Escovedo where he wanted to go, to Flanders, well out of the way, back to Don John. It seems probable enough, though not certain, that, in 1567, the Princess and Philip were lovers. But it is, most unlikely, and it is not proved, that Philip was still devoted to the lady in 1578. Some of the Princess"s family, the Mendozas, now wanted to kill Perez, as a dishonour to their blood. At the trial of Perez later, much evidence was given to show that he loved the Princess, or was suspected of doing so, but it is not shown that this was a matter about which Philip had any reason to concern himself. Thus it is not inconceivable that Escovedo disliked the relations between Perez and the Princess, but nothing tends to show that he could have made himself dangerous by revealing them to the King. Moreover, if he spoke his mind to Perez on the matter, the two would not have remained, as apparently they did, on terms of the most friendly intercourse. A squire of Perez described a scene in which Escovedo threatened to denounce the Princess, but how did the squire become a witness of the scene, in which the Princess defied Escovedo in terms of singular coa.r.s.eness?
At all events, when Philip consulted the Marquis of Los Velez on the propriety of killing Escovedo rather than sending him back to Don John, the reasons, which convinced the Marquis, were mere political suspicions.
It was at that time a question of conscience whether a king might have a subject a.s.sa.s.sinated, if the royal motives, though sufficient, were not such as could be revealed with safety in a court of justice. On these principles Queen Mary had a right to take Darnley off, for excellent political causes which could not safely be made public; for international reasons. Mary, however, unlike Philip, did not consult her confessor, who believed her to be innocent of her husband"s death.
The confessor of Philip told him that the King had a perfect right to despatch Escovedo, and Philip gave his orders to Perez. He repeated, says Perez, in 1578, his words used in 1577: "Make haste before he kills us."
As to this point of conscience, the right of a king to commit murder on a subject for reasons of State, Protestant opinion seems to have been lenient. When the Ruthvens were killed at Perth, on August 5, 1600, in an affair the most mysterious of all mysteries, the Rev.
Robert Bruce, a stern Presbyterian, refused to believe that James VI.
had not planned their slaughter. "But your Majesty might have secret reasons," said Bruce to the King, who, naturally and truly, maintained his own innocence. This looks as if Mr. Bruce, like the confessor of Philip, held that a king had a right to murder a subject for secret reasons of State. The Inquisition vigorously repudiated the doctrine, when maintained by a Spanish preacher, but Knox approved of King Henry"s (Darnley"s) murder of Riccio. My sympathies, on this point, are with the Inquisition.
Perez, having been commissioned to organise the crime, handed on the job to Martinez, his steward. Martinez asked a ruffianly page, Enriquez, "if I knew anybody in my country" (Murcia) "who would stick a knife into a person." Enriquez said, "I will speak about it to a muleteer of my acquaintance, as, in fact, I did, and the muleteer undertook the business." But later, hearing that a man of importance was to be knifed, Enriquez told Perez that a muleteer was not n.o.ble enough: the job "must be entrusted to persons of more consideration."
Enriquez, in 1585, confessed for a good reason; Perez had absurdly mismanaged the business. All sorts of people were employed, and, after the murder, they fled, and began to die punctually in an alarming manner. Naturally Enriquez thought that Perez was acting like the Mures of Auchendrane, who despatched a series of witnesses and accomplices in their murder of Kennedy. As they always needed a new accomplice to kill the previous accomplice, then another to slay the slayer, and so on, the Mures if unchecked would have depopulated Scotland. Enriquez surmised that _his_ turn to die would soon come; so he confessed, and was corroborated by Diego Martinez. Thus the facts came out, and this ought to be a lesson to murderers.
As the muleteer hung fire, Perez determined to poison Escovedo. But he did not in the least know how to set about it. Science was hardly in her infancy. If you wanted to poison a man in Scotland, you had to rely on a vulgar witch, or send a man to France, at great expense, to buy the stuff, and the messenger was detected and tortured. The Court of Spain was not more scientific.
Martinez sent Enriquez to Murcia, to gather certain poisonous herbs, and these were distilled by a venal apothecary. The poison was then tried on a barndoor fowl, which was not one penny the worse. But Martinez somehow procured "a certain water that was good to be given as a drink." Perez asked Escovedo to dinner, Enriquez waited at table, and in each cup of wine that Escovedo drank, he, rather h.o.m.oeopathically, put "a nutsh.e.l.lful of the water." Escovedo was no more poisoned than the c.o.c.k of the earlier experiment. "It was ascertained that the beverage produced no effect whatever."
A few days later, Escovedo again dined with the hospitable Perez. On this occasion they gave him some white powder in a dish of cream, and also gave him the poisoned water in his wine, thinking it a pity to waste that beverage. This time Escovedo was unwell, and again, when Enriquez induced a scullion in the royal kitchen to put more of the powder in a basin of broth in Escovedo"s own house. For this the poor kitchenmaid who cooked the broth was hanged in the public square of Madrid, _sin culpa_.
Pious Philip was demoralising his subjects at a terrible rate! But you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs. Philip slew that girl of his kitchen as surely as if he had taken a gun and shot her, but probably the royal confessor said that all was as it should be.
In spite of the resources of Spanish science, Escovedo persisted in living, and Perez determined that he must be shot or stabbed. Enriquez went off to his own country to find a friend who was an a.s.sa.s.sin, and to get "a stiletto with a very fine blade, much better than a pistol to kill a man with." Enriquez, keeping a good thing in the family, enlisted his brother: and Martinez, from Aragon, brought "two proper kind of men," Juan de Nera and Insausti, who, with the King"s scullion, undertook the job. Perez went to Alcala for Holy Week, just as the good Regent Murray left Edinburgh on the morning of Darnley"s murder, after sermon. "Have a halibi" was the motto of both gentlemen.
The underlings dogged Escovedo in the evening of Easter Monday.
Enriquez did not come across him, but Insausti did his business with one thrust, in a workmanlike way. The scullion hurried to Alcala, and told the news to Perez, who "was highly delighted."
We leave this good and faithful servant, and turn to Don John. When he, far away, heard the news he was under no delusions about love affairs as the cause of the crime. He wrote to his wretched brother the King "in grief greater than I can describe." The King, he said, had lost the best of servants, "a man without the aims and craft which are now in vogue." "I may with just reason consider _myself_ to have been the cause of his death," the blow was really dealt at Don John. He expressed the most touching anxiety for the wife and children of Escovedo, who died poor, because (unlike Perez) "he had clean hands." He besought Philip, by the love of our Lord, "to use every possible diligence to know whence the blow came and to punish it with the rigour which it deserves." He himself will pay the most pressing debts of the dead. (From Beaumont, April 20, 1578.)
Probably the royal caitiff was astonished by this letter. On September 20 Don John wrote his last letter to his brother "desiring more than life some decision on your Majesty"s part. Give me orders for the conduct of affairs!" Philip scrawled in the margin, "I will not answer." But Don John had ended his letter "Our lives are at stake, and all we ask is to lose them with honour." These are like the last words of the last letter of the great Montrose to Charles II., "with the more alacrity and vigour I go to search my death." Like Montrose Don John "carried with him fidelity and honour to the grave." He died, after a cruel illness, on October 1. Brantome says that he was poisoned by order of the King, at the instigation of Perez. "The side of his breast was yellow and black, as if burned, and crumbled at the touch." These things were always said when a great personage died in his bed. They are probably untrue, but a king who could conscientiously murder his brother"s friend could as conscientiously, and for the same reasons, murder his brother.
The Princess d"Eboli rewarded and sheltered one of the murderers of Escovedo. They were all gratified with chains of gold, silver cups, abundance of golden _ecus_, and commissions in the army; all were sent out of the country, and some began to die strangely, which, as we saw, frightened Enriquez into his confession (1585).
At once Perez was suspected. He paid a visit of condolence to young Escovedo: he spoke of a love affair of Escovedo"s in Flanders; an injured husband must be the guilty man! But suspicion darkened. Perez complained to the King that he was dogged, watched, cross-examined by the _alcalde_ and his son. The Escovedo family had a friend in Vasquez, another royal secretary. Knowing nothing of the King"s guilt, and jealous of Perez, he kept a.s.suring the King that Perez was guilty: that there was an amour, detected by Escovedo: that Escovedo perished for a woman"s sake: that Philip must investigate the case, and end the scandal. The woman, of course, was the Princess d"Eboli. Philip cared nothing for her, now at least. Mr. Froude says that Don Gaspar Moro, in his work on the Princess, "has disproved conclusively the imagined _liaison_ between the Princess and Philip II." On the other hand, Philip was darkly concerned in litigations about property, _against_ the Princess; these affairs Vasquez conducted, while Perez naturally was on the side of the widow of his benefactor. On these points, more than a hundred letters of Vasquez exist. Meanwhile he left, and the Escovedo family left, no stone unturned to prove that Perez murdered Escovedo because Escovedo thwarted his amour with the Princess.
Philip had promised, again and again, to stand by Perez. But the affair was coming to light, and if it must come out, it suited Philip that Vasquez should track Perez on the wrong trail, the trail of the amour, not follow the right scent which led straight to the throne, and the wretch who sat on it. But neither course could be quite pleasant to the King.
Perez offered to stand his trial, knowing that evidence against him could not be found. His accomplices were far away; he would be acquitted, as Bothwell was acquitted of Darnley"s death. Philip could not face the situation. He bade Perez consult the President of the Council, De Pazos, a Bishop, and tell him all, while De Pazos should mollify young Escovedo. The Bishop, a casuist, actually a.s.sured young Escovedo that Perez and the Princess "are as innocent as myself." The Bishop did not agree with the Inquisition: he could say that Perez was innocent, because he only obeyed the King"s murderous orders. Young Escovedo retreated: Vasquez persevered, and the Princess d"Eboli, writing to the King, called Vasquez "a Moorish dog." Philip had both Perez and the Princess arrested, for Vasquez was not to be put down; _his_ business in connection with the litigations was to pursue the Princess, and Philip could not tell Vasquez that he was on the wrong trail. The lady was sent to her estates; this satisfied Vasquez, and Perez and he were bound over to keep the peace. But suspicion hung about Perez, and Philip preferred that it should be so. The secretary was accused of peculation, he had taken bribes on all hands, and he was sentenced to heavy fines and imprisonment (January 1585). Now Enriquez confessed, and a kind of secret inquiry, of which the records survive, dragged its slow course along. Perez was under arrest, in a house near a church. He dropped out of a window and rushed into the church, the civil power burst open the gates, violated sanctuary, and found our friend crouching, all draped with festoons of cobwebs, in the timber work under the roof. The Church censured the magistrates, but they had got Perez, and Philip defied the ecclesiastical courts.
Perez, a prisoner, tried to escape by the aid of one of Escovedo"s murderers, who was staunch, but failed, while his wife was ill treated to make him give up all the compromising letters of the King. He did give up two sealed trunks full of papers. But his ally and steward, Martinez, had first (it is said) selected and secreted the royal notes which proved the guilt of Philip.
Apparently the King thought himself safe now, and actually did not take the trouble to see whether his compromising letters were in the sealed trunks or not! At least, if he did know that they were absent, and that Perez could produce proof of his guilt, it is hard to see why, with endless doubts and hesitations, he allowed the secret process for murder against Perez to drag on, after a long interruption, into 1590. Vasquez examined and re-examined Perez, but there was still only one witness against him, the scoundrel Enriquez.
One was not enough.
A new step was taken. The royal confessor a.s.sured Perez that he would be safe if he told the whole truth and declared openly that he had acted by the royal orders! Perez refused, Philip commanded again (Jan.
4, 1590). Perez must now reveal the King"s motive for decreeing the murder. If Philip was setting a trap for Perez that trap only caught him if he could not produce the King"s compromising letters, which, in fact, he still possessed. Mr. Froude a.s.serts that Philip had heard from his confessor, and _he_ from the wife of Perez, that the letters were still secreted and could be produced. If so, Perez would be safe, and the King"s character would be lost. What was Philip"s aim and motive? Would he declare the letters to be forgeries? No other mortal (of that day) wrote such an unmistakable hand as his, it was the worst in the world. He must have had some loophole, or he would never have pressed Perez to bear witness to his own crime. A loophole he had, and Perez knew it, for otherwise he would have obeyed orders, told the whole story, and been set free. He did not. Mr. Froude supposes that he did not think the royal authority would satisfy the judges. But they could not condemn Perez, a mere accessory to Philip, without condemning the King, and how could the judges do that? Perez, I think, would have taken his chance of the judges" severity, as against their King, rather than disobey the King"s command to confess all, and so have to face torture. He did face the torture, which proves, perhaps, that he knew Philip could, somehow, escape from the d.a.m.ning evidence of his own letters. Philip"s loophole, Major Martin Hume thinks, was this: if Perez revealed the King"s reasons for ordering the murder, they would appear as obsolete, at the date of the deed. Pedro alone would be culpable. In any case he faced torture.
Like most people in his circ.u.mstances, he miscalculated his own power of bearing agony. He had not the endurance of the younger Auchendrane murderer: of Mitch.e.l.l, the choice Covenanting a.s.sa.s.sin: of the gallant Jacobite Nevile Payne, tortured nearly to death by the minions of the Dutch usurper, William of Orange. All of these bore the torment and kept their secrets. But "eight turns of the rope" opened the mouth of Perez, whose obstinacy had merely put him to great inconvenience. Yet he did not produce Philip"s letters in corroboration; he said that they had been taken from him. However, next day, Diego Martinez, who had hitherto denied all, saw that the game was up, and admitted the truth of all that Enriquez had confessed in 1585.
About a month after the torture Perez escaped. His wife was allowed to visit him in prison. She had been the best, the bravest, the most devoted of women. If she had reason for jealousy of the Princess, which is by no means certain, she had forgiven all. She had moved heaven and earth to save her husband. In the Dominican church, at high ma.s.s, she had thrown herself upon the King"s confessor, demanding before that awful Presence on the altar that the priest should refuse to absolve the King unless he set Perez free.