uctions of Bassompierre, one of the alleged objects of the
marriage is the general good of the Catholic religion, by affording some
relief to those English who professed it. If, however, that great
statesman ever entertained this political design, the simplicity and
pride of the Roman priests here completely overturned it; for in their
blind zeal they dared to extend their domestic tyranny over majesty
itself.

The French party had not long resided here ere the mutual jealousies
between the two nations broke out. All the English who were not
Catholics were soon dismissed from their attendance on the queen, by
herself; while Charles was compelled, by the popular cry, to forbid any
English Catholics to serve the queen, or to be present at the
celebration of her mass. The king was even obliged to employ pursuivants
or king's messengers, to stand at the door of her chapel to seize on any
of the English who entered there, while on these occasions the French
would draw their swords to defend these concealed Catholics. "The queen
and hers" became an odious distinction in the nation. Such were the
indecent scenes exhibited in public; they were not less reserved in
private. The following anecdote of saying a grace before the king, at
his own table, in a most indecorous race run between the catholic priest
and the king's chaplain, is given in a manuscript letter of the times.

"The king and queen dining together in the presence,[209] Mr. Hacket
(chaplain to the Lord Keeper Williams)[210] being then to say grace, the
confessor would have prevented him, but that Hacket shoved him away;
whereupon the confessor went to the queen's side, and was about to say
grace again, but that the king pulling the dishes unto him, and the
carvers falling to their business, hindered. When dinner was done, the
confessor thought, standing by the queen, to have been before Mr.
Hacket, but Mr. Hacket again got the start. The confessor, nevertheless,
begins his grace as loud as Mr. Hacket, with such a confusion, that the
king in great passion instantly rose from the table, and, taking the
queen by the hand, retired into the bedchamber."[211] It is with
difficulty we conceive how such a scene of priestly indiscretion should
have been suffered at the table of an English sovereign.

Such are the domestic accounts I have gleaned from MS. letters of the
times; but particulars of a deeper nature may be discovered in the
answer of the king's council to Marsha