Chapter XII (4)

The violence of those times on all sides will account for this theological declaration; but it is more difficult to justify its retention at present. Whatever influence a belief in the pope's supremacy may exercise upon men's politics, it is hard to see how the doctrine of transubstantiation can directly affect them; and surely he who renounces the former, cannot be very dangerous on account of his adherence to the latter. Nor is it less extraordinary to demand, from many of those who usually compose a House of Commons, the assertion that the practice of the church of Rome in the invocation of saints is idolatrous; since, even on the hypothesis that a country gentleman has a clear notion of what is meant by idolatry, he is, in many cases, wholly out of the way of knowing what the church of Rome or any of its members believe or practise. The invocation of saints, as held and explained by that church in the council of Trent, is surely not idolatrous, with whatever error it may be charged; but the practice at least of uneducated Roman catholics seems fully to justify the declaration; understanding it to refer to certain superstitions, countenanced or not eradicated by their clergy. I have sometimes thought that the legislator of a great nation sets off oddly by solemnly professing theological positions about which he knows nothing, and swearing to the possession of property which he does not enjoy. [1827.]

[754] The second reading of the exclusion bill was carried, May 21, 1679, by 207 to 128. The debates are in _Parliamentary History_, 1125 _et post_. In the next parliament it was carried without a division. Sir Leoline Jenkins alone seems to have taken the high ground, that "parliament cannot disinherit the heir of the Crown; and that, if such an act should pass, it would be invalid in itself."--_Id._ 1191.

[755] While the exclusion bill was passing the Commons, the king took the pains to speak himself to almost every lord, to dissuade him from assenting to it when it should come up; telling them, at the same time, let what would happen, he would never suffer such a villainous bill to pass. _Life of James_, 553.

[756] Ralph, p. 498. The atrocious libel, entitled, "An Appeal from the Country to the City," published in 1679, and usually ascribed to Ferguson (though said in _Biogr. Brit._ art. L'Estrange, to be written by Charles Blount), was almost sufficient of itself to excuse the return of public opinion towards the throne. _State Tracts_, temp. Car. II.; Ralph, i. 476; _Parl. Hist._ iv. Appendix. The king is personally struck at in this tract with the utmost fury: the queen is called Agrippina, in allusion to the infamous charges of Oates; Monmouth is held up as the hope of the country. "He will stand by you, therefore you ought to stand by him. He who hath the worst title, always makes the best king." One Harris was tried for publishing this pamphlet. The jury at first found him guilty of selling; an equivocal verdict, by which they probably meant to deny, or at least to disclaim, any assertion of the libellous character of the publication. But Scroggs telling them it was their province to say guilty or not guilty, they returned a verdict of guilty. _State Trials_, vii. 925.

Another arrow dipped in the same poison was a "Letter to a Person of Honour concerning the Black Box." _Somers Tracts_, viii. 189. The story of a contract of marriage between the king and Mrs. Waters, Monmouth's mother, concealed in a black box, had lately been current; and the former had taken pains to expose its falsehood by a public examination of the gentleman whose name had been made use of. This artful tract is intended to keep up the belief of Monmouth's legitimacy, and even to graft it on the undeniable falsehood of that tale; as if it had been purposely fabricated to delude the people by setting them on a wrong scent. See also another libel of the same class, p. 197.

Though Monmouth's illegitimacy is past all question, it has been observed by Harris that the Princess of Orange, in writing to her brother about Mrs. Waters, in 1655, twice names her as his wife. Thurloe, i. 665, quoted in Harris's _Lives_, iv. 168. But though this was a scandalous indecency on her part, it proves no more than that Charles, like other young men in the heat of passion, was foolish enough to give that appellation to his mistress; and that his sister humoured him in it.

Sidney mentions a strange piece of Monmouth's presumption. When he went to dine with the city in October 1680, it was remarked that the bar, by which the heralds denote illegitimacy, had been taken off the royal arms on his coach. _Letters to Saville_, p. 54.

[757] _Life of James_, 592 _et post_. Compare Dalrymple, p. 265 _et post_. Barillon was evidently of opinion that the king would finally abandon his brother. Sunderland joined the Duchess of Portsmouth, and was one of the thirty peers who voted for the bill in November 1680. James charges Godolphin also with deserting him. P. 615. But his name does not appear in the protest signed by twenty-five peers; though that of the privy seal, Lord Anglesea, does. The Duchess of Portsmouth sat near the Commons at Stafford's trial, "dispensing her sweetmeats and gracious looks among them."--P. 638.

[758] _Life of James_, p. 657.

[759] Il est persuadé que l'autorité royale ne se peut rétablir en Angleterre que par une guerre civile. Aug. 19, 1680. Dalrymple, 265.

[760] Dalrymple, 277. Nov. 1680.

[761] Marvell's "Growth of Popery," in _State Tracts_, temp. Car. II. p. 98; _Parl. Hist._ 853. The second reading was carried by 127 to 88. Serjeant Maynard, who was probably not in the secrets of his party, seems to have been surprised at their opposition. An objection with Marvell, and not by any means a bad one, would have been, that the children of the royal family were to be consigned for education to the sole government of bishops. The Duke of York, and thirteen other peers, protested against this bill, not all of them from the same motives, as may be collected from their names. Lords' Journals, 13th and 15th March 1679.

[762] Lords Russell and Cavendish, Sir W. Coventry and Sir Thomas Littleton, seem to have been in favour of limitations. Lord J. Russell, p. 42; Ralph, 446; Sidney's _Letters_, p. 32. Temple and Shaftesbury, for opposite reasons, stood alone in the council against the scheme of limitations. Temple's _Memoirs_.

[763] Commons' Journals, 23rd Nov. 1680, 8th Jan. 1681.

[764] _Life of James_, 634, 671; Dalrymple, p. 307.

[765] Dalrymple, p. 301; _Life of James_, 660, 671. The duke gave himself up for lost when he heard of the clause in the king's speech declaring his readiness to hearken to any expedient but the exclusion. Birch and Hampden, he says, were in favour of this; but Fitzharris's business set the house in a flame, and determined them to persist in their former scheme. Reresby says (p. 19, confirmed by _Parl. Hist._ 132) it was supported by Sir Thomas Littleton, who is said to have been originally against the bill of exclusion, as well as Sir William Coventry. Sidney's _Letters_, p. 32. It was opposed by Jones, Winnington, Booth, and, if the _Parliamentary History_ be right, by Hampden and Birch.

[766] Temple's _Memoirs_. He says their revenues in land or offices amounted to £300,000 per annum; whereas those of the House of Commons seldom exceeded £400,000. The king objected much to admitting Halifax; but himself proposed Shaftesbury, much against Temple's wishes. The funds in Holland rose on the news. Barillon was displeased, and said it was making "des états, et non des conseils;" which was not without weight, for the king had declared he would take no measure, nor even choose any new counsellor, without their consent. But the extreme disadvantage of the position in which this placed the Crown, rendered it absolutely certain that it was not submitted to with sincerity. Lady Portsmouth told Barillon the new ministry was formed in order to get money from parliament. Another motive, no doubt, was to prevent the exclusion bill.

[767] _Life of James_, 558. On the king's sudden illness, Aug. 22, 1679, the ruling ministers, Halifax, Sunderland, and Essex, alarmed at the anarchy which might come on his death, of which Shaftesbury and Monmouth would profit, sent over for the duke; but soon endeavoured to make him go into Scotland, and, after a struggle against the king's tricks to outwit them, succeeded in this object. _Id._ p. 570 _et post_.

[768] Temple; Reresby, p. 89. "So true it is," he says, "that there is no wearing the court and country livery together." Thus also Algernon Sidney, in his letters to Saville, p. 16. "The king certainly inclines not to be so stiff as formerly in advancing only those that exalt prerogative; but the Earl of Essex, and some others that are coming into play thereupon, cannot avoid being suspected of having intentions different from what they have hitherto professed." He ascribed the change of ministry at this time to Sunderland: "if he and two more [Essex and Halifax] can well agree among themselves, I believe they will have the management of almost all businesses, and may bring much honour to themselves and good to our nation." April 21, 1679. But he writes afterwards (Sept. 8) that Halifax and Essex were become very unpopular. P. 50. "The bare being preferred," says Secretary Coventry, "maketh some of them suspected, though not criminal." Lord J. Russell's _Life of Lord Russell_, p. 90.

[769] See the protests in 1679, _passim_.

[770] Temple's _Memoirs_; _Life of James_, 581.

[771] Dalrymple, pp. 230, 237.

[772] See Roger North's account of this court stratagem. _Examen of Kennet_, 546. The proclamation itself, however, in the _Gazette_, 12th Dec. 1679, is more strongly worded than we should expect from North's account of it, and is by no means limited to _tumultuous_ petitions.

[773] _London Gazettes_ of 1680, _passim_.

[774] David Lewis was executed at Usk for saying mass, Aug. 27, 1679. _State Trials_, vii. 256. Other instances occur in the same volume; see especially pp. 811, 839, 849, 587. Pemberton was more severe and unjust towards these unfortunate men than Scroggs. The king, as his brother tells us, came unwillingly into these severities to prevent worse. _Life of James_, 583.

[775] Journals, _passim_; North's _Examen_, 377, 561.

[776] They went a little too far, however, when they actually seated Sir William Waller in Withens's place for Westminster. Ralph, 514.

[777] Journals, Dec. 24, 1680.

[778] _Parl. Hist._ i. 174.

[779] Reresby's _Memoirs_, 106. Lord Halifax and he agreed, he says, on consideration, that the court party were not only the most numerous, but the most active and wealthy part of the nation.

[780] It was carried by 219 to 95 (17th Nov.), to address the king to remove Lord Halifax from his councils and presence for ever. They resolved, _nem. con._, that no member of that house should accept of any office or place of profit from the Crown, or any promise of one, during such time as he should continue a member; and that all offenders herein should be expelled. 30th Dec. They passed resolutions against a number of persons by name, whom they suspected to have advised the king not to pass the bill of exclusion. 7th Jan. 1680. They resolved unanimously (10th Jan.), that it is the opinion of this house, that the city of London was burnt in the year 1666 by the papists, designing thereby to introduce popery and arbitrary power into this kingdom. They were going on with more resolutions in the same spirit, when the usher of the black rod appeared to prorogue them. _Parl. Hist._

[781] Commons' Journals, March 26, 1681.

[782] _Parl. Hist._ ii. 54. Lord Hale doubted whether this were a statute. But the judges, in 1689, on being consulted by the Lords, inclined to think that it was one; arguing, I suppose, from the words "in full parliament," which have been held to imply the presence and assent of the Commons.

[783] Hatsell's _Precedents_, iv. 54, and Appendix, 347; _State Trials_, viii. 236, and xii. 1218.

[784] _Commentaries_, vol. iv. c. 19.

[785] Ralph, 564 _et post_; _State Trials_, 223, 427; North's _Examen_, 274. Fitzharris was an Irish papist, who had evidently had interviews with the king through Lady Portsmouth. One Hawkins, afterwards made Dean of Chichester for his pains, published a narrative of this case full of falsehoods.

[786] _State Trials_, viii. 759. Roger North's remark on this is worthy of him; "having sworn false, as it is manifest some did before to one purpose, it is more likely they swore true to the contrary." _Examen_, p. 117. And Sir Robert Sawyer's observation to the same effect is also worthy of him. On College's trial, Oates, in his examination for the prisoner, said, that Turberville had changed sides; Sawyer, as counsel for the Crown, answered, "Dr. Oates, Mr. Turberville has not changed sides, you have; he is still a witness for the king, you are against him." _State Trials_, viii. 639.

The opposite party were a little perplexed by the necessity of refuting testimony they had relied upon. In a dialogue, entitled "Ignoramus Vindicated," it is asked, why were Dr. Oates and others believed against the papists? and the best answer the case admits is given: "Because his and their testimony was backed by that undeniable evidence of Coleman's papers, Godfrey's murder, and a thousand other pregnant circumstances, which makes the case much different from that when people, of very suspected credit, swear the grossest improbabilities." But the same witnesses, it is urged, had lately been believed against the papists. "What! then," replies the advocate of Shaftesbury, "may not a man be very honest and credible at one time, and six months after, by necessity, subornation, malice, or twenty ways, become a notorious villain?"

[787] The true question for a grand juror to ask himself seems to be this: Is the evidence such as that, if the prisoner can prove nothing to the contrary, he ought to be convicted? However, where any considerable doubt exists as to this, as a petty juror ought to acquit, so a grand juror ought to find the indictment.

[788] Roger North, and the prerogative writers in general, speak of this inquest as a scandalous piece of perjury, enough to justify the measures soon afterwards taken against the city. But Ralph, who, at this period of history, is very impartial, seems to think the jury warranted by the absurdity of the depositions. It is to be remembered that the petty juries had shown themselves liable to intimidation, and that the bench was sold to the court. In modern times, such an ignoramus could hardly ever be justified. There is strong reason to believe, that the court had recourse to subornation of evidence against Shaftesbury. Ralph, 140 _et post_. And the witnesses were chiefly low Irishmen, in whom he was not likely to have placed confidence. As to the association found among Shaftesbury's papers, it was not signed by himself, nor, as I conceive, treasonable, only binding the associators to oppose the Duke of York, in case of his coming to the crown. _State Trials_, viii. 786. See also 827 and 835.

[789] If we may believe James II., the populace hooted Shaftesbury when he was sent to the Tower. Macpherson, 124; _Life of James_, 688. This was an improvement on the _odit damnatos_. They rejoiced, however, much more, as he owns, at the ignoramus. P. 714.

[790] See College's case in _State Trials_, viii. 549, and Hawles's remarks on it, 723; Ralph, 626. It is one of the worst pieces of judicial iniquity that we find in the whole collection. The written instructions he had given to his counsel before the trial were taken away from him, in order to learn the grounds of his defence. North and Jones, the judges before whom he was tried, afforded him no protection. But besides this, even if the witnesses had been credible, it does not appear to me that the facts amounted to treason. Roger North outdoes himself in his justification of the proceedings on this trial. _Examen_, p. 587. What would this man have been in power, when he writes thus in a sort of proscription twenty years after the revolution! But in justice it should be observed that his portraits of North and Jones (_Id._ 512 and 517) are excellent specimens of his inimitable talent for Dutch painting.

[791] _London Gazettes_, 1681, _passim_. Ralph, 592, has spoken too strongly of their servility, as if they showed a disposition to give up altogether every right and privilege to the Crown. This may be true in a very few instances, but is by no means their general tenor. They are exactly high tory addresses, and nothing more.

[792] _State Trials_, viii. 447. Chief-Justice Pemberton, by whom he was tried, had strong prejudices against the papists, though well enough disposed to serve the court in some respects.

[793] The king, James says in 1679, was convinced of the falsehood of the plot, "while the seeming necessity of his affairs made this unfortunate prince, for so he may well be termed in this conjuncture, think he could not be safe but by consenting every day to the execution of those he knew in his heart to be most innocent; and as for that notion of letting the law take its course, it was such a piece of casuistry as had been fatal to the king his father," etc. 562. If this was blamable in 1679, how much more in 1681?

Temple relates, that having objected to leaving some priests to the law, as the House of Commons had desired in 1679, Halifax said he would tell every one he was a papist, if he did not concur; and that the plot must be treated as if it were true, whether it was so or not. P. 339 (folio edit.). A vile maxim indeed! But as Halifax never showed any want of candour or humanity, and voted Lord Stafford not guilty next year, we may doubt whether Temple has represented this quite exactly.

In reference to Lord Stafford, I will here notice that Lord John Russell, in a passage deserving very high praise, has shown rather too much candour in censuring his ancestor (p. 140) on account of the support he gave (if in fact he did so, for the evidence seems weak) to the objection raised by the sheriffs, Bethell and Cornish, with respect to the mode of Stafford's execution. The king having remitted all the sentence except the beheading, these magistrates thought fit to consult the House of Commons. Hume talks of Russell's seconding this "barbarous scruple," as he calls it, and imputes it to faction. But, notwithstanding the epithet, it is certain that the only question was between death by the cord and the axe; and if Stafford had been guilty, as Lord Russell was convinced, of a most atrocious treason, he could not deserve to be spared the more ignominious punishment. The truth is, which seems to have escaped both these writers, that if the king could remit a part of the sentence upon a parliamentary impeachment, it might considerably affect the question whether he could not grant a pardon, which the Commons had denied.

[794] See this petition, _Somers Tracts_, viii. 144.

[795] _State Trials_, viii. 1039-1340; Ralph, 717. The majority was but 104 to 86; a division honourable to the spirit of citizens.

[796] North's _Examen_, 626.

[797] Lady Russell's opinion was, that "it was no more than what her lord confessed--talk; and it is possible that talk going so far as to consider, if a remedy for supposed evils might be sought, how it could be formed." _Life of Lord Russell_, p. 266. It is not easy, however, to talk long in this manner about the _how_ of treason, without incurring the penalties of it.

[798] See this business well discussed by the acute and indefatigable Ralph, p. 722, and by Lord John Russell, p. 253. See also _State Trials_, ix. 358 _et post_. There appears no cause for doubting the reality of what is called the Ryehouse plot. The case against Walcot (_Id._ 519) was pretty well proved; but his own confession completely hanged him and his friends too. His attainder was reversed after the revolution, but only on account of some technical errors, not essential to the merits of the case.

[799] _State Trials_, ix. 577. Lord Essex cut his throat in the Tower. He was a man of the most excellent qualities, but subject to constitutional melancholy which overcame his fortitude; an event the more to be deplored, as there seems to have been no possibility of his being convicted. A suspicion, as is well known, obtained credit with the enemies of the court, that Lord Essex was murdered; and some evidence was brought forward by the zeal of one Braddon. The late editor of the _State Trials_ seems a little inclined to revive this report, which even Harris (_Life of Charles_, p. 352) does not venture to accredit; and I am surprised to find Lord John Russell observe, "It would be idle, at the present time, to pretend to give any opinion on the subject."--P. 182. This I can by no means admit. We have, on the one side, some testimonies by children, who frequently invent and persist in falsehoods with no conceivable motive. But, on the other hand, we are to suppose, that Charles II. and the Duke of York caused a detestable murder to be perpetrated on one towards whom they had never shown any hostility, and in whose death they had no interest. Each of these princes had faults enough; but I may venture to say that they were totally incapable of such a crime. One of the presumptive arguments of Braddon, in a pamphlet published long afterwards, is, that the king and his brother were in the Tower on the morning of Lord Essex's death. If this leads to anything, we are to believe that Charles the Second, like the tyrant in a Grub Street tragedy, came to kill his prisoner with his own hands. Any man of ordinary understanding (which seems not to have been the case with Mr. Braddon) must perceive that the circumstance tends to repel suspicion rather than the contrary. See the whole of this, including Braddon's pamphlet, in _State Trials_, ix. 1127.

[800] _State Trials_, 615. Sawyer told Lord Russell, when he applied to have his trial put off, that he would not have given the king an hour's notice to save his life. _Id._ 582. Yet he could not pretend that the prisoner had any concern in the assassination plot.

[801] The act annulling Lord Russell's attainder recites him to have been "wrongfully convicted by partial and unjust constructions of law." _State Trials_, ix. 695. Several pamphlets were published after the revolution by Sir Robert Atkins and Sir John Hawles against the conduct of the court in this trial, and by Sir Bartholomew Shower in behalf of it. These are in the _State Trials_. But Holt, by laying down the principle of constructive treason in Ashton's case, established for ever the legality of Pemberton's doctrine, and indeed carried it a good deal further.

[802] There seems little doubt, that the juries were packed through a conspiracy of the sheriffs with Burton and Graham, solicitors for the Crown. _State Trials_, ix. 932. These two men ran away at the revolution; but Roger North vindicates their characters, and those who trust in him may think them honest.

[803] _State Trials_, ix. 818.

[804] _Id._ 846. Yet in summing up the evidence, he repeated all West and Keeling had thus said at second-hand, without reminding the jury that it was not legal testimony. _Id._ 899. It would be said by his advocates, if any are left, that these witnesses must have been left out of the question, since there could otherwise have been no dispute about the written paper. But they were undoubtedly intended to prop up Howard's evidence, which had been so much shaken by his previous declaration, that he knew of no conspiracy.

[805] This is pointed out, perhaps for the first time, in an excellent modern law-book, Phillipps's _Law of Evidence_. Yet the act for the reversal of Sidney's attainder declares in the preamble, that "the paper, supposed to be in his handwriting, was not proved by the testimony of any one witness to be written by him, but the jury was directed to believe it by comparing it with other writings of the said Algernon." _State Trials_, 997. This does not appear to have been the case; and though Jefferies is said to have garbled the manuscript trial before it was printed (for all the trials, at this time, were published by authority, which makes them much better evidence against the judges than for them), yet he can hardly have substituted so much testimony without its attracting the notice of Atkins and Hawles, who wrote after the revolution. However, in Hayes's case, _State Trials_, x. 312, though the prisoner's handwriting to a letter was proved in the usual way by persons who had seen him write, yet this letter was also shown to the jury, along with some of his acknowledged writing, for the purpose of their comparison. It is possible, therefore, that the same may have been done on Sidney's trial, though the circumstance does not appear. Jefferies indeed says, "comparison of hands was allowed for good proof in Sidney's case." _Id._ 313. But I do not believe that the expression was used in that age so precisely as it is at present; and it is well known to lawyers that the rules of evidence on this subject have only been distinctly laid down within the memory of the present generation.

[806] See Harris's _Lives_, v. 347.

[807] _State Trials_, x. 105.

[808] The grand jury of Northamptonshire, in 1683, "present it as very expedient and necessary for securing the peace of this country, that all ill affected persons may give security for the peace;" specifying a number of gentlemen of the first families, as the names of Montagu, Langham, etc., show. _Somers Tracts_, viii. 409.

[809] Ralph, p. 768; Harris's _Lives_, v. 321.

[810] This book of Sherlock, printed in 1684, is the most able treatise on that side. His proposition is that "sovereign princes, or the supreme power in any nation, in whomsoever placed, is in all cases irresistible." He infers from the statute 13 Car. II. declaring it unlawful, under any pretence, to wage war, even defensive against the king, that the supreme power is in him; for he who is unaccountable and irresistible, is supreme. There are some, he owns, who contend that the higher powers mentioned by St. Paul meant the law, and that when princes violate the laws, we may defend their legal authority against their personal usurpations. He answers this very feebly. "No law can come into the notion and definition of supreme and sovereign powers; such a prince is under the direction, but cannot possibly be said to be under the government of the law, because there is no superior power to take cognisance of his breach of it, and a law has no authority to govern where there is no power to punish."--P. 114. "These men think," he says (p. 126), "that all civil authority is founded in consent, as if there were no natural lord of the world, or all mankind came free and independent into the world. This is a contradiction to what at other times they will grant, that the institution of civil power and authority is from God; and indeed if it be not, I know not how any prince can justify the taking away the life of any man, whatever crime he has been guilty of. For no man has power of his own life, and therefore cannot give this power to another; which proves that the power of capital punishments cannot result from mere consent, but from a superior authority, which is lord of life and death." This is plausibly urged, and is not refuted in a moment. He next comes to an objection, which eventually he was compelled to admit, with some discredit to his consistency and disinterestedness. "'Is the power of victorious rebels and usurpers from God? Did Oliver Cromwell receive his power from God? then it seems it was unlawful to resist him too, or to conspire against him; then all those loyal subjects who refused to submit to him when he had got the power in his hands were rebels and traitors.' To this I answer, that the most prosperous rebel is not the higher powers, while our natural prince, to whom we owe obedience and subjection, is in being. And therefore, though such men may get the power into their hands by God's permission, yet not by God's ordinance; and he who resists them does not resist the ordinance of God, but the usurpations of men. In hereditary kingdoms, the king never dies, but the same minute that the natural person of one king dies, the crown descends upon the next of blood; and therefore, he who rebelleth against the father, and murders him, continues a rebel in the reign of the son, which commences with his father's death. It is otherwise, indeed, where none can pretend a greater title to the crown than the usurper, for there possession of power seems to give a right."--P. 127.

Sherlock began to preach in a very different manner as soon as James showed a disposition to set up his own church. "It is no act of loyalty," he told the House of Commons, May 29, 1685, "to accommodate or compliment away our religion and its legal securities." _Good Advice to the Pulpits._

[811] P. 81.

[812] P. 95.

[813] Pp. 98, 100.

[814] P. 100.

[815] This treatise, subjoined to one of greater length, entitled the "Freeholder's Grand Inquest," was published in 1679; but the "Patriarcha" not till 1685.

[816] P. 39.

[817] P. 46.

[818] Collier, 902; _Somers Tracts_, viii. 420.

[819] Dalrymple, appendix 8; _Life of James_, 691. He pretended to come into a proposal of the Dutch for an alliance with Spain and the empire against the fresh encroachments of France, and to call a parliament for that purpose, but with no sincere intention, as he assured Barillon. "Je n'ai aucune intention d'assembler le parlement; ces sont des diables qui veulent ma ruine." Dalrymple, 15.

[820] He took 100,000 livres for allowing the French to seize Luxemberg; after this he offered his arbitration, and on Spain's refusal, laid the fault on her, though already bribed to decide in favour of France. Lord Rochester was a party in all these base transactions. The acquisition of Luxemberg and Strasburg was of the utmost importance to Louis, as they gave him a predominating influence over the four Rhenish electors, through whom he hoped to procure the election of the dauphin as king of the Romans. _Id._ 36.

[821] Dalrymple, appendix 74; Burnet; Mazure, _Hist. de la Révolution de 1688_, i. 340, 372. This is confirmed by, or rather confirms, the very curious notes found in the Duke of Monmouth's pocket-book when he was taken after the battle of Sedgemoor, and published in the appendix to Welwood's _Memoirs_. Though we should rather see more external evidence of their authority than, so far as I know, has been produced, they have great marks of it in themselves; and it is not impossible that, after the revolution, Welwood may have obtained them from the secretary of state's office.

[822] It is mentioned by Mr. Fox, as a tradition in the Duke of Richmond's family, that the Duchess of Portsmouth believed Charles II. to have been poisoned. This I find confirmed in a letter read on the trial of Francis Francia, indicted for treason in 1715. "The Duchess of Portsmouth, who is at present here, gives a great deal of offence, as I am informed, by pretending to prove that the late King James had poisoned his brother Charles; it was not expected, that after so many years' retirement in France, she should come hither to revive that vulgar report, which at so critical a time cannot be for any good purpose." _State Trials_, xv. 948. It is almost needless to say that the suspicion was wholly unwarrantable.

I have since been informed, on the best authority, that Mr. Fox did not derive his authority from a tradition in the Duke of Richmond's family, that of his own mother, as his editor had very naturally conjectured, but from his father, the first Lord Holland, who, while a young man travelling in France, had become acquainted with the Duchess of Portsmouth.