quite free from the general corruption of the age. But it is material to observe, that it proves him to have been unsuspicious of the rest of his party. It is clear, therefore, that the aim and end of Lord Russell was to preserve the constitution, and that he was not swayed by interest in pursuing that end. How then can he be called an enemy to his country?

But if Lord Russell did not alter his line of conduct to please the King of France, it may be asked what were the objects of the interview. I answer, the first object was to procure from his near relation an insight into the connection between Charles and Lewis. This connection was a cause of continual apprehension in the party, for they well knew that it might in the end be fatal to them, their constitution, and their country. The second object, however, was not so laudable; it was to procure from Lewis a promise to assist in obtaining a dissolution, in case the peace should be maintained. Yet there was nothing criminal in such an endeavour. The imminent danger which threatened us from the conduct of France, abetting the designs of Charles, cannot, at this day, be properly estimated. At the very time when the Parliament was giving money for a war, Lord Danby was writing, by his master's order, to beg for money as the price of peace, We shall presently see, that five days after the

House of Commons had passed the act for a supply, Lord Danby wrote to Paris, that Charles expected six millions yearly from France. Had Lewis been sincere in the project of making Charles absolute, there can be no doubt that it might have been easily accomplished. Was not this sufficient to justify the popular party in attempting to turn the battery the other way? The question was not, whether to admit foreign interference, but whether to direct foreign interference, already admitted, to a good object. The conduct of Lord Russell, therefore, was not criminal; but it would be difficult to acquit him of the charge of imprudence. The object of Lewis must have been, by giving hopes to each party in turn, to obtain the command of both. Charles, on the other hand, was ready to debase himself to the lowest point to maintain his alliance with France; any suspicion, therefore, of a connection between Lewis and the popular party would have rendered him more and more dependent, till the liberties of England might at last have been set up to auction at Versailles.

What I have said relates only to the first interview: as for the second, upon which so much stress has been laid by Dalrymple, it was only an awkward attempt to persuade Lewis to declare war conformably to the wish of the English

people, and in direct opposition to his own interest and inclination.

An undue weight has been attached to the interviews between the leaders of the popular party and M. de Rouvigny. Even Mr. Laing, whose research generally leads him to the truth, supposes that the dangerous schemes of the court were defeated by the connection between the popular party and France. They were defeated, or at least retarded, it is true, by the conduct of opposition; but that conduct was the result of their own suspicions and the advice of Sydney. Whoever will take the trouble to read over the dispatches of Barillon, will see that the party not only would enter into no engagements, but that they did not move a hair's breadth out of their path, in consequence of the mission of Rouvigny.

Mr. Hume concludes his remarks on this subject, with saying, that the conduct of Lord Russell was merely factious. With deference to him, it was either criminal or innocent, wise or imprudent, but by no means factious. The party with which he acted was not a faction, but a body attempting to save the constitution in its utmost need. But the Tory prejudices of Mr. Hume, combined with his philosophical tranquillity, have induced him to blame every appearance of zeal for liberty, and to condemn as

factious every attempt to retard, what he has called, the Euthanasia of our Constitution.

The charge of receiving money from France, in which Lord Russell is no way implicated, relates to a different year, and shall be discussed in its proper place.

THE DUKE OF YORK.- IMPEACHMENT OF LORD DANBY. PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT. LETTER OF LORD RUSSELL.

THE Opposition at this time seem to have almost despaired of the cause of liberty. Many of them had thoughts of withdrawing altogether from public affairs. For, in spite of all their efforts, the King had been able both to maintain his friendship with France, and to delay disbanding the army which had been raised to oppose her. But at this time an event occurred which baffled all the powers of foresight, and seems for a time to have suspended the faculty of judgment. I Sept. allude to the discovery of the Popish 1678. Plot; which, although its credit rested almost entirely upon the attestations of infamous and despicable men, to vague, improbable, and ridiculous stories, yet having some foundation in truth, and falling in with the prevailing fears of the nation, cost the lives of many considerable men, and had nearly disturbed the regular succession of the throne.