not traduced by false allegations, it is difficult to acquit him of intentional misrepresentation.

The last few years have brought to light several works which illustrate the reign of Charles the Second. The Life of King James, great part of which is written by himself, and Evelyn's Memoirs, are the most remarkable. With the assistance of these materials I conceived that it was possible a narrative might be formed of the domestic history of Charles the Second, not altogether uninteresting. And although I have been obliged sometimes to lose sight of Lord Russell, he is always closely connected with the subject; for the opposition made to the designs of this unprincipled King began with his entrance into public life, was continued with his aid, and was totally extinguished at his death.

The principal sources from which the present work is derived, are the well-known histories and memoirs, written by persons who lived at the time of which they treat. But it would be

ungrateful in me not to acknowledge the great obligations I owe to the late Mr. Howell, the editor of Cobbett's State Trials. The new Parliamentary History has also been of great use to me. And I have derived most useful lights from the observations on this reign in the introductory chapter of Mr. Fox's History; a work which contains more sound constitutional opinions than any other history with which I am acquainted. Some information was gained from the letters of Secretary Coventry, in manuscript, at Longleat. A few letters and papers are preserved at Woburn Abbey. But by far the most valuable assistance I have received, has been from the original letters of Lady Russell, which the Duke of Devonshire had the kindness to let me see. They will, I hope, be given to the world as soon as this work, accompanied by all the illustrations they require.

In this place I beg to return my best thanks to Lord Sidmouth, for the permission to see some papers concerning Lord Russell, in the

State-Paper Office. And to Lord Granville Somerset, for the research he desired to be made into the books of the Treasury.

The style and composition of the following work require much apology, which, I trust, the indulgence of the public will supply.

July, 1820.

I consider it necessary for my own justification, to publish the two following notes. When I was engaged in writing the Life of Lord Russell, I naturally became anxious to see the dispatches of Barillon, which Sir John Dalrymple copied and published. My first application was in the summer of 1818, and it has been renewed more than once; but the first regular answer I have received, was to a request made in the course of the present spring, through the Count de Caraman, who at present represents the French government at London.

His immediate attention to my letter, and indeed the obliging manner of his reply, demand my best acknowledgments. His answer is as follows:

(Translation.)

"The Count de Caraman presents his compliments to Lord John Russell, and has the honour to inform him, that having written to M. le Baron Pasquier on the subject of his request, to be allowed to consult the dispatches of M. Barillon at the Archives, he has received for answer, that the regulations of the office of Foreign Affairs do not permit a communication of this nature, and reference is made to an antecedent decision taken by the Duc de Richlieu, and communicated to Lord John Russell.

"The Count de Caraman deeply regrets not having been more fortunate in this little negociation, the success of which would have been agreeable to Lord John Russell; but if his object is to ascertain some fact, or to obtain some detail, the Count de Caraman would be happy to transmit to Paris the notes which

Lord John might address to him, and to endeavour to acquire the information he desires.

"He seizes this occasion to renew the assurance of his high consideration.

"Portland Place, 24 June, 1820."

To which I returned the following Answer:

"Holland House, June 26. 1820. "Lord John Russell presents his compliments to M. le Comte de Caraman, and begs to return him his best thanks for the readiness with which he transmitted his request, and the manner in which he communicates the

answer.

"Lord John Russell, however, must be permitted to say, that he never received the previous decision of the Duc de Richlieu in answer to his application, and that on the contrary, he was told by Sir Charles Stuart, that the Duc de Richlieu had given a verbal