صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

war,

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 such a connection might be fatal to them. The second ob ject, 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 Lord Danby was writing, by his master's order, to beg for money for a 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 natural consequence of his application was to render Charles 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 aukward 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 Enthanasia 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.

POPISH

PLOT.

CHAP. VII.

COLEMAN'S LETTERS. MOTIONS AGAINST 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 1678. 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 allude to the discovery of the Popish Sept. 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.

A detailed history of this plot does not enter into my plan. But although the charge is now withdrawn, it is right to mention such circumstances as serve to exculpate the country party from the guilt of inventing this story, for the purpose of taking away the lives of the innocent. This accusation is easily disproved: nay, so far is it from the truth, that the plot was brought to light by Lord Shaftesbury and his friends, that it might have been suppressed but for the following circumstance. The Duke of Buckingham, who was a great enemy of Lord Danby, had been long banished from Court, but had lately been privately admitted to kiss the King's hand at Chif

finch's. Upon being informed of this circumstance by the Duke of York, Danby expressed great indignation at the King's want of firmness to stand by his friends. From this time he expected to be supplanted by Buckingham in the royal favour, and he became proportionably anxious to obtain the good opinion of the country. The enquiry into the plot, he seems to have thought, would serve both to show his zeal for the Protestant religion, and to divert the attention of Parliament from his own impeachment. With this view, he advised the King to go to Newmarket, and leave to his council the unravelling of this mysterious business. And as soon as Parliament assembled, he, contrary to the wish and express command of the King, laid the whole business before them. Upon the first discovery, the High Church party were eagerly bent on pursuing the plot; but when they saw Lord Shaftesbury and his friends take up with still more vehemence and activity, they became cool in the prosecution. Another circumstance may be mentioned, which tends to exculpate Shaftesbury from any share in inventing the story. It was a part of the pretended plot, though not generally noticed, that Popish priests should assume the disguise of dissenting ministers, in order to preach liberty of conscience. * This could never answer the purpose of Lord Shaftesbury, who was at this time chiefly supported by Non-conformists. It is also remarkable, that the first time Oates was examined respecting the Duke of York, he affirmed him to be totally ignorant of the plot, and gave many reasons in support of that opinion. Besides, the whole story is so wild and so absurd, that it is impossible for any one to believe that it was the invention of so able a man as Shaftesbury.

it

1678.

[ocr errors]

Parliament met on the 21st Oct. In the King's speech Oct. 21. the plot was taken notice of in the following terms. " I now intend to acquaint you (as I always shall do with any thing that concerns me) that I have been informed of a design against my per-` son by the Jesuits, of which I shall forbear any opinion, lest I may

* Sce Oates's Narrative.

L

seem to say too much or too little; but I will leave the matter to the law, and in the mean time will take as much care as I can to prevent all manner of practices by that sort of men, and of others, too, who have been tampering in a high degree with foreigners, and contriving how to introduce Popery amongst us."

Lord Chancellor Finch, following the King, said, " His Majesty has told you, that he hath lately received information of designs against his own life by the Jesuits; and though he doth in no sort prejudice the persons accused, yet the strict enquiry into this matter, hath been the means to discover so many other unwarrantable practices of theirs, that His Majesty hath reason to look to them."

The letters of Coleman, and the murder of Sir Edmondsbury Godfrey, seem to have fully confirmed the general belief of the Popish Plot. Every party shared in this delusion, and Oates was generally styled the Saviour of the Nation. The country party, in general, were probably deceived with the rest. They were, indeed, more open to be imposed upon by a feigned plot than others, as they were thoroughly convinced that a design was carrying on against the Protestant religion. * In the paper which Lord Russell delivered to the Sheriffs on the scaffold, he speaks thus: "As for the share I had in the prosecution of the Popish Plot, I take God to witness, that I proceeded in it in the sincerity of my heart, being then really convinced (as I am still) that there was a conspiracy against the King, the nation, and the Protestant religion; and I likewise profess, that I never knew any thing either directly or indirectly, of any practice with the witnesses; which I looked upon as so horrid a thing, that I could never have endured it."

The sincerity of Lord Russell is so generally acknowledged, that credit must be given to him for upright intentions at this singular

* So also was Mr. Evelyn. "For my part," he says, "I look on Oates as a vain insolent, man, puffed up with the favour of the Commons, for having discovered something really true, more especially as detecting the real intrigue of Coleman, proved out of his own letters, and of a general design which the jesuited party of the Papists ever had, and still have to ruin the Church of England," &c. Vol. i. Vol. i. p. 479.

« السابقةمتابعة »