Lord Russell had lent himself to the worst species of corruption. Happily, however, the dispatches of Barillon dispel all doubts upon this subject. M. de Rouvigny, being first cousin to Lady Russell, a circumstance we ought always to bear in mind, easily March, obtained an interview with Lord Russell. He appears to

The substance of "M. de Rouvigny

guerre, et

1678. have seen Lord Hollis at the same time. their conversation is thus reported by Barillon. a vû Milord Roussel et Milord Hollis, qui ont été tous deux fort satisfaits de l'assûrance qu'il leur a donnée, que le roi est bien convaincu qu'il n'est point de son interêt de rendre le Roi d'Angleterre maître absolu dans son royaume, et que sa Majesté vouloit travailler à la dissolution de ce parlement dès que le tems y paroitroit favorable: Milord Roussel lui a dit, qu'il engageroit Milord Shafbery dans cette affaire, et que ce seroit le seul homme à qui il en parleroit clairement; et qu'ils travailleroient sous main, à empêcher qu'on augmentât la somme qui a été offerte pour faire la qu'ils feroient ajouter à l'offre d'un million de livres sterlings, des conditions si désagréables pour le Roi d'Angleterre, qu'ils espéroient qu'il aimeroit mieux se réunir avec la France, que d'y consentir. Il témoigna à M. de Rouvigny, qu'il soupçonnoit que sa Majesté trouvoit bon que le Roi d'Angleterre lui declarât la guerre pour avoir de l'argent, avec promesse que dés qu'il en seroit le maitre, il conclurroit la paix. M. de Rouvigny lui dit, que pour lui faire voir le contraire bien clairement, j'étois prêt à répandre une somme considerable dans le parlement, pour l'obliger à refuser absolument de l'argent pour la guerre, et le sollicita de lui nommer des gens qu'on pût gagner. Milord Roussel répondit, qu'il seroit bien fâché d'avoir commerce avec des gens capables d'être gagnés par de l'argent; mais il lui parût forte aisé d'être assûré par cette proposition, qu'il n'y a entre votre Majesté et le Roi d'Angleterre nulle intelligence qui puisse préjudicier à leur gouvernement: il dit à M. de Rouvigny, que lui et tous ses amis ne souhaitoient autre chose que la cassation du parlement; qu'ils savoient qu'elle ne pouvoit venir que du côté de la

France; que puisqu'il les assûroit que c'étoit le dessein de sa Majesté d'y travailler, ils se voyoient obligés de se bien fier en lui, et faire tout leur possible pour obliger le Roi d'Angleterre à rechercher encore une fois son amitiè, et mettre par ce moyen sa Majesté en état de contribuer à leur satisfaction." *

March 24.

After the subsidy had been granted, M. de Rouvigny saw 1678. Lord Russell and Lord Hollis again. They told him that they never pretended to oppose the supply openly, but they had hoped that the clauses they had affixed, being contrary to the privileges and authority of the crown, would not have been consented to, either by the King or his ministers; that the passing of the act without any difficulty had redoubled their fears of the designs of the court; that they were still persuaded the Kings of France and England acted in concert, and were afraid that the war would serve only to bring them into subjection. In short, the popular party were at this time in the greatest alarm. They had found, as we have seen in the last chapter, that the nation, eager for a war with France, was too blind to the danger, to allow of their opposing his projects with any prospect of success. The object they then pursued was, in the words of Barillon, "to force the court to declare war, and thereby shelter themselves from the danger, lest the army which is now raising should be employed to change the form of government in England." With this view, and with that of clearing up the suspicion which they still entertained, that the two kings acted in concert, Lord Russell and Lord Hollis represented to Rouvigny, and the Duke of Buckingham at the same time endeavoured to persuade Barillon, that his master might acquire merit with the whole nation, if he would demand peremptorily of Charles whether there was to be peace or war; that this step would not oblige the King of England to declare war, if he were not resolved upon it already; and their party would, by this means, know that Lewis not only had no connection with the King of England to oppress them, but that he would not suffer him, under

* Barillon, March 14.

*

pretence of an imaginary war, to bring them into subjection. "I did not controvert this reasoning," says Barillon," and have been, in some degree, obliged to enter into the sentiments of the Duke of Buckingham, and to pretend to him that I did not think it impossible Your Majesty might order me to speak as he wished." He afterwards says that Buckingham was the only person of the opposition who would enter into a formal engagement.

Allowing the whole of this statement to be correct, few persons, I imagine, will feel a shock nearly equal to that they would feel if they saw a son turn his back in the day of battle. Such a feeling could not arise even from an extreme sensibility of nerves, if not accompanied with an equal obtuseness of understanding. In the case of Sir John Dalrymple, the expression must, I fear, be attributed to that affectation of generous and patriotic sentiment, of which his writings afford so many examples. The concert which was established between the popular party and France was a concert only in name. The opposition continued, as before, pursuing their own purpose, which, so far from being French, was the preservation of the English religion and laws. They promised, it is true, to prevent, if possible, the war with France, but it was their bounden duty to do so. They had every reason to suppose that war was intended as a death-blow to liberty. The only offer which Rouvigny made to assist them in their endeavours with money, was indignantly refused. I need not point out to my readers, that this refusal shows Lord Russell to have been 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 then, 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?

* Dal. App. p. 138. This dispatch of Barillon's is headed by Dalrymple, Dangerous Projects of the Heads of the popular Party acting in concert with France." The danger, if any, was to the cause of arbitrary monarchy, which would have been injured by a war between Charles and Lewis.

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 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 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.