letter to Walcot are so far from containing such a protestation, that they are quoted (very absurdly, it is true,) by Sir John Dalrymple, as an avowal of guilt. If his testimony is free from these particular objections, much less is it impeached by his general character, which was that of a bold and daring man, who was very unlikely to feel shame in avowing what he had not been ashamed to commit, and who seems to have taken a delight in speaking bold truths, or at least what appeared to him to be such, without regarding the manner in which his hearers were likely to receive them. With respect to the last consideration, that of the opposite evidence, it all depends upon the veracity of men, who, according to their own account, betrayed their comrades, and were actuated by the hope either of pardon or reward." *

With respect to the other part of the plot, namely, the conspiracy for a rising, it appears undeniable, from the trials and confessions, that there were meetings and consultations held, on the prudence and practicability of resistance; but that there never was a formed plan for an insurrection, much less any project for deposing the King, or altering the government, may with safety be asserted.

* History of James the Second.

The person who goes farthest, as we might naturally expect, in his confessions respecting the plot, is Mr. Hampden. He was examined before a committee of the House of Lords, in 1689, at a time when it was a subject of pride and self-applause to have been concerned in a resistance to the arbitrary government of Charles the Second. Speaking of his plea of “ Guilty," he says, "As for the subject-matter of what this examinant confessed, he supposes no man will think he ought to be ashamed of it, who believes the Lord Russell was murdered." He proceeds to say, that "this was the way which our ances tors always took, when the sovereign authority came to so great a height, as might be made out by many instances. Custom had made this the law of England, and all civilised and wellgoverned nations about us had used the like way." Speaking of the concern he had, in the Revolution, he says, "he thinks King William's coming into England to be nothing else but the continuation of the Council of Six." These last words are very strong; but it would be absurd to infer from them that the Council of Six had any intention of bringing in King William. That there was no design of an immediate rising, is to be inferred from many particulars. It can hardly be supposed that Lord Howard, who was one of the leaders, would

have retired, first for three weeks, to the country, and then for five weeks, to Bath, on the eve of an insurrection breaking out. But according to the evidence of that noble person, on the trial of Lord Russell, the conspirators waited for the return of the messenger they had sent to Scotland. It is therefore proper to follow him there, and see what was done. I will take the account from Murray, of Philiphaugh, the witness for the Crown, who exaggerated matters so much, as to excite frequently the astonishment of Jerviswood, and draw a reproof from his dying lips. The witness deposed that, at the meeting held upon the arrival of the messenger, amongst other discourse, it was said that the surprising rulers was a thing not to be thought of amongst Protestants, as it could not be effected without bloodshed. * He proceeded to make the following statement :

"All the company seemed to agree, that they should undertake nothing, or move in that affair, till they had a full and certain account what England proposed, what methods they resolved to follow there, who were to be their heads; and that, if they designed any attempt on the King's person, or overturning monarchy, they would not be forward or clear to join. And

* State Trials, vol. x. p. 677.

it being here insinuated, that the most they could do, at least for which there could be any plausible pretence, was to draw together; and, without any act of hostility, send addresses to His Majesty for redress of the present abuses of the government, and for obtaining sufficient security against the hazard they apprehended to their religion and liberties; it was said by Polwart, that he was apt to think that was their very design; for he had heard it was generally believed by that party in England, that if once they were in a body, the King would be prevailed with to quite (leave?) the Duke to be tried for Popery, correspondence with France, and accession to the Popish plot; and then, if the King, were once free from the influence of the Duke's counsels, they were confident he might be moved to reform their abuses, and secure their religion and liberties for the future to their contentment."

This deposition fully corroborates a letter of Carstairs, which is reported to have been written by him to his friends. The substance of it was as follows:

"He testifies his abhorrence of any design. against the King or Duke's life; that all his countrymen with whom he spake, were free from any design against the King or government; and that he frequently told the lords

who came to him, this whole affair upon which he was questioned, amounted to no more than talk, without so much as any formed design, and even talking was much broke off, before the discovery of the plot. He showed them how unwilling he was to bring any man to trouble; and that it could not but be very grievous to him to be forced to speak of any who had trusted him as a friend, especially when the business never came to any bearing, or to that height as to be any way prejudicial to the government.”

If, however, the reader estimates the character of Lord Russell as one in which falsehood found no place, he will agree with me that the words spoken by him to Bishop Burnet, with the confidence of friendship, and in the expectation of being summoned, within a few hours, before his Creator, are the best of all evidence. He then declared that all that had been done amounted to loose discourse, or at most, embryos, that never came to any thing.* And, in the paper delivered to the sheriffs, he says, "And now, to sum up all, as I never had any design against the King's life, so I never was in any contrivance of altering the government." Dalrymple considers this denial as a proof that Burnet wrote the paper; because it is difficult to reconcile it with

* Burnet's Journal.