Lord Russell's sincerity *; as if there were not as much guilt in affixing his name to a falsehood, as in writing it himself. But Dalrymple has, in fact, no other foundation for his opinion than a mistaken notion of his own, that †, on the trial, Lord Russell did not either avow or deny the intended insurrection. Had he looked to the printed trial, he would have seen that Lord Russell is made to say that he looked on a rebellion as wicked and impracticable, and that he never wished to redress any grievance but in a legal and parliamentary way. In the report here given from his own hand, he says, "As for going about to make or raise a rebellion, that likewise is a thing so wicked, and withal so impracticable, that it never entered into my thoughts." His language, on his trial, to his friend, and in his last speech, is thus firm and consistent, though, as might be expected, his language is stronger to the judges before conviction than to the world and his friend afterwards. Dalrymple says, there is a letter in the Paper-office of Lord Russell to the King, in which he only denies the assassination. The petition to the King before given, in which he merely allows the meetings to be unlawful, must be the letter here alluded to. I have looked at

* Dal. p. 93.

+ Ibid. p. 91.

the papers in the Paper-office, and there is only one other petition, or letter, of Lord Russell to the King, which is quite unimportant. Such is the faithful description of Dalrymple, and that too in a note, in which he complains of the inaccuracy of Burnet.

The judgment expressed by Lady Russell, many years afterwards, probably contains the truth on this subject. She was persuaded the Rye-House plot was no more than "talk ;""and 'tis possible," she adds, "that talk going so far as to consider, if a remedy to supposed evils might be sought, how it could be formed."*

* The whole of the passage is worth insertion. It is on the occasion of Monmouth's invasion, in a letter to Dr. Fitzwilliam :

"And now, Doctor, I take this late wild attempt to be a new project, not depending on, or being linked in the least to any former design, if there was then any real one, which I am satisfied was not, no more than (my own lord confessed) talk. And it is possible that talk going so far as to consider if a remedy to supposed evils might be sought, how it could be formed? But, as I was saying, if all this late attempt was entirely new, yet the suspicion my lord must have lain under would have been great; and some other circumstances, I must confess, would have made his part an hard one. So that, from the deceitfulness of the heart, or want of true sight in the directive faculty, what would have followed, God only knows. From the frailty of the will I should have feared but little evil; for he had so just a soul, so firm, so good, he could not warp from such principles that were so, unless misguided by his understanding, and that his own, not

The Duke of Monmouth, in his declaration against James the Second, seems to allow the existence of meetings to consult of extraordinary, yet lawful, means, to rescue our religion and liberties from the hands of violence, when all ordinary means, according to the laws, were denied and obstructed.

We may now, upon the whole, conclude, that the consultations in which Lord Russell took a part, related to the means of resisting the government, but that no plan of rebellion was any wise matured.

In the examination which I have made into the truth of the Rye-House plot, I have placed

another's; for I dare say, as he could discern, he never went into any thing considerable, upon the mere submission to any one's particular judgment. Now his own, i know, he could never have framed to have thought well of the late actings, and therefore most probably must have sat loose from them. But I am afraid his excellent heart, had he lived, would have been often pierced from the time his life was taken away to this. On the other hand, having, I trust, a reasonable ground of hope he has found those mercies he died with a cheerful persuasion he should, there is no reason to mourn my loss, when that soul I loved so well lives in felicities, and shall do so to all eternity. This I know in reason should be my cure; but flesh and blood in this mixed state is such a slave to sense, the memory how I have lived, and how (as I think) I must ever do for the time to come, does so prevail and weaken my most Christian resolves, that I cannot act the part that mere philosophy, as you set down many instances, enabled many to an appearance of easiness; for I verily believe they had no more than me, but vainly affected it."

no reliance on the authorities of Lord Grey, and Bishop Sprat.

The character of Ford, Lord Grey, is stained with licentiousness, cowardice, falsehood, and ingratitude. The seduction of his wife's sister, of which an account may be seen in the State Trials, was aggravated by duplicity to her parents, and barbarity to her. After the accession of James, he excited Monmouth to make an invasion, and afterwards ruined his cause by his notorious cowardice. When in prison, he offered to become a witness against his former associate Mr. Hampden; and, in order to secure his own life, he wrote, by the command of James, what Mr. Hume is pleased to call "the most full and authentic account" of the RyeHouse plot. The story is long, and well told, and probably has a great mixture of truth; but as it is impossible to separate the true from the false, it is better to neglect it altogether.

Bishop Sprat wrote, at the desire of Charles and James, a history of the Rye-House plot: but, after the Revolution, he published two exculpatory letters to the Earl of Dorset, in which he says that James, after his accession, called for his papers, and having read them, and altered divers passages, caused them to be published, by his own authority. Sprat also retracts all that he had insinuated against Lord Russell's

veracity: his authority must, of course, be equally disregarded with that of Lord Grey.

It remains to be considered, how far Lord Russell was justified in consulting and debating on the practicability of raising an insurrection.

I apprehend few men will now deny that resistance to a government may sometimes be an act, not only justifiable as an enterprise, but imperative as a duty. At the same time, I am far from agreeing to the doctrine attributed to Lord Chatham, that "it were better for the people to perish in a glorious contention for their rights, than to purchase a slavish tranquillity, at the expense of a single iota of the constitution." It should, indeed, be the endeavour of men who have inherited liberty from their ancestors, to transmit the possession unimpaired to their descendants; but the loss of a single franchise may be compensated, and abuses of power, though frequent, may be resisted, without recourse to arms, so long as there are channels through which the injured may obtain redress. Should these be choaked up, and in danger of being totally closed, it is then the un questionable right of all men who value their privileges, to prepare other means for their de fence.

* Anecdotes of Lord Chatham. Speech, January, 9, 1770.