letter from Lady Rachel is quoted by her descendant as a concurring testi

mony:

"London, Sept. 23, 1672. "If I were more fortunate in my expression, I could doe myselfe more right when I would own to my dearest Mr Russell what real and perfect happynesse I enjoy from that kindnesse he allowes me every day to receive new marks of; such as, in spight of the knowledge I have of my owne wants, wil not sufer me to mistrust I want his love, though I doe merit to so desireable a blessing: but my best life, you that know so well how to love, and to oblige, make my felicity intire, by believing my harte possest with all the gratitude, honour, and passionate affection to your person any creature is capable of, or can be obliged to; and that granted, what have I to aske, but a continuance (if God see fit) of these present enjoyments? if not, a submission without a murmur to his most wise dispensations and unerring providence, having a thankful harte for the yeares I have been so perfectly contented in. He knows best when we have had enough here: what I most earnestly beg from his mercy is, that wee both live soe as which ever goes first, the other may not sorrow as for one of whom they have no hope; then let us cheerfully expect to be together to a good old age, if not, let us not doubt but he will support his servants under what trials he will inflict upon them. These are necessary meditations sometimes, yt we may not be surprised above our strength by a sudden accident, being unprepared. Excuse me if I dwell to long upon it; 'tis from my opinion that if wee can be prepared for

al conditions, we can with the greater tran

quillity enjoy the present: which I hope will be long, tho' when we change 'twill be for the better, I trust, through the merit of Christ. Let us dayly pray it may be sp, and then admit of no feares. Death is the extremest evil against nature, it is true; let us overcome the immoderate fear of it, either to our friend or selfe, and then what light hearts may we live with. But I am immoderate in my length of this discourse,

and consider this is to be a letter. To take myself off, and alter the subject, I will tell you the newes came on Sunday night," &c. pp. 34, 35.

The poet, speaking of the sense of ɛight, marks

The wide extreme, The mole's dim curtain, and the lynx's

beam.

Without bringing into comparison the splendour of genius by which a chosen few in every age have been distinguished, we find nearly as wide extremes in the portion of intellect

allotted to different individuals. A striking instance of this" wide extreme" may be remarked in comparing this letter of Lady Rachel's, so full of heart and soul, and so indicative of a sound and well-balanced mind, with another epistle preserved by the noble author. This curious performance is the production of a young man of high birth, certainly not uneducated, it is addressed to Lord Russell.

"From on board the Princ, "Dear Sr, the 2 daye of Jun. "I must Confess i have bin to idell in not giving you thankes for all your kindnes, but i shall never forget to one them: i suppose the discription of the fight will be in print as soune as my Letter Cumes to your hands. The Duke is myty kind to me, and will give me a shipe as soune as wee cum to an anchor in the river. Praye present my most humble services to my Ladey Maud, and i Rest your most Humble servant, ED. RUSSELL.”

Follows a no less extraordinary postscript:

Mr. Digby and mr. nickolds is ded.” ”

This accomplished youth not only got the "shipe" he expected, but was afterwards created Earl of Orford. What is still more surprising, he became, if we mistake not, the far-famed Admiral Russell of the popular song on the famous naval victory off La Hogue, in King William's time, memorable for the destruction of the Rising Sun, the pride of the French navy, with many other less distinguished vessels.

This undying strain of British exultation is still the delight of the humbler mess-room, beginning

Thursday, in the morning, the nineteenth of May,

Recorded for ever the memorable ninety

two, &c. &c.

Tourville on the main triumphant roll'd, To meet the gallant Russell in combat on

the deep.

That a person whom, from the speci men of his abilities exhibited in this curious epistle, we should pronounce to be not only deplorably ignorant, but incurably stupid, should not only attain, but apparently deserve, such distinction, is difficult to believe. Yet so it was. His early promotion, under such unpromising appearances, must be attributed to the great weight and consideration he possessed in the

country. What might not the son of the Earl of Bedford aspire to, when his nephew derived so much consequence from the relation? It may be considered as an anticipation of the historical facts, to remark that the virtues and sufferings of Lord William Russell threw a kind of glory over all connected with him. For we find both this cousin, and other kindred of his, distinguished and promoted fully equal to their merits, when the cause for which he suffered became predominant. A quotation from the noble author, which we shall insert, gives a distinct and brief sketch of the state of public affairs, and of the most influential characters during the calm that preceded the storm of political animosity in which his illus trious ancestor was so fatally involved. Speaking of the early period immediately following the Restoration, he says,

"In this temper the people willingly obeyed the voice of the royalists, and echoed the prejudices to which, twenty years before, they had refused a hearing. And though the king and his minister did not entirely abstain from acts of vengeance, no sympathy could be excited in favour of those who were looked upon as the authors of the late troubles. Yet in the joy of new power, the professions of the sovereign were plausible and constitutional. 'I shall not propose to myself,' he said, any one rule in my actions and counsels, than this, what is a parliament like to think of this action or this counsel? and it shall be a want of understandiug in me, if it will not bear that test.'

"For some years the prudence of Clarendon, who neither tried to make his master independent of parliament, nor refused promotion to those who had raised themselves during the commonwealth; and the integrity of Southampton, who presided Over the treasury with exemplary vigilance, preserved the balance of the government. But the death of the latter, and disgrace of the former minister, gave free scope to the favourites and the inclinations of the king. "Charles II., in the station of a private gentleman, would have been universally liked. Few men had such captivating manners, and no man ever united wit and good-nature in society to a greater degree. He had a natural kindness of temper which influenced his moral conduct, and prevented his becoming the oppressor of his queen, when he could not be constant to her; nor

was his inclination for women gratified with so much contempt of virtue as of decency. His mistresses appear to have been all

ready to err, even though their tempter had not worn a crown. No unsuspecting innocence was betrayed; no conjugal felicity was destroyed by his amours. During the latter part of his life, he lived with women rather to indulge indolence than to gratify desire. His brother the Duke of York, and his son the Duke of Monmouth, had equal reason to be grateful for his indulgence. Though the one was the cause of all his troubles, and the other helped to foment them, his behaviour was in almost every instance kind and affectionate.

"But the cares and duties of a throne were fitted to expose the defects of Charles in the most glaring light. It was evident, that he was indolent, mean, false, unprincipled, and selfish. The most important affairs could not make him active; the most solemn engagements, true; the most shameful proposals could not rouse his pride, nor the affection of a great people induce him to sacrifice the least and lowest of his pleasures. He wasted a capacity for which the mighty cares of government afforded ample scope in the sciences of chemistry and mechanics which he could not forward; and he lowered the character of his country abroad, that he might establish á despotism at home.

"It is certain that adversity had not improved the character of Charles. Surrounded by his father's old friends, who had suffered from a popular revolution, he learnt to esteem his own authority too highly, and to regard with suspicion and aversion the inclinations of his people. The want of money and of consideration abroad led him into a vagabond course of life, and obliged him to practise the arts of a courtier, when he ought to have maintained the dignity of a sovereign. Whilst those immediately about him persuaded him that he was King of England by Divine right, he could not go out of this narrow circle without encountering the rebuffs of Cardinal Mazarin or Don Lewis de Haro.Vol. I. pp. 38–41.

The character, principles, and abilities of the King's brother, the Duke of York, have been variously describ→ ed, not only by writers of opposite parties, but by those who entertained the same political views. All contemporary writers of the opposite side agree in assigning a bigoted, but sincere, desire of promoting the Catholic religion as the main spring of all his actions. Mr Fox considers all those ended in precipitating him from the blind and headlong measures which throne of his ancestors, as originating in his eagerness to establish arbitrary power. Whether unlimited authority was with him considered as the

end to which his measures tended, or merely the means of promoting the conversion of his subjects, is a question not easily determined. But it is evident, that a devoted attachment to the Catholic religion was the ruling principle of his after life, and appears all along to have been his predominant passion. The clear and rapid sketch drawn by the present writer gives a more distinct image of the Duke than any of the more laboured characters to be met with in history. He says,

“The character of the Duke of York was essentially different from that of his brother. Charles was quick, fickle, and indolent; James was dull, obstinate, and busy; the king was indifferent about religion, the duke was one of the greatest bigots that ever lived. The Duke of Buckingham described their characters in a few words, saying, Charles could see things if he would, James would see things if he could.'"

Again, he says,

"Yet it must not be imagined that James was without virtues. He was kind to his friends, and naturally just and true in his commerce with the world. But his bigotry, joined with his unnatural position, blotted out his good inclinations. The countenance he gave to the judgment given against Argyle; his assisting at the torture in Scotland, and attending races in the neighbourhood, when Lady Lisle was executed, leave an indelible stain upon his memory. He seems, by these instances, to have merited the retort of Ayloffe, who, when James advised him to make disclosures, because it was in his power to pardon, answered,Yes, but it is not in your

nature.'"

Of these royal brothers the heart of one was withered and rendered callous by the early habits of a dissolute life, which never fail to have that effect, and still more by seeing that dark view of human nature which is always disclosed under the circumstances in which he was placed: Where profligacy in some instances, and treachery in others, of those with whom he lived, and on whom he depended, were the result of exile, poverty, and unfixed principle, in these unhappy times. His brother, with a mind less open to enjoyment, and, consequently, less liable to temptations of a pleasurable nature, sought and found a gloomy and unsafe refuge from the evils by which his youth was

surrounded, in a religion calculated to limit the powers of the understanding, and to harden the heart. In each instance, all the better propensities of their nature were stifled at the very season when it was natural for thei to expand. As long as Clarendon, who might be accounted the faithful Abdiel among their followers, continued to possess any influence, those fatal effects of early association did not appear in their full enormity; but in banishing him, Charles might be said "To curse his better angel from his side," and fall to reprobation. But the influence of France, fatal at all times to their family, was the chief cause of all their aberrations, moral and political, and it has, indeed, always proved sinister to this country; so much so, that its friendship has been even more pernicious than its enmity. Every marriage contracted betwixt our monarchs and the daughters of French princes, has had some baleful influence on the sovereign or the state, from the imperious Eleanor of Poictiers, who armed her sons against her husband; to the heiress of Guienne, who filled the Court of the feeble-minded third Henry with French buffoons and sycophants, to the exclusion of the native nobility, from which arose the jealousies and insurrections which disturbed his long and turbulent reign: to the atrocious Isabella, who betrayed Edward the Second to deposition and a cruel death. Nor was the match between Charles the First and Henrietta of France much more fortunate. Her religion, and the gaiety of her manners, were highly offensive to the puritanical party, and afforded them a pretext for disgusting the people in general with the manners of the court. The king's too great confidence in her made his friends distrustful, and afforded a handle to his enemies to sow fresh jealousies; and, finally, her influence, little as it was in France, was the means of attaching her unfortunate sons both to the religion and manners of that country, a fatal bias which proved ruinous to the fame of the one, and the fortunes of the other, and highly disastrous to the country in general. With seductive wit and gaiety, Charles and his courtiers imported the profiigacy of the most corrupt court that ever called itself Christian, that of Louis XIV.

without its elegance and refinement, which, though they could scarce be called redeeming qualities, certainly softened the coarser features of vice, by diminishing its grossness. The British exiles had drank deep in the cup of those abominations, and returned fatally imbued with them, without the thin and glittering veil of grace and softness which slightly disguised them in their native soil.

It was a great aggravation of the danger to national morality, that there happened to be more of luxuriant and misapplied talent among the courtiers and their retainers, than has ever been known to spring up in that cold atmosphere before or since; in those days when "statesmen farces writ," &c. the fascination of pleasure was heightened by having intellect pressed into its service. Correct morals and decent manners were considered as indicative of a deficiency of both wit and loyalty. Never was the tribute of esteem, which vice itself necessarily pays to virtue, so sparingly accorded. Gravity and regular conduct were deemed formality. There was, in short, a great gulf opened between the lovers of liberty, religion, and order, and the adherents of a licentious and profligate court; and the occurrences of every day contributed to widen the chasm; and still, as domestic discontents increased, the influence of France gained ground, till at length the monarch of a great and free nation, once popular and beloved, and still possessed of qualities that please and attract,—the descendant of a long line of sovereigns, who was expected to have grown wise in the school of adversity,-stooped, not only to receive a pension from France, but to apply this money, and much more extorted from his subjects, to crush the states of Holland, the old and natural ally of Britain, bound to her by ties of protection on one hand, and of gratitude on the other, professing the same religion, and having, in many essential points, the same interest.

The Dutch war, unpopular in itself, and more so for being well known to be the result of French influence, still more widened the breach between the court and country party.

An event, which appeared to many yet more alarming and portentous, about this time filled the country with

VOL. VIII.

still darker fears and apprehensions, as being public, while the ignominious treaty with France was only known to the confidential ministers. The Duke of York, the heir of the Crown, publicly avowed himself a convert to the Catholic religion. From the general tope of honesty which has been ascribed to him, it might be supposed that he could ill bear the disguise of making a profession different from his real opinions; but assuredly it did not suit the pride of the Roman Pontiff to receive an unacknowledged convert into the bosom of the church. Hence began those jealousies and heartburnings which ended in promoting the bill of exclusion. Those who were zealous for the religion and liberties of their country (which were in this intimately connected) saw only an alternative between two great evils-that of being governed by a Popish sovereign, necessarily under foreign influence, and full of arbitrary maxims—or encountering all the dangers of a disputed succession, in a country already torn into factions by civil as well as religious animosities.

Before this crisis called forth the hopes and fears of the opposing parties, Lord Russell had entered into public affairs with much zeal, but with that openness and singleness of heart which distinguished all his conduct. He had even gone so far as to move for the impeachment of Lord Danby for mismanagement of the Treasury. This impeachment fell to the ground, not being supported by the other members; which coldness was imputed to the influence of bribery. Here it may not be improper to refer to the author's defence of his noble' ancestor from a charge which, however, unfounded, has been brought forward with so much confidence, and by such authority, as to entitle it to a refutation. The proofs and arguments used for this purpose by our author appear perfectly satisfactory. Indeed, nothing less than proof positive should make one for a moinent lend an ear to what is so very improbable, that it seems next to impossible. The chapter which is devoted to this purpose is too long for quotation, but gives a very clear view of the subject, and seems to solve the difficulty without even questioning the veracity of Barillon or the sincerity of Sir John Dalrymple. While the nation was

E

full of suspicion, the Popish Plot, in which a great deal of falsehood was mixed with a little truth, set all these floating humours into a state of violent fermentation. There has been, and ever will be, opposition to Government, in this country, while it continues free. It is essential to such a state. But on no occasion, not even on the breaking out of the civil war in the time of Charles the First, was there so great an accumulation of warrantable grounds of discontent as at this period. The scandalous and treacherous shutting up of the Exchequer, the impolitic and unpopular Dutch war,-the treaties with France, the ignominious purport of which were, if not known, strongly suspect ed, the dread of a Popish successor, and the morals of the Court faithless, truthless, and licentious,-besides the cruelty of turning some thousands of clergymen out of their benefices, who, though perhaps too scrupulous in refusing to comply with forms no ways essential on the one hand, nor important on the other, showed themselves honest in the sacrifice they made for conscience sake;-no wonder, then, that every honourable and upright mind took the alarm at a prospect where bad seemed daily tending to worse, and that those who possessed great property, and consequent influence in the country, should feel the urgency tenfold which stimulated them to oppose the measures that threatened the destruction of all that made that country dear or life desir

able.

家

We insert the arguments used by our author, to show that the Popish plot, though much too eagerly follow ed out by the country party, and too readily credited, was not by any means invented by their leader.

"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 tb kiss the

King's hand at Chiffinch's. Upon being informed of the 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 propornion of the country. The inquiry into the tionably anxious to obtain the good opiplot, 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 affair before Church party were eagerly bent on purthem. Upon the first discovery, the High suing the plot; but when they saw Lord Shaftesbury and his friends take it 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 in order to preach liberty of conscience. assume the disguise of dissenting ministers, This could never answer the purpose of Lord Shaftesbury, who was at this time chiefly supported by non-conformists. 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

pp. 126, 127.

The discovery of his secretary Coleman's seditious correspondence in some measure involved the Duke of York, and the king complied so far with the desire of the party, as to forbid him any concern with public affairs. Not satisfied with this, the opposition strove to have him removed from the royal presence and councils, and to make this measure the more popular with their own party, and less resisted by the other, they chose Lord Russell to make the motion, not expecting from him either acute powers or persuasive eloquence. But his great property, and his known integrity, and a love of liberty, undebased by any mean or selfish motive, made him the object of universal confidence; others feeling as on sure ground in making common cause with him. In this debate