But I know the reason
satisfied
me at that time.
Macaulay
1691.
The
writer says: "We attribute our health, under God, to the extraordinary
care taken in the well ordering of our provisions, both meat and
drink. "]
[Footnote 146: Lords' and Commons' Journals, Oct. 22. 1691. ]
[Footnote 147: This appears from a letter written by Lowther, after he
became Lord Lonsdale, to his son. A copy of this letter is among the
Mackintosh MSS. ]
[Footnote 148: See Commons' Journals, Dec. 3. 1691; and Grey's Debates.
It is to be regretted that the Report of the Commissioners of Accounts
has not been preserved. Lowther, in his letter to his son, alludes to
the badgering of this day with great bitterness. "What man," he asks,
"that hath bread to eat, can endure, after having served with all the
diligence and application mankind is capable of, and after having given
satisfaction to the King from whom all officers of State derive their
authoritie, after acting rightly by all men, to be hated by men who do
it to all people in authoritie? "]
[Footnote 149: Commons' Journals, Dec. 12. 1691. ]
[Footnote 150: Commons' Journals, Feb. 15. 1690/1; Baden to the States
General, Jan 26/Feb 5]
[Footnote 151: Stat. 3 W. & M. c. 2. , Lords' Journals; Lords' Journals,
16 Nov. 1691; Commons' Journals, Dec. 1. 9. 5. ]
[Footnote 152: The Irish Roman Catholics complained, and with but
too much reason, that, at a later period, the Treaty of Limerick was
violated; but those very complaints are admissions that the Statute 3 W.
& M. c. 2. was not a violation of the Treaty. Thus the author of A Light
to the Blind speaking of the first article, says: "This article, in
seven years after, was broken by a Parliament in Ireland summoned by the
Prince of Orange, wherein a law was passed for banishing the Catholic
bishops, dignitaries, and regular clergy. " Surely he never would have
written thus, if the article really had, only two months after it was
signed, been broken by the English Parliament. The Abbe Mac Geoghegan,
too, complains that the Treaty was violated some years after it was
made. But he does not pretend that it was violated by Stat. 3 W. & M. c.
2. ]
[Footnote 153: Stat. 21 Jac. 1. c. 3. ]
[Footnote 154: See particularly Two Letters by a Barrister concerning
the East India Company (1676), and an Answer to the Two Letters
published in the same year. See also the judgment of Lord Jeffreys
concerning the Great Case of Monopolies. This judgment was published
in 1689, after the downfall of Jeffreys. It was thought necessary to
apologize in the preface for printing anything that bore so odious a
name. "To commend this argument," says the editor, "I'll not undertake
because of the author. But yet I may tell you what is told me, that it
is worthy any gentleman's perusal. " The language of Jeffreys is most
offensive, sometimes scurrilous, sometimes basely adulatory; but
his reasoning as to the mere point of law is certainly able, if not
conclusive. ]
[Footnote 155: Addison's Clarinda, in the week of which she kept a
journal, read nothing but Aurengzebe; Spectator, 323. She dreamed that
Mr. Froth lay at her feet, and called her Indamora. Her friend Miss
Kitty repeated, without book, the eight best lines of the play; those,
no doubt, which begin, "Trust on, and think to-morrow will repay. " There
are not eight finer lines in Lucretius. ]
[Footnote 156: A curious engraving of the India House of the seventeenth
century will be found in the Gentleman's Magazine for December 1784. ]
[Footnote 157: See Davenant's Letter to Mulgrave. ]
[Footnote 158: Answer to Two Letters concerning the East India Company,
1676. ]
[Footnote 159: Anderson's Dictionary; G. White's Account of the Trade to
the East Indies, 1691; Treatise on the East India Trade by Philopatris,
1681. ]
[Footnote 160: Reasons for constituting a New East India Company in
London, 1681; Some Remarks upon the Present State of the East India
Company's Affairs, 1690. ]
[Footnote 161: Evelyn, March 16. 1683]
[Footnote 162: See the State Trials. ]
[Footnote 163: Pepys's Diary, April 2. and May 10 1669. ]
[Footnote 164: Tench's Modest and Just Apology for the East India
Company, 1690. ]
[Footnote 165: Some Remarks on the Present State of the East India
Company's Affairs, 1690; Hamilton's New Account of the East Indies. ]
[Footnote 166: White's Account of the East India Trade, 1691; Pierce
Butler's Tale, 1691. ]
[Footnote 167: White's Account of the Trade to the East Indies, 1691;
Hamilton's New Account of the East Indies; Sir John Wyborne to Pepys
from Bombay, Jan. 7. 1688. ]
[Footnote 168: London Gazette, Feb. 16/26 1684. ]
[Footnote 169: Hamilton's New Account of the East Indies. ]
[Footnote 170: Papillon was of course reproached with his inconsistency.
Among the pamphlets of that time is one entitled "A Treatise concerning
the East India Trade, wrote at the instance of Thomas Papillon, Esquire,
and in his House, and printed in the year 1680, and now reprinted for
the better Satisfaction of himself and others. "]
[Footnote 171: Commons' Journals, June 8. 1689. ]
[Footnote 172: Among the pamphlets in which Child is most fiercely
attacked are Some Remarks on the Present State of the East India
Company's Affairs, 1690; fierce Butler's Tale, 1691; and White's Account
of the Trade to the East Indies, 1691. ]
[Footnote 173: Discourse concerning the East India Trade, showing it
to be unprofitable to the Kingdom, by Mr. Cary; pierce Butler's Tale,
representing the State of the Wool Case, or the East India Case truly
stated, 1691. Several petitions to the same effect will be found in the
Journals of the House of Commons. ]
[Footnote 174: Reasons against establishing an East India Company with a
joint Stock, exclusive to all others, 1691. ]
[Footnote 175: The engagement was printed, and has been several times
reprinted. As to Skinners' Hall, see Seymour's History of London, 1734]
[Footnote 176: London Gazette, May 11. 1691; White's Account of the East
India Trade. ]
[Footnote 177: Commons' Journals, Oct. 28. 1691. ]
[Footnote 178: Ibid. Oct. 29. 1691. ]
[Footnote 179: Rowe, in the Biter, which was damned, and deserved to be
so, introduced an old gentleman haranguing his daughter thus: "Thou hast
been bred up like a virtuous and a sober maiden; and wouldest thou take
the part of a profane wretch who sold his stock out of the Old East
India Company? "]
[Footnote 180: Hop to the States General, Oct 30/Nov. 9 1691. ]
[Footnote 181: Hop mentions the length and warmth of the debates; Nov.
12/22. 1691. See the Commons' Journals, Dec. 17. and 18. ]
[Footnote 182: Commons' Journals, Feb 4. and 6. 1691. ]
[Footnote 183: Ibid. Feb. 11. 1691. ]
[Footnote 184: The history of this bill is to be collected from the
bill itself, which is among the Archives of the Upper House, from
the Journals of the two Houses during November and December 1690, and
January 1691; particularly from the Commons' Journals of December 11.
and January 13. and 25. , and the Lords' Journals of January 20. and 28.
See also Grey's Debates. ]
[Footnote 185: The letter, dated December 1. 1691, is in the Life of
James, ii. 477. ]
[Footnote 186: Burnet, ii. 85. ; and Burnet MS. Harl. 6584. See also a
memorial signed by Holmes, but consisting of intelligence furnished
by Ferguson, among the extracts from the Nairne Papers, printed by
Macpherson. It bears date October 1691. "The Prince of Orange," says
Holmes, "is mortally hated by the English. They see very fairly that he
hath no love for them; neither doth he confide in them, but all in his
Dutch. . . It's not doubted but the Parliament will not be for foreigners
to ride them with a caveson. "]
[Footnote 187: Evelyn's Diary, Jan. 24. ; Hop to States General, Jan
22/Feb 1 1691; Bader to States General, Feb. 16/26]
[Footnote 188: The words of James are these; they were written in
November 1692:--"Mes amis, l'annee passee, avoient dessein de me
rappeler par le Parlement. La maniere etoit concertee; et Milord
Churchill devoit proposer dans le Parlement de chasser tous les
etrangers tant des conseils et de l'armee que du royaume. Si le Prince
d'Orange avoit consenti a cette proposition ils l'auroient eu entre
leurs mains. S'il l'avoit refusee, il auroit fait declarer le Parlement
contre lui; et en meme temps Milord Churchill devoir se declarer avec
l'armee pour le Parlement; et la flotte devoit faire de meme; et l'on
devoit me rappeler. L'on avoit deja commence d'agir dans ce projet; et
on avoit gagne un gros parti, quand quelques fideles sujets indiscrets,
croyant me servir, et s'imaginant que ce que Milord Churchill faisoit
n'etoit pas pour moi, mais pour la Princesse de Danemarck, eurent
l'imprudence de decouvrir le tout a Benthing, et detournerent ainsi le
coup. "
A translation of this most remarkable passage, which at once solves many
interesting and perplexing problems, was published eighty years ago by
Macpherson. But, strange to say, it attracted no notice, and has never,
as far as I know, been mentioned by any biographer of Marlborough.
The narrative of James requires no confirmation; but it is strongly
confirmed by the Burnet MS. Harl. 6584. "Marleburrough," Burnet wrote in
September 1693, "set himself to decry the King's conduct and to lessen
him in all his discourses, and to possess the English with an aversion
to the Dutch, who, as he pretended, had a much larger share of the
King's favour and confidence than they,"--the English, I suppose,--"had.
This was a point on which the English, who are too apt to despise all
other nations, and to overvalue themselves, were easily enough inflamed.
So it grew to be the universal subject of discourse, and was the
constant entertainment at Marleburrough's, where there was a constant
randivous of the English officers. " About the dismission of Marlborough,
Burnet wrote at the same time: "The King said to myself upon it that
he had very good reason to believe that he had made his peace with King
James and was engaged in a correspondence with France. It is certain he
was doing all he could to set on a faction in the army and the nation
against the Dutch. "
It is curious to compare this plain tale, told while the facts were
recent, with the shuffling narrative which Burnet prepared for the
public eye many years later, when Marlborough was closely united to the
Whigs, and was rendering great and splendid services to the country.
Burnet, ii. 90.
The Duchess of Marlborough, in her Vindication, had the effrontery to
declare that she "could never learn what cause the King assigned for his
displeasure. " She suggests that Young's forgery may have been the cause.
Now she must have known that Young's forgery was not committed till some
months after her husband's disgrace. She was indeed lamentably deficient
in memory, a faculty which is proverbially said to be necessary to
persons of the class to which she belonged. Her own volume convicts her
of falsehood. She gives us a letter from Mary to Anne, in which Mary
says, "I need not repeat the cause my Lord Marlborough has given the
King to do what he has done. " These words plainly imply that Anne had
been apprised of the cause. If she had not been apprised of the cause
would she not have said so in her answer? But we have her answer; and it
contains not a word on the subject. She was then apprised of the cause;
and is it possible to believe that she kept it a secret from her adored
Mrs. Freeman? ]
[Footnote 189: My account of these transactions I have been forced to
take from the narrative of the Duchess of Marlborough, a narrative which
is to be read with constant suspicion, except when, as is often the
case, she relates some instance of her own malignity and insolence. ]
[Footnote 190: The Duchess of Marlborough's Vindication; Dartmouth's
Note on Burnet, ii. 92. ; Verses of the Night Bellman of Piccadilly and
my Lord Nottingham's Order thereupon, 1691. There is a bitter lampoon on
Lady Marlborough of the same date, entitled The Universal Health, a true
Union to the Queen and Princess. ]
[Footnote 191: It must not be supposed that Anne was a reader of
Shakspeare. She had no doubt, often seen the Enchanted Island. That
miserable rifacimento of the Tempest was then a favourite with the town,
on account of the machinery and the decorations. ]
[Footnote 192: Burnet MS. Harl. 6584. ]
[Footnote 193: The history of an abortive attempt to legislate on this
subject may be studied in the Commons' Journals of 1692/3. ]
[Footnote 194: North's Examen,]
[Footnote 195: North's Examen; Ward's London Spy; Crosby's English
Baptists, vol. iii. chap. 2. ]
[Footnote 196: The history of this part of Fuller's life I have taken
from his own narrative. ]
[Footnote 197: Commons' Journals, Dec. 2. and 9. 1691; Grey's Debates. ]
[Footnote 198: Commons' Journals, Jan. 4. 1691/2 Grey's Debates. ]
[Footnote 199: Commons' Journals, Feb. 22, 23, and 24. 1691/2. ]
[Footnote 200: Fuller's Original Letters of the late King James and
others to his greatest Friends in England. ]
[Footnote 201: Burnet, ii. 86. Burnet had evidently forgotten what the
bill contained. Ralph knew nothing about it but what he had learned from
Burnet. I have scarcely seen any allusion to the subject in any of
the numerous Jacobite lampoons of that day. But there is a remarkable
passage in a pamphlet which appeared towards the close of William's
reign, and which is entitled The Art of Governing by Parties. The writer
says, "We still want an Act to ascertain some fund for the salaries of
the judges; and there was a bill, since the Revolution, past both Houses
of Parliament to this purpose; but whether it was for being any way
defective or otherwise that His Majesty refused to assent to it, I
cannot remember.
But I know the reason satisfied me at that time. And I
make no doubt but he'll consent to any good bill of this nature whenever
'tis offered. " These words convinced me that the bill was open to
some grave objection which did not appear in the title, and which no
historian had noticed. I found among the archives of the House of Lords
the original parchment, endorsed with the words "Le Roy et La Royne
s'aviseront. " And it was clear at the first glance what the objection
was. ]
There is a hiatus in that part of Narcissus Luttrell's Diary which
relates to this matter. "The King," he wrote, "passed ten public bills
and thirty-four private ones, and rejected that of the--"]
As to the present practice of the House of Commons in such cases, see
Hatsell's valuable work, ii. 356. I quote the edition of 1818. Hatsell
says that many bills which affect the interest of the Crown may be
brought in without any signification of the royal consent, and that it
is enough if the consent be signified on the second reading, or even
later; but that, in a proceeding which affects the hereditary revenue,
the consent must be signified in the earliest stage. ]
[Footnote 202: The history of these ministerial arrangements I have
taken chiefly from the London Gazette of March 3. and March 7. 1691/2
and from Narcissus Luttrell's Diary for that month. Two or three slight
touches are from contemporary pamphlets. ]
[Footnote 203: William to Melville, May 22. 1690. ]
[Footnote 204: See the preface to the Leven and Melville Papers. I have
given what I believe to be a true explanation of Burnet's hostility to
Melville. Melville's descendant who has deserved well of all students
of history by the diligence and fidelity with which he has performed his
editorial duties, thinks that Burnet's judgment was blinded by zeal for
Prelacy and hatred of Presbyterianism. This accusation will surprise and
amuse English High Churchmen. ]
[Footnote 205: Life of James, ii. 468, 469. ]
[Footnote 206: Burnet, ii. 88. ; Master of Stair to Breadalbane, Dee. 2.
1691. ]
[Footnote 207: Burnet, i. 418. ]
[Footnote 208: Crawford to Melville, July 23. 1689; The Master of
Stair to Melville, Aug. 16. 1689; Cardross to Melville, Sept. 9. 1689;
Balcarras's Memoirs; Annandale's Confession, Aug. i4. 1690. ]
[Footnote 209: Breadalbane to Melville, Sept. 17. 1690. ]
[Footnote 210: The Master of Stair to Hamilton, Aug. 17/27. 1691; Hill
to Melville, June 26. 1691; The Master of Stair to Breadalbane, Aug. 24.
1691. ]
[Footnote 211: "The real truth is, they were a branch of the Macdonalds
(who were a brave courageous people always), seated among the Campbells,
who (I mean the Glencoe men) are all Papists, if they have any religion,
were always counted a people much given to rapine and plunder, or
sorners as we call it, and much of a piece with your highwaymen in
England. Several governments desired to bring them to justice; but their
country was inaccessible to small parties. " See An impartial Account of
some of the Transactions in Scotland concerning the Earl of Breadalbane,
Viscount and Master of Stair, Glenco Men, &c. , London, 1695. ]
[Footnote 212: Report of the Commissioners, signed at Holyrood, June 20.
1695. ]
[Footnote 213: Gallienus Redivivus; Burnet, ii. 88. ; Report of the
Commission of 1695. ]
[Footnote 214: Report of the Glencoe Commission, 1695. ]
[Footnote 215: Hill to Melville, May 15. 1691. ]
[Footnote 216: Ibid. June 3. 1691. ]
[Footnote 217: Burnet, ii. 8, 9. ; Report of the Glencoe Commission. The
authorities quoted in this part of the Report were the depositions of
Hill, of Campbell of Ardkinglass, and of Mac Ian's two sons. ]
[Footnote 218: Johnson's Tour to the Hebrides. ]
[Footnote 219: Proclamation of the Privy Council of Scotland, Feb. q.
1589. I give this reference on the authority of Sir Walter Scott. See
the preface to the Legend of Montrose. ]
[Footnote 220: Johnson's Tour to the Hebrides. ]
[Footnote 221: Lockhart's Memoirs. ]
[Footnote 222: "What under heaven was the Master's byass in this matter?
I can imagine none. " Impartial Account, 1695. "Nor can any man of
candour and ingenuity imagine that the Earl of Stair, who had neither
estate, friendship nor enmity in that country, nor so much as knowledge
of these persons, and who was never noted for cruelty in his temper,
should have thirsted after the blood of these wretches. " Complete
History of Europe, 1707. ]
[Footnote 223: Dalrymple, in his Memoirs, relates this story, without
referring to any authority. His authority probably was family tradition.
That reports were current in 1692 of horrible crimes committed by the
Macdonalds of Glencoe, is certain from the Burnet MS. Marl. 6584. "They
had indeed been guilty of many black murthers," were Burnet's words,
written in 1693. He afterwards softened down this expression. ]
[Footnote 224: That the plan originally framed by the Master of Stair
was such as I have represented it, is clear from parts of his letters
which are quoted in the Report of 1695; and from his letters to
Breadalbane of October 27. , December 2. , and December 3. 1691. Of these
letters to Breadalbane the last two are in Dalrymple's Appendix. The
first is in the Appendix to the first volume of Mr. Burtons valuable
History of Scotland. "It appeared," says Burnet (ii. 157. ), "that a
black design was laid, not only to cut off the men of Glencoe, but
a great many more clans, reckoned to be in all above six thousand
persons. "]
[Footnote 225: This letter is in the Report of 1695. ]
[Footnote 226: London Gazette, January 14and 18. 1691. ]
[Footnote 227: "I could have wished the Macdonalds had not divided; and
I am sorry that Keppoch and Mackian of Glenco are safe. "--Letter of the
Master of Stair to Levingstone, Jan. 9. 1691/2 quoted in the Report of
1695. ]
[Footnote 228: Letter of the Master of Stair to Levingstone, Jan. 11
1692, quoted in the Report of 1695. ]
[Footnote 229: Burnet, in 1693, wrote thus about William:--"He suffers
matters to run till there is a great heap of papers; and then he signs
them as much too fast as he was before too slow in despatching them. "
Burnet MS. Harl. 6584. There is no sign either of procrastination or
of undue haste in William's correspondence with Heinsius. The truth is,
that the King understood Continental politics thoroughly, and gave his
whole mind to them. To English business he attended less, and to Scotch
business least of all. ]
[Footnote 230: Impartial Account, 1695. ]
[Footnote 231: See his letters quoted in the Report of 1695, and in the
Memoirs of the Massacre of Glencoe. ]
[Footnote 232: Report of 1695. ]
[Footnote 233: Deposition of Ronald Macdonald in the Report of 1695;
Letters from the Mountains, May 17. 1773. I quote Mrs. Grant's authority
only for what she herself heard and saw. Her account of the massacre
was written apparently without the assistance of books, and is grossly
incorrect. Indeed she makes a mistake of two years as to the date. ]
[Footnote 234: I have taken the account of the Massacre of Glencoe
chiefly from the Report of 1695, and from the Gallienus Redivivus. An
unlearned, and indeed a learned, reader may be at a loss to guess why
the Jacobites should have selected so strange a title for a pamphlet on
the massacre of Glencoe. The explanation will be found in a letter of
the Emperor Gallienus, preserved by Trebellius Pollio in the Life of
Ingenuus. Ingenuus had raised a rebellion in Moesia. He was defeated and
killed. Gallienus ordered the whole province to be laid waste, and wrote
to one of his lieutenants in language to which that of the Master of
Stair bore but too much resemblance. "Non mihi satisfacies si tantum
armatos occideris, quos et fors belli interimere potuisset. Perimendus
est omnis sexus virilis. Occidendus est quicunque maledixit. Occidendus
est quicunque male voluit. Lacera. Occide. Concide. "]
[Footnote 235: What I have called the Whig version of the story is
given, as well as the Jacobite version, in the Paris Gazette of April 7.
1692. ]
[Footnote 236: I believe that the circumstances which give so peculiar a
character of atrocity to the Massacre of Glencoe were first published in
print by Charles Leslie in the Appendix to his answer to King. The date
of Leslie's answer is 1692. But it must be remembered that the date of
1692 was then used down to what we should call the 25th of March 1693.
Leslie's book contains some remarks on a sermon by Tillotson which
was not printed till November 1692. The Gallienus Redivivus speedily
followed. ]
[Footnote 237: Gallienus Redivivus. ]
[Footnote 238: Hickes on Burnet and Tillotson, 1695. ]
[Footnote 239: Report of 1695. ]
[Footnote 240: Gallienus Redivivus. ]
[Footnote 241: Report of 1695. ]
[Footnote 242: London Gazette, Mar. 7. 1691/2]
[Footnote 243: Burnet (ii. 93. ) says that the King was not at this time
informed of the intentions of the French Government. Ralph contradicts
Burnet with great asperity. But that Burnet was in the right is proved
beyond dispute, by William's correspondence with Heinsius. So late as
April 24/May 4 William wrote thus: "Je ne puis vous dissimuler que je
commence a apprehender une descente en Angleterre, quoique je n'aye pu
le croire d'abord: mais les avis sont si multiplies de tous les cotes,
et accompagnes de tant de particularites, qu'il n'est plus guere
possible d'en douter. " I quote from the French translation among the
Mackintosh MSS. ]
[Footnote 244: Burnet, ii. 95. and Onslow's note; Memoires de Saint
Simon; Memoires de Dangeau. ]
[Footnote 245: Life of James ii. 411, 412. ]
[Footnote 246: Memoires de Dangeau; Memoires de Saint Simon. Saint Simon
was on the terrace and, young as he was, observed this singular scene
with an eye which nothing escaped. ]
[Footnote 247: Memoires de Saint Simon; Burnet, ii. 95. ; Guardian No.
48. See the excellent letter of Lewis to the Archbishop of Rheims, which
is quoted by Voltaire in the Siecle de Louis XIV. ]
[Footnote 248: In the Nairne papers printed by Macpherson are two
memorials from James urging Lewis to invade England. Both were written
in January 1692. ]
[Footnote 249: London Gazette, Feb. 15. 1691/2]
[Footnote 250: Memoires de Berwick; Burnet, ii. 92. ; Life of James, ii.
478. 491. ]
[Footnote 251: History of the late Conspiracy, 1693. ]
[Footnote 252: Life of James, ii. 479. 524. Memorials furnished by
Ferguson to Holmes in the Nairne Papers. ]
[Footnote 253: Life of James, ii. 474. ]
[Footnote 254: See the Monthly Mercuries of the spring of 1692. ]
[Footnote 255: Narcissus Luttrell's Diary for April and May 1692; London
Gazette, May 9. and 12. ]
[Footnote 256: Sheridan MS. ; Life of James, ii. 492. ]
[Footnote 257: Life of James, ii. 488. ]
[Footnote 258: James told Sheridan that the Declaration was written by
Melfort. Sheridan MS. ]
[Footnote 259: A Letter to a Friend concerning a French Invasion to
restore the late King James to his Throne, and what may be expected from
him should he be successful in it, 1692; A second Letter to a Friend
concerning a French Invasion, in which the Declaration lately dispersed
under the Title of His Majesty's most gracious Declaration to all his
loving Subjects, commanding their Assistance against the P. of O.
and his Adherents, is entirely and exactly published according to
the dispersed Copies, with some short Observations upon it, 1692; The
Pretences of the French Invasion examined, 1692; Reflections on the late
King James's Declaration, 1692. The two Letters were written, I believe,
by Lloyd Bishop of Saint Asaph. Sheridan says, "The King's Declaration
pleas'd none, and was turn'd into ridicule burlesque lines in England. "
I do not believe that a defence of this unfortunate Declaration is to be
found in any Jacobite tract. A virulent Jacobite writer, in a reply to
Dr. Welwood, printed in 1693, says, "As for the Declaration that was
printed last year. .
writer says: "We attribute our health, under God, to the extraordinary
care taken in the well ordering of our provisions, both meat and
drink. "]
[Footnote 146: Lords' and Commons' Journals, Oct. 22. 1691. ]
[Footnote 147: This appears from a letter written by Lowther, after he
became Lord Lonsdale, to his son. A copy of this letter is among the
Mackintosh MSS. ]
[Footnote 148: See Commons' Journals, Dec. 3. 1691; and Grey's Debates.
It is to be regretted that the Report of the Commissioners of Accounts
has not been preserved. Lowther, in his letter to his son, alludes to
the badgering of this day with great bitterness. "What man," he asks,
"that hath bread to eat, can endure, after having served with all the
diligence and application mankind is capable of, and after having given
satisfaction to the King from whom all officers of State derive their
authoritie, after acting rightly by all men, to be hated by men who do
it to all people in authoritie? "]
[Footnote 149: Commons' Journals, Dec. 12. 1691. ]
[Footnote 150: Commons' Journals, Feb. 15. 1690/1; Baden to the States
General, Jan 26/Feb 5]
[Footnote 151: Stat. 3 W. & M. c. 2. , Lords' Journals; Lords' Journals,
16 Nov. 1691; Commons' Journals, Dec. 1. 9. 5. ]
[Footnote 152: The Irish Roman Catholics complained, and with but
too much reason, that, at a later period, the Treaty of Limerick was
violated; but those very complaints are admissions that the Statute 3 W.
& M. c. 2. was not a violation of the Treaty. Thus the author of A Light
to the Blind speaking of the first article, says: "This article, in
seven years after, was broken by a Parliament in Ireland summoned by the
Prince of Orange, wherein a law was passed for banishing the Catholic
bishops, dignitaries, and regular clergy. " Surely he never would have
written thus, if the article really had, only two months after it was
signed, been broken by the English Parliament. The Abbe Mac Geoghegan,
too, complains that the Treaty was violated some years after it was
made. But he does not pretend that it was violated by Stat. 3 W. & M. c.
2. ]
[Footnote 153: Stat. 21 Jac. 1. c. 3. ]
[Footnote 154: See particularly Two Letters by a Barrister concerning
the East India Company (1676), and an Answer to the Two Letters
published in the same year. See also the judgment of Lord Jeffreys
concerning the Great Case of Monopolies. This judgment was published
in 1689, after the downfall of Jeffreys. It was thought necessary to
apologize in the preface for printing anything that bore so odious a
name. "To commend this argument," says the editor, "I'll not undertake
because of the author. But yet I may tell you what is told me, that it
is worthy any gentleman's perusal. " The language of Jeffreys is most
offensive, sometimes scurrilous, sometimes basely adulatory; but
his reasoning as to the mere point of law is certainly able, if not
conclusive. ]
[Footnote 155: Addison's Clarinda, in the week of which she kept a
journal, read nothing but Aurengzebe; Spectator, 323. She dreamed that
Mr. Froth lay at her feet, and called her Indamora. Her friend Miss
Kitty repeated, without book, the eight best lines of the play; those,
no doubt, which begin, "Trust on, and think to-morrow will repay. " There
are not eight finer lines in Lucretius. ]
[Footnote 156: A curious engraving of the India House of the seventeenth
century will be found in the Gentleman's Magazine for December 1784. ]
[Footnote 157: See Davenant's Letter to Mulgrave. ]
[Footnote 158: Answer to Two Letters concerning the East India Company,
1676. ]
[Footnote 159: Anderson's Dictionary; G. White's Account of the Trade to
the East Indies, 1691; Treatise on the East India Trade by Philopatris,
1681. ]
[Footnote 160: Reasons for constituting a New East India Company in
London, 1681; Some Remarks upon the Present State of the East India
Company's Affairs, 1690. ]
[Footnote 161: Evelyn, March 16. 1683]
[Footnote 162: See the State Trials. ]
[Footnote 163: Pepys's Diary, April 2. and May 10 1669. ]
[Footnote 164: Tench's Modest and Just Apology for the East India
Company, 1690. ]
[Footnote 165: Some Remarks on the Present State of the East India
Company's Affairs, 1690; Hamilton's New Account of the East Indies. ]
[Footnote 166: White's Account of the East India Trade, 1691; Pierce
Butler's Tale, 1691. ]
[Footnote 167: White's Account of the Trade to the East Indies, 1691;
Hamilton's New Account of the East Indies; Sir John Wyborne to Pepys
from Bombay, Jan. 7. 1688. ]
[Footnote 168: London Gazette, Feb. 16/26 1684. ]
[Footnote 169: Hamilton's New Account of the East Indies. ]
[Footnote 170: Papillon was of course reproached with his inconsistency.
Among the pamphlets of that time is one entitled "A Treatise concerning
the East India Trade, wrote at the instance of Thomas Papillon, Esquire,
and in his House, and printed in the year 1680, and now reprinted for
the better Satisfaction of himself and others. "]
[Footnote 171: Commons' Journals, June 8. 1689. ]
[Footnote 172: Among the pamphlets in which Child is most fiercely
attacked are Some Remarks on the Present State of the East India
Company's Affairs, 1690; fierce Butler's Tale, 1691; and White's Account
of the Trade to the East Indies, 1691. ]
[Footnote 173: Discourse concerning the East India Trade, showing it
to be unprofitable to the Kingdom, by Mr. Cary; pierce Butler's Tale,
representing the State of the Wool Case, or the East India Case truly
stated, 1691. Several petitions to the same effect will be found in the
Journals of the House of Commons. ]
[Footnote 174: Reasons against establishing an East India Company with a
joint Stock, exclusive to all others, 1691. ]
[Footnote 175: The engagement was printed, and has been several times
reprinted. As to Skinners' Hall, see Seymour's History of London, 1734]
[Footnote 176: London Gazette, May 11. 1691; White's Account of the East
India Trade. ]
[Footnote 177: Commons' Journals, Oct. 28. 1691. ]
[Footnote 178: Ibid. Oct. 29. 1691. ]
[Footnote 179: Rowe, in the Biter, which was damned, and deserved to be
so, introduced an old gentleman haranguing his daughter thus: "Thou hast
been bred up like a virtuous and a sober maiden; and wouldest thou take
the part of a profane wretch who sold his stock out of the Old East
India Company? "]
[Footnote 180: Hop to the States General, Oct 30/Nov. 9 1691. ]
[Footnote 181: Hop mentions the length and warmth of the debates; Nov.
12/22. 1691. See the Commons' Journals, Dec. 17. and 18. ]
[Footnote 182: Commons' Journals, Feb 4. and 6. 1691. ]
[Footnote 183: Ibid. Feb. 11. 1691. ]
[Footnote 184: The history of this bill is to be collected from the
bill itself, which is among the Archives of the Upper House, from
the Journals of the two Houses during November and December 1690, and
January 1691; particularly from the Commons' Journals of December 11.
and January 13. and 25. , and the Lords' Journals of January 20. and 28.
See also Grey's Debates. ]
[Footnote 185: The letter, dated December 1. 1691, is in the Life of
James, ii. 477. ]
[Footnote 186: Burnet, ii. 85. ; and Burnet MS. Harl. 6584. See also a
memorial signed by Holmes, but consisting of intelligence furnished
by Ferguson, among the extracts from the Nairne Papers, printed by
Macpherson. It bears date October 1691. "The Prince of Orange," says
Holmes, "is mortally hated by the English. They see very fairly that he
hath no love for them; neither doth he confide in them, but all in his
Dutch. . . It's not doubted but the Parliament will not be for foreigners
to ride them with a caveson. "]
[Footnote 187: Evelyn's Diary, Jan. 24. ; Hop to States General, Jan
22/Feb 1 1691; Bader to States General, Feb. 16/26]
[Footnote 188: The words of James are these; they were written in
November 1692:--"Mes amis, l'annee passee, avoient dessein de me
rappeler par le Parlement. La maniere etoit concertee; et Milord
Churchill devoit proposer dans le Parlement de chasser tous les
etrangers tant des conseils et de l'armee que du royaume. Si le Prince
d'Orange avoit consenti a cette proposition ils l'auroient eu entre
leurs mains. S'il l'avoit refusee, il auroit fait declarer le Parlement
contre lui; et en meme temps Milord Churchill devoir se declarer avec
l'armee pour le Parlement; et la flotte devoit faire de meme; et l'on
devoit me rappeler. L'on avoit deja commence d'agir dans ce projet; et
on avoit gagne un gros parti, quand quelques fideles sujets indiscrets,
croyant me servir, et s'imaginant que ce que Milord Churchill faisoit
n'etoit pas pour moi, mais pour la Princesse de Danemarck, eurent
l'imprudence de decouvrir le tout a Benthing, et detournerent ainsi le
coup. "
A translation of this most remarkable passage, which at once solves many
interesting and perplexing problems, was published eighty years ago by
Macpherson. But, strange to say, it attracted no notice, and has never,
as far as I know, been mentioned by any biographer of Marlborough.
The narrative of James requires no confirmation; but it is strongly
confirmed by the Burnet MS. Harl. 6584. "Marleburrough," Burnet wrote in
September 1693, "set himself to decry the King's conduct and to lessen
him in all his discourses, and to possess the English with an aversion
to the Dutch, who, as he pretended, had a much larger share of the
King's favour and confidence than they,"--the English, I suppose,--"had.
This was a point on which the English, who are too apt to despise all
other nations, and to overvalue themselves, were easily enough inflamed.
So it grew to be the universal subject of discourse, and was the
constant entertainment at Marleburrough's, where there was a constant
randivous of the English officers. " About the dismission of Marlborough,
Burnet wrote at the same time: "The King said to myself upon it that
he had very good reason to believe that he had made his peace with King
James and was engaged in a correspondence with France. It is certain he
was doing all he could to set on a faction in the army and the nation
against the Dutch. "
It is curious to compare this plain tale, told while the facts were
recent, with the shuffling narrative which Burnet prepared for the
public eye many years later, when Marlborough was closely united to the
Whigs, and was rendering great and splendid services to the country.
Burnet, ii. 90.
The Duchess of Marlborough, in her Vindication, had the effrontery to
declare that she "could never learn what cause the King assigned for his
displeasure. " She suggests that Young's forgery may have been the cause.
Now she must have known that Young's forgery was not committed till some
months after her husband's disgrace. She was indeed lamentably deficient
in memory, a faculty which is proverbially said to be necessary to
persons of the class to which she belonged. Her own volume convicts her
of falsehood. She gives us a letter from Mary to Anne, in which Mary
says, "I need not repeat the cause my Lord Marlborough has given the
King to do what he has done. " These words plainly imply that Anne had
been apprised of the cause. If she had not been apprised of the cause
would she not have said so in her answer? But we have her answer; and it
contains not a word on the subject. She was then apprised of the cause;
and is it possible to believe that she kept it a secret from her adored
Mrs. Freeman? ]
[Footnote 189: My account of these transactions I have been forced to
take from the narrative of the Duchess of Marlborough, a narrative which
is to be read with constant suspicion, except when, as is often the
case, she relates some instance of her own malignity and insolence. ]
[Footnote 190: The Duchess of Marlborough's Vindication; Dartmouth's
Note on Burnet, ii. 92. ; Verses of the Night Bellman of Piccadilly and
my Lord Nottingham's Order thereupon, 1691. There is a bitter lampoon on
Lady Marlborough of the same date, entitled The Universal Health, a true
Union to the Queen and Princess. ]
[Footnote 191: It must not be supposed that Anne was a reader of
Shakspeare. She had no doubt, often seen the Enchanted Island. That
miserable rifacimento of the Tempest was then a favourite with the town,
on account of the machinery and the decorations. ]
[Footnote 192: Burnet MS. Harl. 6584. ]
[Footnote 193: The history of an abortive attempt to legislate on this
subject may be studied in the Commons' Journals of 1692/3. ]
[Footnote 194: North's Examen,]
[Footnote 195: North's Examen; Ward's London Spy; Crosby's English
Baptists, vol. iii. chap. 2. ]
[Footnote 196: The history of this part of Fuller's life I have taken
from his own narrative. ]
[Footnote 197: Commons' Journals, Dec. 2. and 9. 1691; Grey's Debates. ]
[Footnote 198: Commons' Journals, Jan. 4. 1691/2 Grey's Debates. ]
[Footnote 199: Commons' Journals, Feb. 22, 23, and 24. 1691/2. ]
[Footnote 200: Fuller's Original Letters of the late King James and
others to his greatest Friends in England. ]
[Footnote 201: Burnet, ii. 86. Burnet had evidently forgotten what the
bill contained. Ralph knew nothing about it but what he had learned from
Burnet. I have scarcely seen any allusion to the subject in any of
the numerous Jacobite lampoons of that day. But there is a remarkable
passage in a pamphlet which appeared towards the close of William's
reign, and which is entitled The Art of Governing by Parties. The writer
says, "We still want an Act to ascertain some fund for the salaries of
the judges; and there was a bill, since the Revolution, past both Houses
of Parliament to this purpose; but whether it was for being any way
defective or otherwise that His Majesty refused to assent to it, I
cannot remember.
But I know the reason satisfied me at that time. And I
make no doubt but he'll consent to any good bill of this nature whenever
'tis offered. " These words convinced me that the bill was open to
some grave objection which did not appear in the title, and which no
historian had noticed. I found among the archives of the House of Lords
the original parchment, endorsed with the words "Le Roy et La Royne
s'aviseront. " And it was clear at the first glance what the objection
was. ]
There is a hiatus in that part of Narcissus Luttrell's Diary which
relates to this matter. "The King," he wrote, "passed ten public bills
and thirty-four private ones, and rejected that of the--"]
As to the present practice of the House of Commons in such cases, see
Hatsell's valuable work, ii. 356. I quote the edition of 1818. Hatsell
says that many bills which affect the interest of the Crown may be
brought in without any signification of the royal consent, and that it
is enough if the consent be signified on the second reading, or even
later; but that, in a proceeding which affects the hereditary revenue,
the consent must be signified in the earliest stage. ]
[Footnote 202: The history of these ministerial arrangements I have
taken chiefly from the London Gazette of March 3. and March 7. 1691/2
and from Narcissus Luttrell's Diary for that month. Two or three slight
touches are from contemporary pamphlets. ]
[Footnote 203: William to Melville, May 22. 1690. ]
[Footnote 204: See the preface to the Leven and Melville Papers. I have
given what I believe to be a true explanation of Burnet's hostility to
Melville. Melville's descendant who has deserved well of all students
of history by the diligence and fidelity with which he has performed his
editorial duties, thinks that Burnet's judgment was blinded by zeal for
Prelacy and hatred of Presbyterianism. This accusation will surprise and
amuse English High Churchmen. ]
[Footnote 205: Life of James, ii. 468, 469. ]
[Footnote 206: Burnet, ii. 88. ; Master of Stair to Breadalbane, Dee. 2.
1691. ]
[Footnote 207: Burnet, i. 418. ]
[Footnote 208: Crawford to Melville, July 23. 1689; The Master of
Stair to Melville, Aug. 16. 1689; Cardross to Melville, Sept. 9. 1689;
Balcarras's Memoirs; Annandale's Confession, Aug. i4. 1690. ]
[Footnote 209: Breadalbane to Melville, Sept. 17. 1690. ]
[Footnote 210: The Master of Stair to Hamilton, Aug. 17/27. 1691; Hill
to Melville, June 26. 1691; The Master of Stair to Breadalbane, Aug. 24.
1691. ]
[Footnote 211: "The real truth is, they were a branch of the Macdonalds
(who were a brave courageous people always), seated among the Campbells,
who (I mean the Glencoe men) are all Papists, if they have any religion,
were always counted a people much given to rapine and plunder, or
sorners as we call it, and much of a piece with your highwaymen in
England. Several governments desired to bring them to justice; but their
country was inaccessible to small parties. " See An impartial Account of
some of the Transactions in Scotland concerning the Earl of Breadalbane,
Viscount and Master of Stair, Glenco Men, &c. , London, 1695. ]
[Footnote 212: Report of the Commissioners, signed at Holyrood, June 20.
1695. ]
[Footnote 213: Gallienus Redivivus; Burnet, ii. 88. ; Report of the
Commission of 1695. ]
[Footnote 214: Report of the Glencoe Commission, 1695. ]
[Footnote 215: Hill to Melville, May 15. 1691. ]
[Footnote 216: Ibid. June 3. 1691. ]
[Footnote 217: Burnet, ii. 8, 9. ; Report of the Glencoe Commission. The
authorities quoted in this part of the Report were the depositions of
Hill, of Campbell of Ardkinglass, and of Mac Ian's two sons. ]
[Footnote 218: Johnson's Tour to the Hebrides. ]
[Footnote 219: Proclamation of the Privy Council of Scotland, Feb. q.
1589. I give this reference on the authority of Sir Walter Scott. See
the preface to the Legend of Montrose. ]
[Footnote 220: Johnson's Tour to the Hebrides. ]
[Footnote 221: Lockhart's Memoirs. ]
[Footnote 222: "What under heaven was the Master's byass in this matter?
I can imagine none. " Impartial Account, 1695. "Nor can any man of
candour and ingenuity imagine that the Earl of Stair, who had neither
estate, friendship nor enmity in that country, nor so much as knowledge
of these persons, and who was never noted for cruelty in his temper,
should have thirsted after the blood of these wretches. " Complete
History of Europe, 1707. ]
[Footnote 223: Dalrymple, in his Memoirs, relates this story, without
referring to any authority. His authority probably was family tradition.
That reports were current in 1692 of horrible crimes committed by the
Macdonalds of Glencoe, is certain from the Burnet MS. Marl. 6584. "They
had indeed been guilty of many black murthers," were Burnet's words,
written in 1693. He afterwards softened down this expression. ]
[Footnote 224: That the plan originally framed by the Master of Stair
was such as I have represented it, is clear from parts of his letters
which are quoted in the Report of 1695; and from his letters to
Breadalbane of October 27. , December 2. , and December 3. 1691. Of these
letters to Breadalbane the last two are in Dalrymple's Appendix. The
first is in the Appendix to the first volume of Mr. Burtons valuable
History of Scotland. "It appeared," says Burnet (ii. 157. ), "that a
black design was laid, not only to cut off the men of Glencoe, but
a great many more clans, reckoned to be in all above six thousand
persons. "]
[Footnote 225: This letter is in the Report of 1695. ]
[Footnote 226: London Gazette, January 14and 18. 1691. ]
[Footnote 227: "I could have wished the Macdonalds had not divided; and
I am sorry that Keppoch and Mackian of Glenco are safe. "--Letter of the
Master of Stair to Levingstone, Jan. 9. 1691/2 quoted in the Report of
1695. ]
[Footnote 228: Letter of the Master of Stair to Levingstone, Jan. 11
1692, quoted in the Report of 1695. ]
[Footnote 229: Burnet, in 1693, wrote thus about William:--"He suffers
matters to run till there is a great heap of papers; and then he signs
them as much too fast as he was before too slow in despatching them. "
Burnet MS. Harl. 6584. There is no sign either of procrastination or
of undue haste in William's correspondence with Heinsius. The truth is,
that the King understood Continental politics thoroughly, and gave his
whole mind to them. To English business he attended less, and to Scotch
business least of all. ]
[Footnote 230: Impartial Account, 1695. ]
[Footnote 231: See his letters quoted in the Report of 1695, and in the
Memoirs of the Massacre of Glencoe. ]
[Footnote 232: Report of 1695. ]
[Footnote 233: Deposition of Ronald Macdonald in the Report of 1695;
Letters from the Mountains, May 17. 1773. I quote Mrs. Grant's authority
only for what she herself heard and saw. Her account of the massacre
was written apparently without the assistance of books, and is grossly
incorrect. Indeed she makes a mistake of two years as to the date. ]
[Footnote 234: I have taken the account of the Massacre of Glencoe
chiefly from the Report of 1695, and from the Gallienus Redivivus. An
unlearned, and indeed a learned, reader may be at a loss to guess why
the Jacobites should have selected so strange a title for a pamphlet on
the massacre of Glencoe. The explanation will be found in a letter of
the Emperor Gallienus, preserved by Trebellius Pollio in the Life of
Ingenuus. Ingenuus had raised a rebellion in Moesia. He was defeated and
killed. Gallienus ordered the whole province to be laid waste, and wrote
to one of his lieutenants in language to which that of the Master of
Stair bore but too much resemblance. "Non mihi satisfacies si tantum
armatos occideris, quos et fors belli interimere potuisset. Perimendus
est omnis sexus virilis. Occidendus est quicunque maledixit. Occidendus
est quicunque male voluit. Lacera. Occide. Concide. "]
[Footnote 235: What I have called the Whig version of the story is
given, as well as the Jacobite version, in the Paris Gazette of April 7.
1692. ]
[Footnote 236: I believe that the circumstances which give so peculiar a
character of atrocity to the Massacre of Glencoe were first published in
print by Charles Leslie in the Appendix to his answer to King. The date
of Leslie's answer is 1692. But it must be remembered that the date of
1692 was then used down to what we should call the 25th of March 1693.
Leslie's book contains some remarks on a sermon by Tillotson which
was not printed till November 1692. The Gallienus Redivivus speedily
followed. ]
[Footnote 237: Gallienus Redivivus. ]
[Footnote 238: Hickes on Burnet and Tillotson, 1695. ]
[Footnote 239: Report of 1695. ]
[Footnote 240: Gallienus Redivivus. ]
[Footnote 241: Report of 1695. ]
[Footnote 242: London Gazette, Mar. 7. 1691/2]
[Footnote 243: Burnet (ii. 93. ) says that the King was not at this time
informed of the intentions of the French Government. Ralph contradicts
Burnet with great asperity. But that Burnet was in the right is proved
beyond dispute, by William's correspondence with Heinsius. So late as
April 24/May 4 William wrote thus: "Je ne puis vous dissimuler que je
commence a apprehender une descente en Angleterre, quoique je n'aye pu
le croire d'abord: mais les avis sont si multiplies de tous les cotes,
et accompagnes de tant de particularites, qu'il n'est plus guere
possible d'en douter. " I quote from the French translation among the
Mackintosh MSS. ]
[Footnote 244: Burnet, ii. 95. and Onslow's note; Memoires de Saint
Simon; Memoires de Dangeau. ]
[Footnote 245: Life of James ii. 411, 412. ]
[Footnote 246: Memoires de Dangeau; Memoires de Saint Simon. Saint Simon
was on the terrace and, young as he was, observed this singular scene
with an eye which nothing escaped. ]
[Footnote 247: Memoires de Saint Simon; Burnet, ii. 95. ; Guardian No.
48. See the excellent letter of Lewis to the Archbishop of Rheims, which
is quoted by Voltaire in the Siecle de Louis XIV. ]
[Footnote 248: In the Nairne papers printed by Macpherson are two
memorials from James urging Lewis to invade England. Both were written
in January 1692. ]
[Footnote 249: London Gazette, Feb. 15. 1691/2]
[Footnote 250: Memoires de Berwick; Burnet, ii. 92. ; Life of James, ii.
478. 491. ]
[Footnote 251: History of the late Conspiracy, 1693. ]
[Footnote 252: Life of James, ii. 479. 524. Memorials furnished by
Ferguson to Holmes in the Nairne Papers. ]
[Footnote 253: Life of James, ii. 474. ]
[Footnote 254: See the Monthly Mercuries of the spring of 1692. ]
[Footnote 255: Narcissus Luttrell's Diary for April and May 1692; London
Gazette, May 9. and 12. ]
[Footnote 256: Sheridan MS. ; Life of James, ii. 492. ]
[Footnote 257: Life of James, ii. 488. ]
[Footnote 258: James told Sheridan that the Declaration was written by
Melfort. Sheridan MS. ]
[Footnote 259: A Letter to a Friend concerning a French Invasion to
restore the late King James to his Throne, and what may be expected from
him should he be successful in it, 1692; A second Letter to a Friend
concerning a French Invasion, in which the Declaration lately dispersed
under the Title of His Majesty's most gracious Declaration to all his
loving Subjects, commanding their Assistance against the P. of O.
and his Adherents, is entirely and exactly published according to
the dispersed Copies, with some short Observations upon it, 1692; The
Pretences of the French Invasion examined, 1692; Reflections on the late
King James's Declaration, 1692. The two Letters were written, I believe,
by Lloyd Bishop of Saint Asaph. Sheridan says, "The King's Declaration
pleas'd none, and was turn'd into ridicule burlesque lines in England. "
I do not believe that a defence of this unfortunate Declaration is to be
found in any Jacobite tract. A virulent Jacobite writer, in a reply to
Dr. Welwood, printed in 1693, says, "As for the Declaration that was
printed last year. .
