the conduct of individuals and parties, we ought to weigh, with fcrupulous exactness, every particle of evidence adduced upon either fide of controverted queftions, and carefully to difcriminate between thofe circumstances, which establish a fimple, politive, and direct proof; and that fpecies of evidence, which arifes from the opinion, prejudices, and fanguine views, of perfons deeply interested in the fcenes which they defcribe, and who must have been convicted by their own minds of that guilt, in which they are so anxious to affociate others. A great diftinction ought therefore to be made between those actually found in correfpondence with the court of Saint Germains, and thofe, who are only mentioned by agents as favourable to that intereft, and approving of plans communicated to them for promoting it. There may be various reafons for fufpecting the fincerity of perfons of the laft defcription, in the fentiments and attachments they profeffed, while there can be little or no reafon for entertaining any doubt, with refpect to the guilt of perfons of the first clafs, who were perfonally engaged in correfpondence with James, and spontaneously tendered their fervices. The agents of James, defirous to fet off their own merits to the best advantage, and to obtain his approbation, were under a ftrong temptation to defcribe their fuccefs in the moft flattering ftrains. A fincere zeal for the intereft of their mafter would naturally render them lefs fcrupulous in adhering to truth, while they tranfmitted to him fuch accounts of his affairs as were calculated to encourage his heart, naturally prone to defpondency, and to allure the aid of the French king, effential to the fuccefs of any plan for raising their depreffed fortune*. Had Lewis believed that the number of James's adherents was fo confiderable, and their zeal as ardent, as reprefented by his agents, it is difficult to conceive, notwithstanding the defeat of his fleet at La Hogue, why he fhould have fo long delayed, and, after all, with fo little earnestnefs attempted a second invafion of England. How could he have turned his arms to better account, than by restoring James to the throne of his fathers, and transferring the refources of England, from the difpofal of an irreconcilable and powerful enemy, into the hands of his firmest friends? Would not such a measure, more effectually than all his victories upon the continent, have overturned that confederacy, of which William was the life and fpirit; and who, more than all the other members of it, controlled and thwarted his ambitious plans? Some of the perfons in England, who were affectionately attached to the intereft of James, but who exercifed greater caution and deliberation in conducting their inquiries about the temper and inclinations of the people, or who had better opportunity of information, are far from holding out fuch alluring views of fuccefs, or maintaining fuch confidence in the power and multitude of his friends, as are conveyed by the general strain of the memorials and letters tranfmitted to him by his agents †.

*Mr. Noseworth's Report 1694. Charneck's Report 1695. Ibid.' + An anonymous Letter from a Perfon in England to his Friend at Paris, 17th Auguft, 1694. Mr. MacAdam's Letters, ibid.' • There

C 3

There are alfo obvious and plaufible reafons for calling in queftion the true intention of many of thofe, who are enrolled among the partifans of James, and even reprefented as taking a more active part in his caufe, by admitting his agents into their company, and occafionally confulting with them upon the state of his affairs. Perfons of a timid difpofition, or anxiously attentive to their private intereft, whatever their affections and wishes might be, would be extremely fearful of incurring his refentment, left he fhould again fill the throne of England; and they would be equally cautious of excluding themselves from future preferment, either by openly disapproving of, or revealing, any fchemes imparted to them by his friends, in full confidence of their being faithfully attached both to his perfon and the intereft of his family. It ought alfo to be obferved, that the connection of blood and alliance would naturally have a confiderable influence in directing the folicitations, and raifing the hopes, of the family at Saint Germains. The earl of Marlborough was uncle to the duke of Berwick, and married to the fifter of lady Tyrconnel. Lord Middleton, one of James's fecretaries, was uncle-in law to the earl of Shrewsbury. The intimate connection of thefe, and others in adminiftration, with perfons who adhered to James in his exiled ftate, would expofe them to the more frequent accefs and importunity of his agents, while, from the motives already recited, we may believe they would be unwilling, if they could avoid it, to fall into defperate terms with that intereft, which might, in the courfe of chances, prevail. From ali thefe confiderations it was naturally to be expected, that individuals, who were addreffed by the agents of James, would often be reprefented as confenting to, or participating of, meatures, to which they were by no means friendly in their hearts *.

• While

*Nothing can place in a ftronger light the infincerity, or the want of power, of James's adherents, than the inconfiftency of their conduct with their own profefiions, and with the inflructions which they received from him. Take, for an example, the fifth feffion of the fecond parliament, which met 7th November 1693. During the whole of this feffion, the commons were obfequious to the inclinations of the court, and most liberal in granting (upplies; while the inftrudiors, fent by James to his friends at this very period, fuppofe their intereft to have been confiderable, and require them to exert themfelves in oppofition to the court, particularly by obftructing the fupplies. "Try all the ways you can to hinder the prince of Orange from getting money, efpecially the general excife; and, if it be not poffible to hinder him from getting money, endeavour to retard it, that it may make all his preparations for the next campaign as late as may be." Inftructions to the Church of England, 16th October, 193.

"Endeavour by all means to embroil the affairs of the prince of Orange, and that his majefty's friends join heartily together to crofs his inclination and intereft in all things, and that they be ready to join with any party which fhall appear against him, &c.

&c."

While the agents of James in England embraced every opportunity to avail themselves of the disappointments and paffions of private perfons and parties, it is no wonder, if, in an unguarded moment, and under the impreffion of refentment, their addreffes were fometimes entertained with fuch apparent approbation, as encouraged them to add, to the lift of their friends, the names of individuals, who probably foon repented of any rafh refolution they might have formed, and would not have ftood to it if they had been actually put to the trial. For feveral years after the Revolution, a change of government in England was an event at least as likely to happen, as a change of miniftry is now, in our present state of political tranquillity. No wonder then, if perfons, who were not fufceptible of ftrong attachments, fhould be difpofed to do every thing for fecuring their own future fafety and intereft, whatever the event might be. It may be farther obferved, that men of very good intentions with refpect to the public, who were ftrangers to that fecret information, which was the ground of public measures, might often be at a lofs where to fix their wishes, or what conduct they ought to purfue, as moft effectual to promote the welfare of their country. The critical ftate of government fometimes obliged the king to take measures apparently contradictory to that patriotic fyftem which he profeffed to establish. Such perfons might perhaps think it probable, that, by a new revolution, more liberal conceffions might be obtained from the crown in favour of the people, and the conftitution farther improved. But what we are principally to attend to, with refpect to thofe who did not act from the pure influence of principle, is, that their compliance with the engagements, into which they entered with James or his agents, was evidently to be guided by the ftream of accidents, and the views they entertained of his future fuccefs. If an opportunity occurred of ac quiring emolument and honour under the prefent government, they would not neglect it. This was certainly the fafe fide. Should government change, they might plead neceffity, perhaps even confcience, for having been faithful to the truft repofed in them. Under thefe impreffions, the earl of Marlborough, Ruffel, and others, advanced their own fortune and reputation, and the glory and profperity of England; and contributed, without intending it, to the exclufion of the prince and family, whom they wished to replace on the throne.

Coincident circumstances produce different degrees of belief, with respect to the guilt of the perfons accufed of having carried on fecret correfpondence with James, while they maintained the profeffion of allegiance to William, and even held offices of truft under him. The conduct of Marlborough, who had formerly deferted James, after having been loaded with favours, would naturally have prepared the mind for giving more eafy credit to his treachery to William; though the evidence of it had not been fo accumulated and powerful as to overcome the most inveterate fcepticifm. Ad. &c." Macpherson's State Papers, 1693. To the fame purpofe, a paper entitled, Inftructions to the Earl of Danby, Lord Godolphin, and Churchill.

C+

mitting

mitting that Marlborough renewed his correfpondence with James, with the fincere purpose of serving him, we will not either be furprifed or incredulous, when we read, in the Collection of State Papers fo often referred to, a letter from the princess Anne to her father, expreffing the deepest concern for having deferted him; and, with the moft anxious folicitude, imploring forgivenefs and reconciliation. The afcendency of Marlborough over the mind of that princefs, the rupture which happened about that time between the royal fifters, and the indecent animofities which attended it, are strong corroborative evidences of the truth of the fact, though the authority, upon which it is delivered to us, had not been fufficient to exclude every poffibility of doubt.

There are alfo many circumftances, which, if fairly and minutely attended to, render it extremely doubtful, whether other perfons, who are named in the lift of correfpondents of James, and who conversed with his agents in England, were fincerely and fteadily attached to his intereft. James himself, after receiving the moft flattering accounts concerning the affection and power of his friends, expreffes diftruftful apprehenfions, left their profeflions of friendship fhould be employed for the infidious purpose of detecting and fruftrating his defigns. He appears to have been fufpicious of the fincerity of Ruffel, notwithstanding the repeated and warm declarations of attachment, which that commander made to his agents. Colonel Sackville, the most faithful and affiduous of them, in a letter to the earl of Melfort, expreffes himself in the following words: "I am not deceived in the judgment I formed of Ruffel; for that man has not acted fincerely, and I fear he will never act otherwife t." Lord Marlborough complains to James, that Ruffel had concealed from him the most important intelligence, namely, the deftination of the English fleet to burn Breft, and the time of its failing ||.

It may be farther obferved, that there are very specious reasons for fufpecting, that fome of those perfons, who at first embraced the opportunity of correfponding with James and affifting his counfels, might continue that correfpondence, after their intentions were changed, perhaps for the very purpose of being useful to WilJiam . The earl of Shrewsbury and lord Godolphin were both detected in their correfpondence with James; and, if William had been of a difpofition refentful or fanguinary, might have been configned to the laft difgrace and punishment human laws can inflict. With unparalleled generofity, he not only pardoned, but employed them he not only employed, but trufted them **. Suppose that thefe perfons, monuments of his mercy, had been dead to every feeling of gratitude and generofity, was it pofiole, if they had been endowed with the fmaileft portion of prudence, that they

Letter to Melfort, 3d

Churchill's Letter to Floyd's Accounts carried to

Life of James, 1692. + Ibid. May 1694. Macpherfon's State Papers. King James, May 1694; ibid. Verfailles, ft May, paragraph 7th; compared with Churchill's Letters, 6th May 1694. Dalrymple's Memoirs, vol. i. p. 499.'

could

could ever have ventured to tread again in the dark path of treachery? The eyes of William, they must have been aware, would ever after be fixed upon them with fufpicious circumfpection. He was vigilant, inquifitive, penetrating. At no period was the reftoration of James an event fo probable and near, as to induce them to incur any eminent hazard from the expectation of its taking place. Nay, fo entirely was Shrewsbury reitored to the confidence of William, that he was always confulted by him in the feafon of perplexity and diftrefs, when affection principally directs the choice of counsellors. If Shrewsbury and Godolphin are recorded among the friends of James after the event mentioned, it is natural to conclude, that James and his court were deceived by their profelions made to him at an early period; or, if they again entered into correspondence with him, the fame reafons will incline us to believe, that they must have done fo with the connivance of William, and with the purpofe of rendering it fubfervient to his intentions and defigns.'

In these remarks, we are at a lofs to determine whether the writer's penetration or candour be most to be admired. His apology certainly contains much fubftantial ground of exculpation, or at leaft of extenuation.

A charge against king William, deeply affecting his veracity and honour, which was obliquely infinuated after the conclufion of the peace of Ryfwick, but obtained little credit at that period, has been revived by Mr. Macpherson, and has been pofitively afferted with high pretenfions to proof; namely, that, by a fecret article of the treaty with Lewis, he confented that the fon of James fhould fucceed to the crown of England after his own demife. The grounds of this charge here undergo a minute and mafterly examination; and the conclu fion appears to us a fatisfactory juftification of king William: but the difcuffion is too long for quotation. At the close of the work, a comparative view is taken of the character and conduct of the Whigs and Tories during this reign; of their respective strength in the nation; of their influence at court; and of the inconfiftencies which appeared in the conduct of each. Many just observations are made on this fubject: but for these, alfo, we must refer the reader to the work. We have only room to extract the following sketch of the character of king William:

The dawn of his life was lowering and clouded, and little promifed that luftre which brightened the meridian day. He was born in the feventh month, a few days after the death of his father, whofe authority had been declining under the oppofition of the Louveftein faction. The fon, while in his cradle, was ftripped of all his hereditary dignities and offices by a general affembly of the States. His conftitution was weak, his fortune narrow and embarraffed, his education cramped and neglected. The native vigour of

his