have been a natural and damaging of the death of her royal father. question. Again, if Carte got the She bequeathed to the Abbé Nairne Papers while he was ac- Waters, of the great Jacobite tively engaged, just before his banking family, Prince Charles's death, in a plot to seize St James's confidants, the papers " found in and the royal family, he would her father's library at Florence," not have leisure to arrange them. including four volumes of a MS. They would come to Macpher- "Life of James II.' The Life, son, as the Stuart Papers avow. says the Abbé, is “asserted to edly came to George IV., when bave been collected from Memoirs Prince Regent, “jumbled toge- written in his own hand, to which ther in a mass of confusion,” as they bear continual references, Macpherson says. Finally, Mac- citations, and long extracts.” i pherson, writing in 1775, shortly Nobody denies the existence of after the marriage of Charles, the autograph Memoirs of James and while there were French and II. On March 24, 1701, he deAmerican schemes for raising the posited them in “Our Scotch royal standard in America, while Colledge of Paris," under the Nairne, as ever, was true to his care of Lewis Innes, the Queen's king, would not, could not, be Almoner. On January 12, 1707, explicit as to how Carte got the his son, James III., had them Nairne Papers.

sent to him at St Germains, and Thus the information of Pickle then and there, probably, the the Spy, which could not conceiv- "Life of James II.' was compiled ably have been designed to that from the king's own autograph end, shows at once how Carte may Memoirs. We know, from a letter have got the Nairne Papers into of worthy James Edgar, the loyal his possession, why he “kept servant of James III., dated Jansilence about them,” why Mac- uary 10, 1740, that Carte was pherson could not explain the given access to "the Complete Life facts in public, why the papers of the late King "—that is, to the were in a jumble of confusion, Life founded, in or near 1707, on and why Carte, and, later, Mrs his autographs. That Carte saw Carte, did not send them to the these, is doubtful; and, in 1802, Bodleian.

Charles Fox was informed, by The circumstances which Colonel survivors of the Scots College, Parnell thinks suspicious really af- that Macpherson never saw them. ford presumptions of the truth of They were destroyed in the Macpherson's statement.

Reign of Terror, by a timid lady Next we turn to the anonymous at St Omer, to whose husband Life of James II.,'the other source they had been intrusted. She did of information as to the treasons not like to have royal MSS. in her of Arran, Godolphin, Shrewsbury, possession. Thus perished, in all Danby, Russell, and Marlborough. probability, the ciphered original The MSS. of the Life have their of Marlborough's famous letter own romance. Burns's “Bonnie of May 4, 1694, with all other Lass o’Albany," Charlotte, daugh- original reports from Arran, and ter of Charles Edward and Miss from Godolphin, Sbrewsbury, SunWalkinshaw, died within a year derland, and the rest of William's

never

dubious Ministers. For these we

For these we of King James's autograph Mehave only the evidence of (1) the moirs. drafts of translations into French, We now turn to Colonel Parfor Louis, in the Nairne Papers, nell's other objections to the and (2) the extracts and reports Nairne Papers. They are not in the Life of James II.' "original." "All are projects or

But Jamie Macpherson, who drafts, with corrections. All are could

run straight, has written by Ministers of James. mystified the facts. In his intro- Six are in the handwriting which duction to the “Original Papers" Macpherson attributes to Nairne," (1775), he says that Carte in the other two, Colonel Parnell 1740) obtained access “to such admits, are in the writing of Melpapers, belonging to the family of fort, attested by "harmless papers Stuart, as LAY OPEN in the Scotch in the same collection, which would College at Paris. In particu- not repay the trouble of forging. " lar, he made very large and accur. Again, none of the papers have ate extracts from the 'Life of been folded, or show signs of havJames II.,' written in that Prince's ing been transmitted to Versailles. own hand.” 1

No fair copies are in the French The blushless Jamie now insinu- archives. ates that he, as well as Carte, That drafts of letters aftermade extracts from the autograph wards despatched in fair copies are MSS. of James II. But Edgar's not original documents, one can letter of 1740 does not admit hardly admit. What can be more Carte himself to these sources. original”? Such drafts are not Macpherson doubtless worked on folded or sent anywhere; they are the anonymous 'Life of James kept by the writer or by his secreII.,' perhaps receiving information tary. As to the absence of fair from Jesuits who had seen the copies from the French archives, original. Thus our Celtic bard I have reason to know that the mystified matters, more suo: it absence of later Stuart memorials, does not follow that he forged certainly sent, from the French documents.

archives (as far as they have been Colonel Parnell's first difficulty, searched) is very inexplicable. then, as to the provenance of the But Macaulay (iv. 158, 159, 166) Nairne Papers, as to how Carte avows that one, at least, of the got them, why he was silent about fair copies from the Nairne drafts them, why he left them in dis- -King James's Memorial of Novorder, and did not send them to ember 1672- is actually in the the Bodleian, we have tried to archives of France. solve. Next we have admitted tion of “the handwriting attribthat, as an able writer in the uted by Macpherson to Nairne," 'Edinburgh Review' showed long can be tested by Nairne's other before Macaulay wrote (June letters, which must exist at Wind1816), Macpherson equivocated, sor, and, probably, in the possession

even fabled, as to his use of his representative. Moreover,

The ques

or

1 Macpherson adds, " But his most valuable acquisition was the papers of Mr Nairne.” Edgar says nothing about giving to Carte Nairne's papers. Jamie himself says, in the next page but one, that how Carte got Nairne's papers “is imperfectly known.” Then it is not known that he got them in 1740. My hypothesis that he got them in 1752-53 is unshaken.

such an “innocent" document as in what Admiral Russell sent him his preface to James's devotional word of by the Earl of Middleton, papers is actually in the Bodleian. and Mr Floyd ” (or Lloyd). We Nairne's handwriting is therefore shall presently prove the reality as certain as Melfort's. Again, of Lloyd's dealings with Admiral Melfort himself undeniably made Russell. Colonel Parnell says that corrections, in his own hand, in the date is after Melfort was these Nairne drafts, even in the superseded as James's secretary by draft of the translation of Marl- Middleton. Middleton arrived at borough’s letter of May 4. Con- St Germains in April 1693, but sequently the papers must have Macaulay says that he was joined been written by his secretary, - with Melfort as secretary, not that who was Nairne. Thus Colonel he superseded Melfort. Macaulay Parnell does not succeed in dispar- is right. aging the authenticity of Nairne's The third document need not handwriting. He does not speak detain us : the fourth calls itself, of comparing it with other speci- “ Draft of certain reports from mens, or of any search for them, England,” and is in Melfort's hand. though he visited the Bodleian, It inculpates the usual English where they lie. He cites no ex- nobles, and Colonel Parnell suppert's opinion. All these objec- poses it to be, not a true copy of tions, therefore, fall to the ground. reports, but a thing concocted by The Nairne Papers, so far, are Nairne and Melfort, in collusion just what they were bound to be with their English reporting agents. a secretary's drafts and brouillons. This is only his theory. The fifth

The first document is a draft of document, another draft of Eaga French translation of James's lish reports, by Nairne, implicates Memorial to Louis, dated Novem- Sunderland, Arran, and Churchill. ber 1692. Macaulay accepts it as As Macpherson points out, the

James's words," " James's con- passages concerning them are decise narrative" of his dealings with leted by pen strokes.

For some William's English Ministers. This reason Melfort and Nairne did is the paper in which he describes this, and we can only conjecture at Marlborough’s plot for his Restora- their motive. The paper repretion (1691), and the disclosure of sents an abandoned project. Why that plot by indiscreet Jacobites, abandoned, as all the characters who thought that Marlborough were already implicated, we do not was fighting for his own hand. know. Then we have a French Colonel Parnell dismisses all this rendering, by Nairne, of a letter as a specimen of “the brazen style from Arran to James, implicating in which poor James was deluded Sunderland. It is, says Colonel by the Ministers and secretaries Parnell, "considerably corrected,” who designed and drafted his Me- -as drafts of translations usually morials to Louis.” But Macaulay are. supports James's statement by one

We now

to & human of Burnet's, in the Harleian MSS. being, Captain Lloyd, whose re(6584). This the Colonel does not port of what he did in England notice.

(in April 1694) is done by Melfort In the next document (October into French, and is indorsed "car16, 1693), we find Melfort's In- ried to Versailles, the 1st of May structions to William's Ministers. 1694.” Lloyd reports on his “His Majesty" (James) “trusts interviews with Admiral Russell,

come

was

a

Marlborough, and Godolphin. arrived at St Germains, King James Russell, he says,

made

used to ask him if he had seen me,

vague promises, Marlborough paid com

and he saying 'No;' 'What, in the pliments, Godolphin betrayed the

name of God, do you come over

without imparting it to my best attack on Brest,-familiar to Louis

friend?'"2 weeks before. Colonel Parnell decides that - if not a a later Captain Lloyd, adds Ailesbury, forgery," Lloyd's report was "a snarling creature of my quietly composed at St Germains Lord Middleton.' by Melfort and Lloyd in concert," Thus Lloyd's dealings with to delude Louis, who, the Colonel Admiral Russell were well known thinks, was easily deluded about at the time. He was also Englishmen. Louis was not “creature," not of Melfort's, but simple! Of Lord Ailesbury he of Melfort's coadjutor and rival said, This is the first man of Middleton. quality with a great estate that Now, observe, about May 1 hath repaired to you; the first 1694, Middleton's creature and man that came over about an affair Melfort are (Colonel Parnell says) of the most high importance; and “concerting" a report for Louis. the first that never asked anything But Colonel Parnell makes it an for himself.” 1 This is not the tone argument against Marlborough's of credulity.

letter of May 4-three days later But did Lloyd in fact

have inter- —that Sackville and Marlborough views with Admiral Russell, as are communicating news, not to the Melfort makes him say? He did; Protestant Middleton, but to “the and for William's admiral to displaced and more or less disreceive an agent of James and graced " Catholic, Melfort. “Does France is sufficient treason. Lloyd not this alone destroy, the possi

no ordinary man; he had bility of the paper" (the French served James on the deck as draft of Marlborough's letter) captain of a ship, on shore as being authentic ?” groom of the bed-chamber.

Lörd Alas! Marlborough's letter is not Ailesbury, who hated him, says :- to Melfort, but “to the King of “He was the very picture of Cap

England," James. It is enclosed tain Surly, in the Comedy of Sir with one from Sackville, to whom Courtly Nice.

I was most addressed we do not know. But, credibly informed that once he went as the Lloyd report of three days from my Lord Marlborough and Ad- earlier shows, even Middleton's miral Russell, and I know that, at

very "creature," Lloyd, had, when his return, he did alight at the house of the latter, and was carried into his

preparing memorials for the French closet in the presence of Captain Priest- Court, to deal "in concert " not man, and Captain Matthew Aylmer, with Middleton, but with Melfort. and other sub-officers. And a little This was the regular course of before, the two last had told it as business. So Colonel Parnell's arnews of the town, that Lloyd was gument against the authenticity of in France, and he coming in soon the letter vanishes. Vanishes, too, after, the old Admiral said, 'See, gen: his theory that the letter was tlemen, how you are mistaken !' This Lloyd, as I said, went often over, but

was

!

1

he

ance.

806
Marlborough's Unconscious Treason.

(June
dismissed, he was still, in the eyes Marlborough's letter get into the
of Marlborough,” more important, Life of James'? Is that a
and more to be trusted, than Mid- forgery too, and, if so, to what
dleton.

end? For the author of the Life,
Melfort was not, then, “dis- while giving the letter (as far as
missed” at all. In January, essential), states his doubt as to
February, April, and May 1694, whether" Marlborough, after all

,
the Nairne Papers show Melfort was sincere.
acting as agent between James Unluckily, Macpherson, consti-
and Louis. Thus Marlborough's tutionally false, added to his copy
letter cannot be "a design of of the Nairne French draft trans-
Melfort's ” to keep up his import- lation of Marlborough's letter this

The theory is absurd. note : "In King James's Memoirs
Louis needed only to ask James, there is the following memoran-
“Had you a letter, of which I dum, written, upon receipt of the
possess a translation, from my letter, in his own hand: May 4th,
Lord Churchill ?” and Melfort was Lord Churchill informed the King
ruined if he had forged.

of the design on Brest'” (p. 521,
The colonel has another string ann. 1694).
to his bow, The letter “forms

Macpherson lied. He never
the apex of the pyramid of false- saw James's autograph Memoirs.
hood under which Macpherson He merely copies the marginal
has striven to bury Marlborough.” note of the Life.

What did he
But if the design was Melfort's,

mean by "p. 521”? The refer-
what has the wretched Macpherson ences in the Life to the original
to do with the matter? Why,

Memoirs, from 1694 to 1696, cite
Colonel Parnell, nimbly shifting the Memoirs from “vol. ix. p.
his ground, suggests that Mac- 390” to “vol. ix. p. 395.” There is
pherson forged the French draft

no room for “p. 521"! We admit
of the letter of Marlborough, a Macpherson's roguery, but a com-
draft in Nairne's hand, with a plete forgery needs proof by ex.
dishonest interpolation in Mel- perts' evidence.
fort's! No expert's evidence is borough's letter in
cited for the forgery. Clearly accounted for by Colonel Parnell,
the letter cannot be an impos- unless by a suggestion that it is
ture by Melfort, and also by a Jacobite slander,

and it is
Macpherson.

enough to damn him.
How did the Celtic bard, ex There is another puzzle. Mac-
hypothesi, work the forgery? pherson dates Sackville's letter
Thus, - in the Life of King “May 3.” The Life dates it “May
James II.' (taken from his Mem- 4.” Colonel Parnell has a theory
oirs, now lost) occurs a copy of to account for Macpherson's forging
part of Marlborough's letter.

the date “May 3," but it fails, for
This Macpherson read, copied, Macpherson himself dates it " May
and forged the rest, doing it into 4” in his History, founded on the
French, in Nairne's hand, and papers, and published in the same
adding, with infernal cunning, a year. More, he gives the date
roguish interpolation, in Melfort's "May 4” in his * Extracts from

The
interest, and in the hand of Mel- the Life of King James."
fort. But how did the copy of date May 3 is a blunder by some-

1 Original Papers, i. 244.

807
1897.] Marlborough's Unconscious Treason.
body, not a fresh supercherie of the Revolution !” O Sancta Sim-
Macpherson's. We have no doubt plicitas ! But, this being so, "it
whatever that Marlborough wrote is impossible that Marlborough
the letter of May 4, and that the could ever have penned" his
Nairne draft of a French transla- famous letter of May 4, "for it
tion is no forgery of Macpherson's. clearly exceeds anything that
Not that he had a grain of honesty, William could have sanctioned.”
but because no kind of proof of Certainly it does! If Russell had
forgery is adduced.

acted expeditiously, when
Colonel Parnell has yet another started for Brest on the day after
means of exculpating all William's Marlborough's letter was written,
treacherous servants. They were

he would have found the place
in correspondence with James, but half fortified and half garrisoned.
by William's permission, and for Talmash would have taken the
the purpose of extracting, for port.
William's use, information as to This is the disclosure to which
his designs. It is a pretty employ. I have been leading up, while
ment for English gentlemen who stating the arguments of Marl-
first betray their king, and then borough's defenders. The case is
act as spies on him, and as agents clear. Marlborough wrote his
provocateurs. Colonel

Parnell warning on May 4. Russell set
proves his point by “the Ailes- sail on May 5. He might have
bury admission "- that is, asser-

been in Camaret Bay, say, on tion. Lord Ailesbury says, “It is May 8. He must have found very certain that King William Brest undermanned and undegave leave to" the old set "to cor- fended. For Vauban himself did respond with my Lord Middleton not reach Brest till May 13, and, at St Germains.. The plausible later, reported that “as yet no pretext was that Lord Middleton reinforcements have arrived." He should be deluded, that he should then, after May 13, made all the know nothing of what passed in subterranean passages bomb-proof; England of high secret moment, mounted ninety mortars and three but that they four would wire hundred guns in good positions ; draw all out of my Lord Middle- removed the ships beyond the ton.” This pretext Ailesbury at- reach of English shells; and had tributes to Sunderland, His large reinforcements. All this meaning is clear. By the pretext was done on the first possible of “ wire-drawing” Middleton, the moment after the intelligence old set of double-dyed traitors sent by Marlborough could reach got William's leave to correspond

Vauban from Versailles, and not with James. Having got it, they till then. . could use it exactly as suited before Marlborough's letter ar them; could betray William to rived, nothing was done. Till James or James to William ; and, that fatal letter had been at least, could “hedge” against a ceived by Louis, Vauban made Restoration. Colonel Parnell as- no preparations at all. signs to Marlborough the noble Louis's letter to Vauban, anpart of swindling James, even nouncing the intended English when he was in William's disgrace assault on Brest, is indeed of "to complete the great work of April . But, for reasons best

1 Wolseley's Marlborough, ii. 313. VOL. CLXI.-NO, DCCCCLXXX.

31

Noris Marl

the Life

Before that moment,

re

» 1