ΕΧΑΜΙΝΑΤ

T must

treme

nerous

that the

memor

accufto

as diftinguished above the

men, for their public fpir or incorruptible integrity, been fuch excellent and

as we had conceived them to be; but, on the contrary, that in those actions, which wore the mask of virtue and of patriotism, they were chiefly actuated by fordid and unworthy motives. That affection and esteem, which we entertain for eminent and uncommon virtue, though exhibited in characters not contemporary with ourfelves, and of whom we have no knowledge but from the pages of hiftory, occafion us to intereft ourselves in whatever relates to them, and to feel painful fenfations at any discoveries, whether real or pretended, that have a tendency to leffen our veneration of them.

Ir is now generally known, that a difcovery of this kind has been fuppofed to be made, relative to Lord WILLIAM RUS SEL, and ALGERNON SYDNEY, in the late publication of papers in the fecond vo Jume of Sir John Dalrymple's Memoirs.

It would, however, be an injuftice to the memory of these celebrated men, to form an hafty judgment upon this fubject. It fhould at least be thoroughly and accurately investigated. RUSSEL and SYDNEY were condemned in their own time, withs out law, and without juftice: let not pofterity condemn them, but on the fulleft evidence, and after the moft impartial exa

mination.

THE papers, on which the charges against Lord RUSSEL and Mr. SYDNEY are grounded, we are informed by Sir John Dalrymple, are to be found in the DEPOT DES AFFAIRES ETRANGERES at Verfailles, and were written by Monf. Barillon, ambassador from the court of France to that of England, in the reign of Charles the Second. And thefe charges against them are, that Lord RUSSEL intrigued with the court of Verfailles, and that ALGERNON SYDNEY took money

of thefe papers, or the degree of credit which may be due to them, I shall examine into the nature of the charges against Lord RUSSEL and Mr. SYDNEY, which are founded on them, on the fuppofition that they are authentic, and fairly publifhed. And, perhaps, even in this view, the tranfactions in which they are reprefented to have been concerned, will, upon a fair examination, appear more defenfible than may have been apprehended.

THE charge against Lord RUSSEL, of INTRIGUING WITH THE FRENCH Court, is chiefly founded on a memorial of Barillon, dated the 14th of March, 1678. And, in order to enable the reader to form a more accurate judgment upon the subject, it will be proper to recite the words of Barillon, as tranflated and published by Sir John Dalrymple. • Mr. de Rouvigny,' fays he, has feen lord Ruffel and lord Hollis,

wha