*

yet accomplished, in the conduct of our political concerns, by the disuse of the privy council as a deliberative and executive board, and the establishment of a committee, or cabinet, of which, at a later period, one person was placed at the head as prime minister. The lord treasurer was charged with "assuming to himself the management of Irish affairs, which were, in preceding times, dispatched always by the secretaries, and passed in council. To this assumption the accusers added the pecuniary motive of converting a very great sum of money out of the Irish revenue to his own private advantage." I find nothing said in support of this charge, or in answer to it.

A supposed obiter dictum in a cause at the treasury, that a 66 new proclamation was better than an old law," was the foundation of another charge †, upon which we are equally without information. Upon each of these charges the house resolved, that there was no ground for impeachment.

The treasurer's financial administration will come under discussion hereafter. I may now say, upon every principle of justice and criticism, that, at this period, no official malversation was proved against the earl of Danby.

Upon the remaining very curious article we have more light, though it is still somewhat obscure. - Peregrine, the second son of Danby (who surrendered to him the dignity of viscount Dumblaine, in Scotland), sought in marriage Frances, daughter and heiress of sir Thomas Hyde. The lady, who appears to have been under the guardianship of her stepfather, Vyner, the lord mayor, had been married, or partly married, at a very early age, to one Emerton, her mother's nephew, but, apparently, a low man. As to this alleged marriage a suit at law was depending, and the article charged Danby with having caused a principal witness in the cause to be arrested, brought before the king himself to be

* Article v.

† Article vii.

examined in the presence of Danby, and induced by threats and promises to give false evidence, with a view to setting asid the marriage. In support of this charge, it was proposed to ask several questions of the lord mayor, in which a fresh accusation appears, namely, that the treasurer endeavoured to purchase Vyner's co-operation, by a promise that a crown debt to him should be paid, and a place given to his son. It also suggested that Danby had advised and assisted Vyner in defending the suit. But the house, justly attaching the greatest importance to the charge of impeding public justice, refused to ask of Vyner any question but one ; that one related to some tampering with the clergyman who married Emerton, and to the arrest and examination. of Vyner's servant, the witness to whom the charge referred.

The journals record nothing beyond the fact, that the question was asked and answered; whereupon it was resolved that there was no matter of impeachment in this article.

It appears from Evelyn's Diary, quoted hereafter, that the suit was carried into the court of delegates: there were also proceedings in the King's Bench between Emerton and Vyner. The proceedings certainly gave much scandal to contemporaries.

As the impeachment did not go up to the lords, Danby was not called upon for an answer; but he declared upon his honour, in a letter written some years afterwards to lord Clarendon (to whom Mrs. Hyde was related), that neither he nor lady Danby knew any thing whatever of the affair, until he heard from the court of delegates that his son and Mrs. Hyde had acknowledged their marriage.*

It has been confidently asserted, that Danby did not rely altogether upon his innocence, or upon the justice

* Lord Danby to lord Hyde, July 15, 1682. Clar. Corr. i. 74.

of the house of commons, but secured his acquittal by "high bribing."

" *

Bishop Burnett ascribes it to Danby as a novelty, that, instead of attempting the virtue of the more eminent speakers, he purchased the suffrages of the less important but more numerous herd of silent members. This assertion, which has been adopted by the generality of historians, is scarcely consistent with the supposed purchase of Garraway. I can throw no new light upon the subject. Certainly, nothing in the character of the age, or of the man, authorises me to dispute the probability of the statements of Burnet and Marvel, to which lord Guilford's may be added; but all persons must agree

* Mar. i. 427. It appears, from a piece of poetry called "The Chequer Inn, a Supper given by the Treasurer to the Parliament Men, 1675," that Danby gave an entertainment upon his acquittal, which was attended by a host of his supporters. The poein (so called by courtesy), which is ascribed to Andrew Marvel, has not sufficient merit for insertion, and is moreover not distinguished in point of delicacy from other works of the age I shall extract only the portrait of Danby himself.

"I observed this good humour began to decay by taking off enemies by preferring them; and those friends that were low in the world, or had mercenary natures, had money given them: so that ambitious men expected to be sought too and caressed, because they were able to trouble the king's affairs; and the honest, plain, (but not discerning) country gentleman believed every vote that was given for the court was the effect of a pension, and would not join, lest he should be thought to do it because he had some hopes of a reward."— Dalrymple, 8vo. i. 133.

1 The members of parliament whose presence is celebrated, are these; Wheler, George Montague, ("the foreman of the British crew,") Mansel!, and Morgan from Wales; the western glory, Harry Ford, sir Courtenay Pole, Nedenham, Birkenham, Chesney, Throckmorton, Neville, Delman, Lawley, Portman, Cholmeley of Vale Royal, Hanmer, Herbert, Sands, and Musgrave.

VOL. V.

with Ralph that, nothing is easier to be said, nothing is harder to be proved."+ Defeated in their attempt to ruin lord Danby by personal accusation, the leaders of opposition now reverted to the more ordinary course of impugning the measures of his government. He had established, and sincerely desired to maintain, the neutrality of England between France and Holland. But a body of English troops still remained in the service of the king of France, and it was the joint object of the Dutch and Spanish ministers, and of the English opposition, to procure the return of these troops. The house of commons addressed the king to recall them and to prevent any more from going. Charles promised the latter, but refused the former of these requests as inconsistent with his honour.§ This answer produced much heat and disorder, and after the word all had been omitted by a bare majority, it was resolved, by the speaker's || casting voice, to renew the address, but no further proceedings are recorded. The debates afforded a notable instance of the uncertainty of facts, in their nature easily capable of proof, and important in their bearing. The amount of the auxiliaries was stated, by one party, at 8000, by the other at 2000; a difference so material as fairly to justify a difference of opinion upon the main question; for unless there was any stipulation with the States-general to the contrary, the smaller number might reasonably have been left to waste itself by casualties. It was

* I. 96.

+ The biographer of Marvel relates a story of an attempt to bribe him, by the lord treasurer in person, who visited him at his lodgings, offered him a place, and afterwards, 1000l. These Marvel refused, although, according to one edition of the story, he had on the same day to borrow a guinea of a friend; and, according to an improved version, convinced the minister of his independence, by exhibiting to him the frugality of his table. This version is quoted by Mr. Cooke, in his History of Party, i. 35. from a certain "Mr. Dove." (See Ralph, i. 344.) No trace of the story is to be found in Marvel's letters or tracts.

April 19. and May 5. 1675. Parl. Hist. 678. 698.

§ P. 700.

|| Sir Edward Seymour, whom Burnet accuses of great partiality to the government side, and to whom it had been objected, that he was a privy counsellor. His vote may raise a question, whether he was courting the country party, wished to show that he was not partial, or whether he knew that the anti-French address was agreeable to Danby, with whom he was then, I believe, on good terms.

Page 709. Lingard, xii. 315. The Parl. Hist. is incomplete, as it too often is. See Journ. ix. 335. 343. 354.

asserted on the part of government that an equal number of Englishmen were serving with the prince of Orange, and that the compromise suggested in the king's answer was conformable to the understanding had with the Dutch on signing the treaty of 1674. The point is of importance to our inquiry, because any favour shown to France in respect of these men, would detract from the earl of Danby's character as an opponent of the French interest. But there is unquestionable evidence in favour of the statement which was made by his friends in the house of commons. Sir William Temple, who negotiated the treaty with the marquis del Fresno, Spanish ambassador, empowered by the Dutch, declares that the question of recall, which was one of those in which he had the greatest difficulty, "was composed by private engagements to suffer those that were in the French service to wear out without any recruits, and to permit no new ones to go over; but at the same time to give leave for such levies as the states should think fit to make in his majesty's dominions, both of English and Scotch regiments." Charles had not during his reign any other minister than Danby who would have sanctioned a stipulation so unequally injurious to France.

The passing of the first address, and the closeness of all the subsequent divisions, afford sufficient proof, either that Danby was not very zealous in opposing these antigallican votes, or that the influence which he is supposed to have maintained by corruption was not very effective. But it has been confidently said, that foreign gold, which had already mixed itself with the royal treasure, now found its way into the pockets of individual members; and that while France bribed on the one side, the efforts of the opposition were encouraged by money supplied by the ministers of Spain and Holland.†

Temple's Memoirs, ii. 255.

+"The Dutch and Spaniards spared no pains nor expense of money, to animate as many as they could against France; our lord treasurer (Dany) lord keeper (Finch), all the bishops, and such as call themselves old cava hers, who were all then as one man, were not less zealous against popery." -Coleman's Letters; and Parl. Hist. iv. lxxxvii.