popish plot had upon the house of lords, and that he did not expect the bill for incapacitating the catholics to pass through that house. But, although they passed this bill, the lords, on this, as on numerous occasions in all times, honourably distinguished themselves for temper and justice from the commons, by refusing to join the lower house in their address against queen Catherine. Some votes against private counsels also passed the commons, which were supposed to be particularly levelled against Danby; and Titus Oates was brought to prove that he had not an orthodox respect for him and his story.† But the treachery of a friend now put into the hands of Danby's enemies the means of effecting his ruin. I have already noticed the correspondence which took place in March, 1678, between Danby and Ralph Montagu, in which the treasurer became, reluctantly, and by the special order of the king, concerned in negotiating for money from France. Montagu was at the same time soliciting Danby's interest towards procuring him the office of secretary of state§, and took mortal offence at Danby's avowed preference of his old friend, sir William Temple. After a fruitless attempt to engage in his treacherous attempt the duchess of Cleveland, (who writes of him as "an abominable man ||,") he came over from Paris without leave, obtained a seat in parliament for Northampton, where Temple was again his rival¶, and commenced a skilful attack upon the minister. He prepared his way by an intrigue with Barillon, to whom he opened his grievances, and boasted that it * Reresby, p. 73, Parl. Hist. 1052. Journ. 551. "That a representa. tion be made to his majesty of the dangers that have and may arise from private advices, contrary to the advice of parliament.' " He was reported to have said, on seeing Oates, "There goes one of the saviours of England, but I hope to see him hanged within a month." See p. 277. antè. His letters, in Danby, March 29. April 11., June 4., pp. 76. 83, 88. I find no notice of this in Temple's Memoirs, but it appears from the Journal, ix. 557. was in his power to ruin the treasurer; and that he would accuse him of treason, if assured of the protection of Louis: and he specifically demanded, if Barillon be believed, a gratuity of 100,000 crowns, if he should succeed in ruining the minister. A fund of 100,000 livres was also to be furnished, to bribe members of parliament. In recommending this villainous scheme to the notice of his master, the Frenchman says, "As your majesty has commanded me to do every thing that is possible to occasion troubles to the king of England, it does not appear to me that any thing could possibly happen more disagreeable to him, than to see the man accused in parliament, in whom he has reposed the care of affairs and the government of the kingdom for two years. The treasurer's enemies, who are very numerous, will take courage, and it is not impossible that the duke of York may abandon him, and turn against him.”* The duke certainly was not well pleased with Danby, but I know not in what degree he acted hostilely towards him. Sir William Temple enumerates, among Danby's enemies, the duchess of Portsmouth, the duke of Monmouth, Shaftesbury, and Essex. Danby's Enlish politics might sufficiently account for the hostility of the French lady, and it appears that the treasurer had obstructed her pension from France. The others hated him, as the most efficient man in office. Danby was now warned of Montagu's intentions ‡, but could not believe that the man who had counselled him to take French money, and who had professed unaltered devotion to him, would venture to impeach him; and he endeavoured to turn the tables against his intended accuser. He had heard through sir William Temple from M. Olivencranz, the Swedish minister at the Hague, of certain designs hostile to the protestant religion, plotted between Montagu and the pope's nuncio at Paris ||; and upon this slender ground, *Barillon, Oct. 24. 1678. Dalr. i. 249. + Danby Letters, p. 288. Reresby, 71. Danby Letters, 266. July 1., p. 90. "I showed it (a letter from Temple, Nov. 5. 1678) immediately to his majesty, who is thereby made very desirous of getting all the information Danby ventured to take a step which accelerated his own ruin. He caused the papers of Montagu to be seized by royal authority, and acquainted the house of commons, in a message from the king, that such was the cause of the seizure.* The unprincipled Montagu was now closely allied with the opposition leaders, some of whom moved, and instantly carried, a vote, perfectly regular, for asking the king whether the information was upon oath. The person of Montagu was not attached; indeed, he was in the house of commons when the king's message came down, and after being a silent listener for a considerable time, he stated his belief that his papers were seized in order to get possession of "some letters of consequence, that he had to produce, of the designs of a great minister of state." If this were Danby's object in the extraordinary, and, I must admit, unjustifiable seizure of papers, it signally failed. Lord Russell, and other leaders, now avowed that Montagu had apprised them of the purport of Danby's letters, and several members were sent for a box which Montagu pointed out, and of which the king's messengers he can possibly, of what is yet but darkly hinted by M. Oliveneranz. You say he read to you a list of several persons designed for great offices, &c... But it is not plain, whether that was a list he had lately from England, or some other list he knows of, because he said he was sure the design was not only against his majesty and kingdom, but against all other protestant princes and states; and the designs of the papists against the protestant religion in England had been long a brewing. As for what concerns Mr. Montagu, I perceive his majesty knows nothing of his conferences with the pope's nuncio; and for what M. Olivencranz supposes might have been the occasion of these conferences, viz. a treaty of marriage between the king of Spain and the duke of Orleans's daughter, his majesty says, that he never entered into any such treaty, nor ever gave Mr. Montagu any instructions about it."-Danby to Temple, Nov. 22. 1678. Danby, 266. "His majesty having received information that his late ambassador in France, Mr. Montagu, a member of this house, had held several private conferences with the pope's nuncio there, has, to the end that he may discover the truth of the matters, given orders for the seizing of Mr. Montagu's papers. "-Dec. 19. 1678, ix. 559. + Parl. Hist. 1058. Burnet, ii. 175. "Mr. Montagu acquainting the house that he had in his custody seve ral papers which he conceived might tend very much to the safety of his majesty's person and the preservation of the kingdom, Ordered, that the lord Russell, &c. do take Mr. Montagu's directions, and repair immediately to the place where the said writings are lodged, and bring the same to the house." -Journ. 559. had seized the key, without opening the box. This, however, the house did; and Montagu, being permitted to select such papers as he thought fit, leaving the rest untouched, drew forth Danby's letters of January 16. and March 25. 1678, the latter being the ill-fated letter about French money. On the very same day, the house resolved, by 179 to 116, to impeach the treasurer.* After the impeachment had been voted, Danby sent to the speaker two of Montagu's letters †, explaining the intrigues of the king of France with William Russell and other leaders of the opposition. The house heard the letters, but took no further notice of them. The king too, in answer to the call for the grounds of the arrest, sent several letters to the house; these also the commons disregarded. Lord Cavendish and Mr. Williams were the managers principally concerned in preparing articles of impeachment, which were substantially as follows: - 1. "That he had traitorously§ encroached to himself regal power, by treating with foreign powers, and instructing ambassadors, without communication with the secretaries of state, or council;"—this clause was directed against the Montagu correspondence, but it is not easy to explain what follows, "against the express declaration of his majesty and his parliament; thereby intending to defeat and overthrow the provision that has been deliberately made by his majesty, and his parliament, for the safety and preservation of his majesty's kingdom and dominions."|| 2. That he endeavoured to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical way of government; and designed the raising of an army, upon pretence of a war with the French king, and to continue it as a standing army ment. P. 1069. The solicitor-general, Winnington, spoke for the impeach- Journ. 560. These papers were destroyed, I believe, in the fire of 1834. A motion to leave out the word "traitorously" was rejected, 179 to 141. On reading this article a second time, a motion for recommitting the articles was negatived, 179 to 137. within the kingdom; and that he misemployed the money which was granted for disbanding the army, and took no security from the paymaster. 3. That to hinder the meeting of parliaments, and thereby to alter the constitution of the government, he negotiated a peace with the French king upon disadvantageous terms, for doing whereof, he endeavoured to obtain large sums of money from the French king, to enable him to carry on such traitorous designs. "4. That he is popishly affected; and hath traitorously concealed (after he had notice) the late horrid and bloody plot and conspiracy, contrived by the papists against his majesty's person and government; and hath suppressed the evidence, and reproachfully discountenanced the king's witnesses in the discovery of it, in favour of popery, immediately tending to the destruction of the king's sacred person, and the subversion of the protestant religion." 5. That he had wasted the king's treasure in unnecessary pensions and secret service, to the amount of 231,6027. in two years, and had diverted one branch of the revenue from the exchequer to private uses, and removed two commissioners who refused to concur therein. 6. That he had obtained divers considerable grants of the ancient revenue of the crown to himself. To a contemporary, ignorant of the secret history of this time, the indignation of the house would appear natural; to us, it is disgusting. The principal speakers against the minister, Bennett, Titus, Harbord, and Powle, were themselves in the pay of France, and lord Russell was at least conusant of this fact. The shameless treachery of Montagu himself requires no comment *; and the association with him reflects no credit upon the leaders of opposition. So soon as the articles were read in, the house of lords, lord Danby made a hasty speecht, not only with *See Lingard, xiii. 120. Parl. Hist. 1069. State Trials, xi. 627. |