Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu/490

476 succession, and to overthrow their rival, Danby. In the prosecution of these selfish ends, they had, as usual, assumed the easy mask of patriotism, and had been joined by the republican and patriot party. They had got up the cry of popery, and driven the nation frantic by alarm of popish plots, and into much bloodshed, of which the end was not yet. Their present attack on Danby was to thrust down a much better man than themselves, though by no means a perfect one. But Danby had always detested the French alliance, and the use made of it to ruin the protestant nations on the continent, and destroy the balance of power in favour of France. He had consented, it is true, but most reluctantly, to write some of the king's- begging letters to Louis, and now the opposition, whose hands were filthy with handling Louis's bribery money, had contrived to make him appear not the enemy, but actually the ally and tool of France. Montague, the great broker of these corruptions, and who had taken good care of himself, was become the chastiser of a man who was not a tenth part so guilty as himself. But the darkest part of this story is the share which the patriotic party had in this receipt of French money, and amongst them such names as Algernon Sidney and Hampden, the grandson of the great patriot.

We have seen Sydney so long ago as 1666 soliciting Louis for one hundred thousand crowns, to enable his party to attempt the re-establishment of a republic. Louis was as ready to pension, or at least to fee, the opposition, as he was to pension Charles, because, when he could not keep Charles to his plans, he could embarrass him by these so-called patriots, the greater part of whom were in parliament, and who now, by these out cries of popish plots, rendered parliament hostile to the king, and still more to his successor. We have been told that Charles received the French money to enslave his country, the patriots to preserve its freedom; but the discovery of patriots being in the pay of the French king, whose very position and ambition rendered it impossible that he could be anything but an enemy to England, is too revolting to be dwelt upon. If they were honest patriots, they must have been very shallow ones; but shallow they were not, and their acuteness of intellect can only be admitted at the expense of their principles. "When," says Sir John Dalrymple, "I found in the French despatches intriguing with the court of Versailles, and taking money from it, I felt very nearly the same shock as if I had seen a son turn his back in the day of battle." What must have been the astonishment of an Englishman in discovering such a list as the following of his countrymen bribed by Louis to serve his purposes in England? These were Barillou's reports of his payments in 1678–9:—

Subsequent payments, according to Barillon:—

This is a frightful list, and many ingenious theories have been started to get rid of it. It has been suggested that such men as Hampden, Littleton, Foley, and others, stanch opposition members of the house of commons, were men of large property, and could have no motive in receiving Loius's money, but did perhaps receive it so as not to offend him. But why should real patriots fear offending the French king, whose sole and notorious object was to aggrandise himself at the expense of every people in Europe? Such men needed no stimulus to patriotism if it genuinely existed in them, and had no cause to fear the resentment of Louis at the refusal of his money. Such a plea is simply ridiculous. A more plausible one is, that Barillon and his agents, Baber, Coleman, and others, probably pocketed the money, and returned the names of the patriots as having received what was never offered, or, if so, refused by them. In favour of this theory is the fact that Coleman, on his trial in Titus Oates's plot, confessed that he had received two thousand five hundred pounds from Barillon, to distribute amongst members of parliament, which he converted to his own use. We should be glad, indeed, to be able to think that such was the case altogether, but it is admitted that wo cannot apply this theory to Algernon Sidney; that it is perfectly clear that he did receive Louis's money; that in 1660 he was personally in Paris soliciting money, and had it offered by Louis himself. It is, however, of little consequence pursuing this theory farther. We know that lord William Russell, when Ruvigny offered him money, sternly refused it, and declared that he would have nothing to do with those that he knew did receive it; and that Denzell Hollis refused a diamond snuff-box unless he could have the permission of his sovereign to receive it; but here the process of refusal ends; and as there was a very loose morality afloat amongst all classes of courtiers and politicians of that day, as there has been of too many in other times, as to money getting, we fear no good case of clearance can be made out for the so-called patriots of the above black list. As to the French money poured into the English court and its environs in this infamous reign, it was almost limitless. Lord St. Albans received the diamond snuff-box which Hollis declined, plainly claiming something for his services to Louis in England. Buckingham and the earl of Sunderland were greedy applicants for such money. The duchess of Portsmouth, Louis's prime spy at Charles's court, was not only a regular pensioner, but had a title and estate conferred on her and her descendants for her services at the English court; and it says little for the popular party at that day, that they