Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/381

 1920 MACPHERSON AND THE NAIRNE PAPERS 373 A third is : . . . qu'ils estoient fort faches de croire par la maniere dont le Pl/incel d'0{range] en parloit^ que cela seroit sur des terms fort prejudiciable a V^^ Mte puisque infalliblement il ^ [? ne] faileroit par la d'obliger Sa May*e Ch. defair sortir^ Vostre Mayte de ses Koyaumes.* The other corrections are of no more importance than these specimens — and this is true of the other papers. {h) The Ailesbury Admission.^ This is a statement by Ailesbury that William gave permission to Marlborough, Godolphin, Shrews- bury, and Russell to correspond with Lord Middleton at St. Ger- main, in order that they might thus discover the designs of the Jacobites. In the Life of James II ^ it is asserted that Russell ' in all probability did but delude the King, by the Prince of Orange's permission ', and that it was still a mystery whether the same was not true of Marlborough.' Colonel Parnell accepted this explanation of the ' alleged communications ' between St. Germain and William's ministers. He shows a lack of critical rigour in accepting a Jacobite explana- tion of the reason why these statesmen corresponded with James while rejecting the Jacobite accounts of the correspondence. The writer of the Life of James II might reasonably be expected to know about the actual intelligence received at St. Germain, but he would be a most unlikely person to be informed of the motives of those who sent such intelligence. Similarly, it is extremely improbable that Ailesbury, who wrote his memoirs after living in exile for thirty years, would be cognizant of the secrets of the court of William. There are more serious objections, however, than these. Shrewsbury is said to have resigned the seals by James's order, and to have accepted them again when William taxed him with seeing a Jacobite agent. ^ Furthermore, when he was implicated by Fen wick's confession, he was careful to explain to William that he had refused to engage in any conspiracy when Middleton came to see him.® These facts cannot be reconciled with Ailesbury's theories. Such an excuse, if valid, would not ante, xii. 268-70. ' ii. 523, 558. The writer is, however, grossly inconsistent, for on the same page (558) he states that Fenwick's confession, that Godolphin, Marlborough, and Russell corresponded with James, ' instead of appeasing, heightened the Prince of Orange's rage against him '. 1771, i. 499) gives the same story from a different source. » Both Fenwick's confession and Shrewsbury's letter (8 September 1696) are in the last section of volume ii of Dalrymple's Memoirs, ed. 1773, pp. 231-9.
 * Added by Melfort.
 * Substituted for ' le prince d'O.' * Substituted for ' chasser '.
 * Translated in Original Papers, i. 483, 11. 7-11.
 * Memoirs of Thomas Bruce, Earl of Ailesbury (Boxburghe Society, 1891), ii. 391 ;
 * Edited by J. S. Clarke, 1816.
 * Original Papers, i. 435, 481 ; Life of James, ii. 519-21 ; Dalrymple {Memoirs,