Page:Protestant Exiles from France Agnew vol 1.djvu/358

 by weaving them into a narrative. I therefore give the extracts which concern him without comment.

Mr. Montague wrote to the Earl of Danby from Paris, January 11, 1678:—

“I give you the best light I can into the reason of Monsieur Ruvigny’s son’s journey into England, who will be there perhaps as soon as this letter. If his father’s age would have permitted it, I believe they would have sent him; for they have chosen the son, who is to make use of lights his father will give him. And by the nearer relation he has to my Lady Vaughan, who is his cousin-german, and the particular friendship which father and son have with Mr. William Russell, he is to be introduced into a great commerce with the malcontented members of Parliament, and insinuate what they shall think fit to cross your measures at court, if they thall prove disagreeable to them here; whilst Monsieur Barillon goes on in his smooth, civil way.”

Montague wrote again on January 18, 1678:—

“His [young Ruvigny’s] chief errand is to let the king know that the King of France did hope he was so firm to him as not to be led away by the Grand Treasurer [Danby] who was an ambitious man, and, to keep himself with the people, would gratify their inclinations by leading his master into an unreasonable war against France — that as for money, if he wanted that, he should have what he would from hence. His instructions are (if this does not take), by the means of William Russell and other discontented people, to give a great deal of money, and cross all your measures at court. Old Ruvigny, who values himself for knowing of England, has given it them for a maxim, that they must diminish your credit before they can do any good. . . . If the king is for a war, you know what to do. If he hearkens to their money, be pleased to let me know what they offer, and I dare answer to get our master as much again, for Barillon’s orders are to make the market as low as he can.”

Our last extract is from Lord Danby’s letter to Montague, dated London, 17th January 1678:—

“My son Dunblane arrived here on Monday last, who delivered me your letters, and acknowledges your very great kindness to him, as I must do both for him and myself, who you have obliged by so many ways. Your intelligence concerning Monsieur Ruvigny has not been the least of your favours, and hitherto his son’s steps have been very suitable to your information. For yesterday he came to me with Monsieur Barillon (having given me his father’s letters the day before), and discoursed much of the confidence his king hath of the firmness of ours to him, of the good opinion his master hath of me, and of his king’s resolution to condescend to anything that is not infamous to him, for the satisfaction of our king — how certainly our king may depend upon all sorts of assistances and supplies from his master in case the friendship be preserved — and in short, went so far as to seem desirous to have me understand (although he could not directly say it) that his master might be brought to part with Valenciennes and Condé, but never with Tournay. And the main of their drift was to engage me to prevail with the King to prevail with the Prince of Orange as to that town, and pressed the matter upon me, as a thing wherein they thought I had an interest with the Prince of Orange, sufficient to persuade him to put an end to the war by that means. I answered them (as is most true) that there is nothing I am so desirous of as the peace, but I thought things were gone so far as it was only in their master’s power to prevent the war, and that I could not contribute to any possible expedient to that end; but that they must apply to the king himself, and when it came to my part, I should be found to contradict nothing which might be equal for preservation of the friendship betwixt the two kings. From me they went immediately to the king, who tells me their discourse was the same they had held with me. And at last he desired that whatever expedient they had to propose to him might be put in writing for him to consider; and thus it stands at this time.”

As to Henri’s errand to the patriotic party in Parliament, nothing was known until about a century thereafter, when Sir John Dalrymple had searched the French archives. Dalrymple and others have founded upon these papers some accusations, which I must very briefly notice. The first accusation is, “Russell held confidential communications with a French agent.” True; but it was with his faithful friend, Henri de Ruvigny, his wife’s first cousin. The second accusation is, “Russell took into consideration a project of bribery.” I answer, Ruvigny told Russell that Barillon was ready to distribute money among the country party. Russell protested that he would not act along with members who would take bribes. He did say that he would speak to Lord Shaftesbury (who was also a relative), but only as to the pleasing fact, that even the French king did not wish Charles to be absolutely despotic, and to subjugate the patriotic members. The third accusation is, “Algernon Sidney took a bribe and Russell connived at it.” The charge against Sidney is founded upon a list of public men who had taken French money, in Barillon’s handwriting. Barillon’s accounts may have been incorrect, like those of other unjust