spirit of loyalty; by his firm attachment to the fallen; by his enduring and well-founded trust in God when there seemed to be none left in man! Whose heart could fail to relent to that unhappy Monarch, more sinned against than sinning; to that "gray discrowned head" which lay upon a pillow of thorns at Carisbrook, or rolled upon a block at Whitehall! Or whose mind would not brighten at the thought of his exiled son-in difficulty and distress, with every successive attempt disappointed-every rising hope dashed down-yet suddenly restored against all probable chances, and with one universal shout of joy! How spirit-stirring must that History have been to all, but above all to those (and there were many at that time) whose own ancestors and kinsmen are honourably commemorated in its pages-the soldiers of Rupert, or the friends of Falkland! Can we wonder then, or severely blame, if their thoughts sometimes descended one step lower, and turned to the grandsonalso exiled for no fault of his own, and pining in a distant land, under circumstances not far unlike to those of Charles Stuart in France! I know the difference of the cases; and most of all in what Atterbury ought least to have forgotten-in religion; I am not pleading for Jacobitism; but I do plead for the honest delusion and pardonable frailty of many who espoused that cause; I am anxious to show that the large section of our countrymen which sighed for the restoration of James, were not all the base and besotted wretches we have been accustomed to consider them.

The great object of Atterbury, and of the other Jacobite leaders, was to obtain a foreign force of 5000 foreign troops to land under Ormond. Failing in this, from the engagements of the English Government with almost every Continental Court, they determined, nevertheless, to proceed with only such assistance in arms, money, and disbanded officers or soldiers, as could be privately procured abroad. For this purpose their manager in Spain was Ormond; in France, General Dillon, an Irish Roman Catholic, who had left Ireland after the capitulation of Limerick, and had since risen in the French service. The project was to have made themselves masters of the Tower; to have seized the Bank, the Exchequer, and other places where the public money was lodged, and to have proclaimed the Pretender at the same time in different parts of the kingdom. The best time for this explosion was thought to be during the tumults and confusion of the General Election; but the chiefs not being able to agree among themselves, it was deferred till the King's journey to Hanover, which was expected to take place in the summer. James himself was to embark at Porte Longone, where three vessels were ready for him, and to sail secretly to Spain, and from thence to England, as soon as he should hear of the King's departure. Already had he left Rome for a villa, the better to cover his absence when it should take place; and with a similar view had Ormond also gone from Madrid to a country seat half way to Bilbao.*

• Robert Walpole to Horace, May 29, 1722. Reports of Select Committee, 1723. W. Stanhope to Lord Carteret, June 8, 1722. Appendix.

But the eye of the Government was already upon them. One of their applications for 5000 troops had been made to the Regent of France, who, as they might have foreseen, so far from granting their request, immediately revealed it to Sir Luke Schaub, the English Minister; on the condition, it is said, that no one should die for it. Other intelligence and discoveries completed the information of the Government, and they became apprised, not merely of the intended schemes and of the contriving heads, but also of the subaltern agents, especially Thomas Carte and Kelly, two non-juring clergymen; Plunkett, the same Jesuit whose active intrigues in 1713 have been mentioned at that period; Neynoe, another Irish priest; and Layer, a young barrister of the Temple. So many of their letters were intercepted abroad, that at length some conspirators, perceiving it, wrote letters on purpose to be opened, and with false news, to mislead and distract the Government; but this artifice could not impose on the sagacity of Walpole. Prudent measures were now adopted with prudent speed. The King was persuaded to relinquish his journey to Hanover for this year; and troops were immediately drawn to London, and a camp formed in Hyde Park. An order was also obtained from the Court of Madrid to restrain Ormond from embarking. This would no doubt have been sufficient to make the conspirators postpone their scheme, but the object was to crush it altogether; and with this view warrants were issued for the apprehension of all the subaltern agents above named, and of several others.

On the 21st of May, accordingly, Mr. Kelly was seized at his lodgings in Bury Street by two messengers. They came upon him by surprise, and took his sword and papers, which they placed in a window while they proceeded with their search. But their negligence gave Kelly an opportunity of recovering his weapon, and of threatening to run through the first man that came near him; and so saying he burnt his papers in a candle with his left hand, while he held his drawn sword in the other. When the papers were burnt, and not till then, he surrendered. Neynoe, on his arrest, showed equal spirit, but he did not meet with the same success. He escaped from a window two stories high by tying the blankets and sheets together, and came down upon a garden-wall near the Thames, from whence he leaped into the water, but as he could not swim was drowned. An attempt to escape was also made by Layer; but being brought back he was examined at great length, and with some success. Much information was also gained from the papers, none from the answers, of Plunkett. As for Carte, the same whose historical writings have

Schaub had been knighted at Stanhope's recommendation in October, 1720; and next year was appointed Minister at Paris. (Boyer's Polit. State, vol. xx. p. 379, &c.) † Speaker Onslow's Remarks. Coxe's Walpole, vol. ii. p. 554.

Letter to Horace Walpole, May 29, 1722. Even where no trap was intended, the Report of the Select Committee observes of their cant names and allegories, that "several of these disguises are so gross and obvious, that they only serve to betray themselves." This I have remarked in many of the Stuart MS. Papers.

since gained him a high and deserved reputation, he fled betimes to France.

At the news of the arrest of Layer, Lord North, who had been principally in communication with that person, fearing the consequences, passed over under a feigned name to the Isle of Wight, intending from thence to make his way to the Continent; but he was discovered, seized, and brought back to London. Some time afterwards Lord Orrery was sent to the Tower; at a later period still, the Duke of Norfolk. But the evidence against these noblemen being insufficient, or the Government less eager to press it, they were, after some confinement, released. The Bishop of Rochester was less fortunate. The proofs against him might also have been thought too scanty, had it not been for a very trifling and ridiculous but most convincing incident. The case was as follows:-There was no doubt that the letters to and from Jones and Illington were of a treasonable nature; the point was to prove that these names were designed for the Bishop. Now it so happened that Mrs. Atterbury, who died early this year, had a little before received a present from Lord Mar in France of a small spotted dog called Harlequin; and this animal having broken its leg, and being left with one Mrs. Barnes to be cured, was more than once mentioned in the correspondence of Jones and Illington. Mrs. Barnes and some other persons were examined before the Council on this subject, and they, supposing that at all events there could be no treason in a lap-dog, readily owned that Harlequin was intended for the Bishop of Rochester. There were many other collateral proofs; but it was the throwing up of this little straw which decisively showed from what quarter blew the wind.

Had the proofs against Atterbury been less strong, or his abilities less dangerous, the Ministers would probably have shrunk from the unpopularity of touching him. As it was, they hesitated during three months; but at length, on the 24th of August, a warrant being issued, the Bishop was arrested at the Deanery, and brought before the Council. Though taken by surprise, his answers to their questions showed his usual coolness and self-possession; and he is said to have concluded with the words of the Saviour:-"If I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go." 11* After three quarters of an hour's examination he was sent to the Tower privately in his own coach, without any public notice or disturbance.

The arrest of a Bishop, for the first time since the ill-omened precedent of James the Second, was, however, no sooner known than it produced a general clamour. The High Churchmen had always inveighed against the Government as neglecting the Establishment and favouring the Dissenters, and this new incident was of course urged in confirmation of the charge. They called it an outrage upon the Church and the Episcopal Order; and they boldly affirmed that

St. Luke, xxii. 67, 68.

the plot had no real existence, and was a mere ministerial device for the ruin of a political opponent. Atterbury had also great influence among the parochial clergy, not only from the weight of his abilities, but from his having so long stood at the head of their party in Convocation. Under the pretence of his being afflicted with the gout, he was publicly prayed for in most of the churches of London and Westminster; and there was spread among the people a pathetic print of the Bishop looking through the bars of a prison, and holding in his hand a portrait of Archbishop Laud. The public ferment was still further increased by rumours (I fear too truly founded) of the great harshness with which Atterbury was treated in the Tower. "Such usage, such hardships, such insults as I have undergone,' said the Bishop himself on his trial, "might have broke a more resolute spirit, and a much stronger constitution than fall to my share. I have been treated with such severity, and so great indignity, as I believe no prisoner in the Tower of my age, infirmities, function, and rank ever underwent."* He was encouraged, or permitted, to write private letters which were afterwards pried into, and made use of to support the accusation against him. He was restricted in his only consolation-the visits of his beloved daughter;† nor was he at first allowed to prepare freely for his defence with his son-in-law, Mr. Morice. Every thing sent to him was narrowly searched; even some pigeon-pies were opened: "it is the first time," says Pope, "dead pigeons have been suspected of carrying intelligence!"§

It was amidst great and general excitement that the new Parliament met on the 9th of October. The King's Speech gave a short account of the conspiracy:-"I should less wonder at it," he said, "had I, in any one instance since my accession to the throne, invaded the liberty or property of my subjects." With equal justice he observed on the infatuation of some Jacobites and the malice of others,-"By forming plots they depreciate all property that is vested in the Public Funds, and then complain of the low state of credit; they make an increase of the national expenses necessary, and then clamour at the burthen of taxes, and endeavour to impute to my government, as grievances, the mischiefs and calamities which they alone create and occasion.' The first business of the Commons, after again placing Mr. Compton in the Chair, was to hurry through a bill suspending the Habeas Corpus Act for one year. Mr. Spencer Cowper, and Sir Joseph Jekyll, observed that the Act had never yet been suspended for so long a period, and proposed six months, declaring, that at the end of that period they would, if

Speech, May 11, 1723.

He writes to Lord Townshend, April 10, 1723,-"I am thankful for the favor of seeing my daughter any way; but was in hopes the restraint of an officer's presence in respect to her might have been judged needless."

Preface to his Correspondence, p. vi. Mr. Morice used to stand in an open area, and the Bishop to look out of a two-pair of stairs window, and thus only were they allowed to converse!

§ Pope to Gay, Sept. 11, 1722.

necessary, readily agree to a further suspension. Yet notwithstanding the popularity and plausibility of this amendment, it was rejected by 246 votes against 193.

The next subject with both Houses was the Pretender's declaration. It appears that James had been so far deluded by the sanguine hopes of his agents, or by his own, as to believe that the British people were groaning under a state of bondage and oppression, and that the King himself was ready to cast off an uneasy and precarious Crown. Under these impressions, he issued from Lucca, on the 22d of September, a strange manifesto, proposing that if George will quietly deliver to him the throne of his fathers, he will, in return, bestow upon George the title of King in his native dominions, and invite all other States to confirm it; with a promise to leave his succession to the British dominions secure, if ever, in due course, his natural right should take place. This declaration was printed and distributed in England. Both Houses expressed their astonishment at its "surprising insolence:" it was ordered to be burnt by the common hangman; and a joint address was presented to His Majesty, assuring him that the designs of the public enemy shall be found "impracticable against a Prince relying on and supported by the vigour and duty of a British Parliament, and the affections of his people."

Walpole, availing himself of the general resentment, next proposed to raise 100,0007. by a tax upon the estates of Roman Catholics. The project of Stanhope to relieve them from the Penal Laws, which was still on foot at the beginning of the South Sea Scheme,* had been arrested, first by the crash, and then by his death. Moderation to the Roman Catholics had always been one of his leading principles of government. Other maxims now prevailed; a system of general and indiscriminate punishment, which was at least, nearly allied to persecution, and which, if it did not find every Roman Catholic a Jacobite, was quite sure to make him so. Many, said Walpole, had been guilty-an excellent reason for punishing all! With a better feeling did Onslow (afterwards Speaker) declare his abhorrence of persecuting any others on account of their opinions in religion. Sir Joseph Jekyll, after praising the moderation and wisdom of the King, wished he could say the same of those who had the honour to serve him. But the proposal of Walpole was quite in accordance with the temper of the times; it was not only carried by 217 against 168, but, on a subsequent motion, was even extended to all non-jurors.t1 The House, however, favourably entertained a

• Mr. Brodrick to Lord Midleton, January 24, 1720. Refer to p. 239.

I am sorry to find Coxe assert, in a blind panegyrical spirit, that "though scarcely conformable to justice, the policy of this measure was unquestionable." How far more correct and enlightened were the views which he himself has published of Speaker Onslow! See Coxe's Walpole, vol. i. p. 175, and vol. ii. p. 555.

1

[See Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vol. iv. p. 405, chap. cxvii., for an account of Lord Cowper's opposition to the bill in the House of Lords. His last act as a Peer was to record a protest against it.]