^{page 1 note 1} M. Martel's account of the battle was suppressed in Paris, but it got to England, and was printed. It concluded thus: “If Count D'Estrées would have fallen in with a fair wind upon De Ruyter and Bankert, at their first engaging, when in numbers they much exceeded the Prince, they must of necessity have been inclosed between his Highness and D'Estrées, and so the enemy would have been entirely defeated.” The form was not gone through, as Mr. Ball thought likely, of punishing D'Estrées; M. Martel was sent to the Bastile.

^{page 2 note 1} The poem here referred to is one ascribed to Andrew Marvell, his “Advice to a Painter.” This passage fixes the date of the poem, which the Rev. Mr. Grosart leaves in doubt. The references in the poem to the projected marriage of the Duke of York clearly show that the poem was published in the autumn of 1673. But a line mentioning Lord Danby, as it has been usually printed, would require that the poem were published at least a year later, as Osborne was not made Earl of Danby till June 1674. The line in question has been usually printed, “With Father Patrick, Danby, and with Teague.” Talbot should be substituted for Danby, which is unquestionably wrong: Talbot is in the edition of 1689.

^{page 2 note 2} Duke of Monmouth.

^{page 3 note 1} The French.

^{page 3 note 2} Richard Perrincheif, D.D.

^{page 3 note 3} Richard Colebrand, D.D. See Cheque Book of the Chapel Royal, edit. Rimbault, p. 216. (Le Neve's Fasti, edit. Hardy, iii. 361.)

^{page 3 note 4} Louis Duras, a Frenchman, brother of the Duc de Duras, married the elder of two daughters of Sir George Sondes, Bart., of Lees Court, near Ferersham, who was in 1676 created Earl of Feversham. Duras, who became naturalized, was created Lord Duras of Holdenby, and on the death of his father-in-law in 1677 he succeeded by a special provision in the patent to the Earldom of Feversham.

^{page 4 note 1} Several previous letters have announced the suppression of the negotiations for the marriage. The young Princess was extremely disinclined to marriage, and wished to lead a religious life. When the Earl of Peterborough saw her to propose the marriage, she refused, and entreated the Earl to use his influence with the Duke of York to lead him to think of some one else, even in her own family. Her resistance was at last overcome by a brief from the Pope addressed to her. Another difficulty arose out of a demand by the Pope for a public chapel for her in England. Bishop Barnet says: “Because those at Rome were not willing to consent, unless she might have a public chapel, which the Court would not hearken to, another marriage was proposed for a daughter of the Duke of Crequi.”—(Own Time, i. 353.) See Letter 104, of September 8.

^{page 4 note 2} Sydney Godolphin, third son of Sir Francis Godolphin, became Earl of Godolphin, and a famous minister, in the reigns of William and Anne. He began his political career as a Lord of the Treasury in 1679.

^{page 5 note 1} Gazette d'Allemayne. Almain was the current English word for Germany.

^{page 5 note 2} A Member of Parliament, who had held several minor offices, which he had lost by bad management, and in which he had been succeeded by Samuel Pepys. He is frequently mentioned both by Pepys and Evelyn.

^{page 7 note 1} Secretary of the Royal Society.

^{page 15 note 1} See note on Letter 97, p. 4.

^{page 17 note 1} A City Alderman (Lord Mayor in 1678), and a member of the Clothworkers' Company with Williamson.

^{page 17 note 2} Sir John Robinson.

^{page 17 note 3} i.e. or.

^{page 1 note 1} The Sheriffs who served were Sir Henry Tulse (afterwards Lord Mayor in 1684), and Sir Robert Geffery (afterwards Lord Mayor in 1686), who were both knighted by the King when present at Guildhall on the ensuing Lord Mayor's feast. Sir Nathaniel Herne and John Lethieullier, Esq. were elected in the next ensuing year, 1674.

^{page 18 note 2} Sir George Waterman.

^{page 18 note 3} A reply to courtier-like congratulations from Williamson on the lady's elevation to be Duchess of Portsmouth. The original spelling of this French letter is literally followed.

^{page 21 note 1} The Earl of Shaftesbury.

^{page 22 note 1} Her brother was Duke of Richmond, who married the beautiful Miss Stuart of whom Charles II. was enamoured, and who, having been sent Ambassador to Denmark, died at Elsinore, December 21, 1672. His body was laid in the vault of the family in Henry the Seventh's Chapel at Westminster, Sept. 20, 1673.

^{page 1 note 2} Probably such as Ambassadors were then accustomed to leave at the hotels and other lodgings which they occupied on their route.

^{page 23 note 1} Sir N. Armourer was an equerry to Charles II.

^{page 23 note 2} i.e. the royal stables at Charing Cross.

^{page 24 note 1} Teague is evidently some individual (see the opposite page), but Teague was then a generic name for an Irishman.

“And the fat spoils of Teague in triumph draw, His firkin-butter and his usquebaugh.”

Dryden's Prologue to the Prophetess, line 27.

The Rev. Mr. Grosart in his edition of Andrew Marvell describes Teague as “a joke-name, as Paddy or Sandy or John Bull.” But query, in the line “With Father Patrick, Talbot, and with Teague,” can the particular Teague named in this letter be the man? for Patrick and Talbot are both soon mentioned (see p. 26).

^{page 24 note 2} The Duke of Buckingham.

^{page 24 note 3} Sir Robert Thomas, an M.P.

^{page 24 note 4} Enfield Chase, co. Middlesex, of which Secretary Coventry was Ranger. See Robinson's History of Enfield, 1823, i. 228.

^{page 26 note 1} In Marvell's “Advice to a Painter” (1673) the Duke of York is made to address the Pope:

“Most holy Father! being joined in league With Father Patrick, Talbot, and with Teague.”

^{page 27 note 1} Viscount Castletown, an Irish Peer.

^{page 27 note 3} Sir Robert Thomas, an M.P., one of the Opposition.

^{page 27 note 3} Sir Maurice Eustace had been Lord Chancellor of Ireland, 1660—5.

^{page 27 note 4} Cologne.

^{page 27 note 5} This letter is endorsed, Sir N. Armorer, and is in his handwriting.

^{page 28 note 1} Lord Arlington. Sir R. Carr was his brother-in-law.

^{page 28 note 2} The words in italics are in cypher in the original.

^{page 28 note 3} This means that Arlington, who was appointed Lord Chamberlain, wished Williamson, who was to be the new Secretary of State, to succeed him in his lodgings, and not his present colleague, Henry Coventry.

^{page 29 note 1} Query, if this is Shaftesbury. He is spoken of immediately after more respectfully as Lord Chancellor.

^{page 29 note 2} Lord Clifford.

^{page 29 note 3} The Earl of Shaftesbury.

^{page 30 note 1} Secretary of State for Scotland is meant. As to Sir William Lockhart, see note, vol. i. p. 71.

^{page 31 note 1} Hon. William Howard, afterwards third Lord Howard of Escrick, who has an infamous notoriety as false witness against Russell and Sydney. He was now accused of traitorous correspondence with William, Prince of Orange, and was imprisoned on his arrival in England from Holland.

^{page 33 note 1} This tract, which shows great knowledge of foreign affairs, was ascribed, and probably correctly, to Sir William Coventry.

^{page 35 note 1} William Chiffinch, son of Thomas Chiffinch, and after his father Keeper of the King's Closet. The father died in 1666.

^{page 35 note 2} Don Carlos was the King's natural son Charles Fitzroy, by Catharine Peg, afterwards created Earl of Plymouth. See note, vol. i. p. 79. It is probably a mistake in the text that he was to be made Duke of Richmond; this title was afterwards conferred on another natural son, another Charles, Charles Lennox, the son of the Duchess of Portsmouth, born July 29, 1672, and made Duke of Richmond, August 9, 1675. This son of the Duchess of Portsmouth also obtained the Mastership of the Horse, which appears at this time to have been intended for Don Carlos (see vol. i. pp. 79, 88): the office, when taken from the Duke of Buckingham, was first given to three Commissioners in trust for Charles Lennox during his minority; and in 1679, he assumed the office. (Beatson's Political Index.)

^{page 38 note 1} M.P. for Carlisle, and son of Sir Philip Musgrave, Baronet, M.P. for West-morland. Andrew Marvell describes them in his “Seasonable Argument, &c.” 1677, the father as haying “a regiment of foot, Governor of Carlisle, giving him in fee-farm rents 6000l.,” and the son as “Captain of a foot company, 200l. a year pension, and to succeed his father in the government of Carlisle.”

^{page 39 note 1} Joseph Musgrave, son of Sir Christopher by his second wife Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Francklyn of Willesdon, co. Midds. He was subsequently M.P. for Cockermouth, 1713, and died unmarried in 1757.

^{page 40 note 1} Some letters which follow contain similar statements as to Lord Clifford's illness. There is, however, strong evidence, not mentioned or alluded to in this correspondence, to show that Clifford committed suicide. Evelyn, who was his intimate friend, believed that he committed suicide, and in his Diary he gives reasons for this belief. Evelyn parted with Clifford, August 18, 1673, and it was a melancholy parting: Clifford was then going into Devonshire. “Taking leave of my Lord Clifford, he wrung me by the hand, and, looking earnestly on me, bad me God b'ye, adding, ‘Mr. Evelyn, I shall never see thee more.’ ‘No!’ said I, ‘my Lord, what's the meaning of this? I hope I shall see you often, and as great a person again.’ ‘No, Mr. Evelyn, do not expect it, I will never see this place, this city, or this court again,’” or words of this sound. In this manner, not without almost mutual tears, I parted from him; nor was it long after, but the news was that he was dead; and I have heard from some, who I believe knew, he made himself away, after an extraordinary melancholy. This is not confidently affirmed, but a servant who lived in the house, and afterwards with Sir Robert Clayton, Lord Mayor, did, as well as others, report it; and when I hinted some such thing to Mr. Prideaux, one of his trustees, he was not willing to enter into that discourse. It was reported with these particulars, that, causing his servant to leave him unusually one morning, locking himself in, he strangled himself with his cravat upon his bed-tester: his servant not liking the manner of dismissing him, and looking through the key-hole (as I remember) and seeing his master hanging, broke in before he was quite dead, and taking him down, vomiting a great deal of blood, he was heard to utter these words: “Well, let men say what they will, there is a God, a just God above;” after which he spoke no more. This, if true, is dismal. Really he was the chief occasion of the Dutch war and of all that blood which was lost at Bergen in attacking the Smyrna fleet and that whole quarrel.” On the previous 25th of July, Evelyn had visited Clifford at Tunbridge Wells, and found him depressed and desponding. He says of him that he was there “to divert his mind more than his body,” and that his loss of office “grieved him to the heart and at last broke it;” and that he was “struggling in his mind.” Evelyn says nothing of stone. A. Marvell says of Clifford that he hanged himself.

“Clifford and Hyde before had lost the day; One hanged himself, and t'other ran away.”

(Historical Poem, line 139.)

It is of course possible that both stories may be true, that there may hare been illness and suicide also. It will be observed, in later letters, that reference is made to the danger of Clifford from Parliament at its meeting; the town laughed, it is said, at the opportune moment of Clifford's death (No. 124, p. 46). In letter No. 127, p. 50, his illness is mentioned with some doubt, and as if there were another story.

^{page 43 note 1} Here the writer gives the last reports from Portsmouth, Plymouth, Weymouth, and Deal.

^{page 47 note 1} See vol. i. p. 59, note: but it is probable that Dr. Worsley did not resign for the reason suggested by Bridgman in the letter No. 29 there annotated, viz. religious scruples.

^{page 47 note 2} The buccanier Morgan had made a raid from Jamaica on the Spanish settlements in the Central American Isthmus, and committed great ravages, in 1671.

^{page 48 note 1} Mary of Modena, in at last consenting to the marriage, made it a condition that her mother should accompany her all the way.

^{page 48 note 2} This is what Lord Peterhorough wrote of her appearance: “She was tall and admirably shaped; her complexion was of the last degree of fairness, her hair black as jet, so were her eyebrows and her eyes, but the latter so full of light and sweetness, as they did dazzle and charm too. There seemed given to them by nature a power to kill and a power to save; and in the whole turn of her face, which was of the most graceful oval, there were all the features, all the beauty, all that could be great and charming in any human creature.”

^{page 48 note 3} Ireland.

^{page 49 note 1} Sir John Harman, appointed Admiral of Great Britain, 1665, defeated and destroyed a combined fleet of Dutch and French, and burned the French Admiral ship, in 1667.

^{page 49 note 2} The words in italics are in cypher in the original.

^{page 50 note 1} This implies that there was some doubt of the correctness of this story of Lord Clifford's death. See note pp. 40–42.

^{page 51 note 1} Compare with this account of the reasons for the short prorogation, one by Sir Gilbert Talbot in a later letter, No. 140, of November 13. Sir Gilbert adds another reason: to revive a Bill for paving the streets of London.

^{page 51 note 2} Edward Seymour, Treasurer of the Navy, evidently wishing to oblige the King's government and not facilitate a debate. The current story is that Shaftesbury, then Chancellor, but very adverse to the Duke of York's marriage, and knowing the intentions of the leaders of the country party in the Commons, caused delay in the Lords, in order to give time for an address from the Commons against the match. (Burnet's Own Time, i. 361. Life of James I. 485.)

^{page 51 note 3} Henry Powle, one of the chiefs of Opposition. Burnet says of him: “Littleton and Powle were the men that laid the matters of the House with the greatest dexterity and care. Powle was very learned in precedents and Parliament journals, which goes a great way in these debates, and, when he had time to prepare himself, he was a clear and strong speaker.” (Own Time, i. 389.)

^{page 51 note 1} Probably Sir Robert Thomas.

^{page 52 note 2} Colonel Birch, a leader of Opposition. He had begun life as a carrier. Burnet says of him: “He was the roughest and boldest speaker in the House, and talked in the language and phrases of a carrier, but with a bearing and eloquence that was always acceptable. I heard Coventry say he was the best speaker to carry a popular assembly before him that he had ever known.” (Own Time, i. 389.) The hero of a recent volume issued to the Camden Society.

^{page 53 note 3} Sir Robert Howard, who thus opposed the Government, was an official. He had been Secretary to the Lord Treasurer, Clifford, and had been lately made Auditor of the Exchequer.

^{page 53 note 4} Eldest son of the Marquis of Winchester; he succeeded to the title in the next year, and he was ultimately created Duke of Bolton by William III. He was now a zealous member of the country party, and represented Hampshire.

^{page 53 note 5} The resolution thus passed was “That an address be made to his Majesty, by such members of the House as are of his Majesty's Privy Council, to acquaint his Majesty that it is the humble desire of this House that the intended marriage of his Royal Highness with the Duchess of Modena be not consummated, and that he may not be married to any person but of the Protestant religion.” There is no report of this debate by Grey; and this is the only known account of the discussion.

^{page 53 note 1} See the debate in the Parliamentary History (iv. 589) from Grey's Debates. A previous short discussion on the King's Speech is reported by Grey, but the report not copied into the Parliamentary History; the further consideration of the King's Speech was deferred till Friday, October 31; the Government had wished for immediate thanks. The objection to Seymour as Speaker, because he was Privy Councillor and Treasurer of the Navy, was summarily disposed of; the objections were urged by Sir Thomas Littleton, Sir Thomas Clarges, and Powle; Mr. W. Harbord objected to him also for immoral life and gambling. Seymour had been first elected Speaker, February 18, 1673, on Mr. Serjeant Charlton's resigning from ill health. The objection that he was a Privy Councellor seems then to have been thought of, but not formally raised. Sir W. Coventry writes to Mr. Thynne (afterwards Viscount Weymonth), April 12, 1673, “Mr. Speaker being of the Council is, I suppose, primæ impressionis, and cannot consist with a late practice, if not a rule, of the Speaker's being a stranger at Whitehall while the Parliament sits, which the late Speaker excused upon his necessary attendance on his Royal Highness.” (Papers at Longleat, quoted in Christie's Life of Shaftesbury, Appendix to vol. 2, p. lxx). The late Speaker was Sir Edward Tumour, Attorney-General to the Duke of York, and also the King's Solicitor-General for a year before he ceased to sit as Speaker.

^{page 55 note 1} Sir George Waterman.

^{page 55 note 2} It would appear from the following account of Parliament proceedings that Player was now a member of the House of Commons. He had perhaps been elected for the City on some vacancy since the beginning of the Parliament. See note, vol. i. p. 68.

^{page 56 note 1} Thursday, October 30. A message from the King, in answer to the former address of the House of Commons (Oct. 20) against the Duke of York's match, declaring it to be too late to stop the marriage, it was resolved by a majority of 184 to 88 to present a second address to the King concerning the match.

^{page 56 note 2} The inauguration of Sir Robert Hanson.

^{page 56 note 3} The Commons had resolved on Thursday, October 30, that a Bill be prepared for a General Test, to distinguish between Protestants and Papists; and those that shall refuse to take it, be incapable to enjoy any office, military or civil, or to sit in either House of Parliament, or to come within five miles of the Court.

^{page 58 note 1} The destined Duchess of York.

^{page 59 note 1} In a debate on the King's Speech, October 31.

^{page 59 note 2} This was in a speech of Mr. Powle. The allusions are to the appointment of the Earl of Anglesey to be Lord Privy Seal, and Lauderdale being High Commissioner for Scotland.

^{page 61 note 1} Earl of Arlington.

^{page 61 note 2} Sir Charles Wheeler was member for Cambridge University, where he had succeeded Sir Richard Fanshawe. He does not appear to have been respected by any party. Marvell describes him, in 1677, “a foot captain who once promised himself to be Master of the Rolls, now Governor of Nevis.” In 1672 he was recalled from the government of St. Christopher for great indiscretions. (Evelyn's Diary, November 14, 27, 1672.)

^{page 61 note 3} The Duke of Buckingham.

^{page 61 note 4} The Earl of Arlington.

^{page 61 note 5} The Earl of Shaftesbury.

^{page 61 note 6} The Duchess of Cleveland's son, Henry Fitzroy, made successively Earl of Euston and Duke of Grafton, was betrothed to Arlington's daughter, August 1, 1672; the girl being then four years old, and the boy not yet nine. The pair were remarried, November 6, 1679. This marriage of Arlington's daughter is referred t o in Nahum Tate's Second Part of Absolom and Achitophel:—

“His age with only one mild heiress blest, In all the bloom of smiling nature drest; And blest again to see his flower allied To David's stock, and made young Othniel's bride.”

^{page 63 note 1} Being the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot.

^{page 63 note 2} Ralph Montagu and the Countess dowager of Northumberland.

^{page 66 note 1} The Great Seal was taken from the Earl of Shaftesbnry, November 9, 1673.

^{page 67 note 1} Sir Matthew Hale.

^{page 67 note 2} Eldest son of tho ex-Lord Chancellor Clarendon, who died in December of next vear, 1674.

^{page 67 note 3} These rumours were not correct.

^{page 68 note 1} Sir Gilbert Talbot, knight, M.P. for Plymouth, Master of the Jewel Office, a courtier. He had been ambassador to Denmark.

^{page 69 note 1} Sir William Coventry made a bold speech, October 31. He attacked the French unsparingly for their conduct in the naval fights. “Now has the King of France kept treaty with us, as is said? He was to send thirty ships for our sixty; had that conjunction been as it should be, they would have fought. Has heard but of two captains killed in the French fleet, and one died of an unfortunate disease; thinks we had no advantage by their company. One unfortunate gentleman (Martel) did fight, and because that gentleman said, as he had heard, that the French did not do their duty, he is clapped into the Bastile. His own squadron, he said, deserted him; his captains said, ‘upon secret orders which they had.’” The Commons resolved without a division, introducing the words suggested by Sir W. Coventry: “That this House, considering the present condition of the nation, will not take into any further debate or consideration any aid or supply or charge upon the subject, until the terms of payment of the 18 months' assessment, &c. granted last session, be expired, unless it shall appear that the obstinacy of the Dutch shall render it necessary, nor before this kingdom be effectually secured from the dangers of Popery and Popish counsels and counsellors, and the other present grievances be redressed.”

^{page 70 note 1} Lord Conway writes to Sir George Rawdon, December 28, 1677, of Speaker Seymour: “Mr. Speaker's lady is a most virtuous discreet person, hut her husband is worse for women than my Lord Ranelagh.” Rawdon Papers, p. 255.

^{page 70 note 2} Sir Francis North, afterwards Lord Keepor, and Lord Guildford.

^{page 71 note 1} See note, vol. i. p. 87.

^{page 71 note 2} Sister of the beautiful Duchess of Richmond, of whom the King had been desperately enamoured.

^{page 72 note 1} See ante, p. 51, letter 128.

^{page 72 note 2} The Duke of Monmouth. Vernon was in the Duke's service. See previous letters of Vernon, vol. i. pp. 105, 188; vol. ii. p. 22.

^{page 72 note 3} The Duke of York.

^{page 73 note 1} Valet of the Duke of York.

^{page 75 note 1} M.P. for Flint; Marrell describes Mm (1677) as “knight harbinger, farmer of the Post Office, by which he has got a vast estate.”

^{page 77 note 1} An Advocate of Doctors' Commons.

^{page 77 note 2} Thomas Thynne, esq. of Christ Church, was the successor of Sir Heneage Finch as M.P. for the University of Oxford.

^{page 79 note 1} The words in italics are in cipher in the original.

^{page 79 note 2} Earl of Shaftesbury. Great efforts were made by the King to bring him back, but without success.

^{page 80 note 1} Dr. Nathaniel Crewe, afterwards Bishop of Durham.

^{page 80 note 2} Henry Howard, created Earl of Norwich 1673. He succeeded his brother as 6th Duke of Norfolk 1677.

^{page 83 note 1} The words in italics are in cipher in the original.

^{page 87 note 1} From Ireland, where he was Lord Lieutenant; but the rumour was not true.

^{page 87 note 2} This rumour was not true either. The Earl of Arlington and Earl of Ossory had married two sisters.

^{page 89 note 1} Ralph Montagu, who had lately married the Countess of Northumberland.

^{page 90 note 1} This was probably inclosed to Williamson by Lord Conway or by one of his ordinary correspondents. Edward, third Lord Conway, was created Earl of Conway in 1679, and was made Secretary of State in 1680. He succeeded the Earl of Sunderland, and was again replaced by Sunderland in 1682. Burnet says of Lord Conway, that “he was so very ignorant of foreign affairs that, his province being the North, when one of the foreign ministers talked to him of the circles of Germany it enraged him; he could not imagine what circles had to do with affairs of state.” (Own Time, i. 531.) No Eoger Jones is to be found in the list of the Parliament when first elected printed in the Parliamentary History, vol. iv. But if it were Roger James, there is an M.P. for Guildford of that name, whose colleague was Serjeant Thurland, made a Baron of the Exchequer in January 1673, and Thurland might be “the man here,” referred to in the letter as favouring the Ormond, Arlington, and Shaftesbury section of the cabinet.

^{page 91 note 1} The word autum, which must mean autumn, is very clearly written in the letter. I do not know this phrase anywhere else: it perhaps means that the Lord Treasurer's sharpness was not likely to wither.

^{page 91 note 2} Sir Thomas Littleton was a great Parliament-man. “He had generally,” says Burnet, “the character of the ablest Parliamentary men in his time. He was a man of strong head and sound judgment.” (Own Time, i. 231–2.) He was in opposition to the Court. Sir Charles Littleton is described by Evelyn as “an honest gentleman and soldier,” brother of Sir Henry Littleton, of Worcestershire. (Diary, March 24. 1688.)

^{page 93 note 1} The Duke of Lauderdale.

^{page 100 note 1} Bishop Burnet says that the Duke of Hamilton came up by the King's invitation, and that the King's design was to treat Hamilton and his friends kindly in order to make the House of Commons more disposed to give him money, and that ho had made up his mind, if the Parliament supplied him, to part with Lauderdale and to take Hamilton and Tweedale into employment. (Own Time, i. 369.)

^{page 104 note 1} For the King's evil.

^{page 104 note 2} Charles Maitland, of Hatton, a Senator of the Scotch College of Justice, called Lord Hatton, younger brother of Lauderdale, who succeeded him as third Earl of Lauderdale. He was Treasurer Deputy of Scotland.

^{page 106 note 1} The Duke of York.

^{page 106 note 2} M. de Ruviguy came to take the place of M. Colbert.

^{page 109 note 1} The paragraph in italics is in cipher in the original.

^{page 100 note 1} Probably Sir Lionel Walden, M.P. for Huntingdon, described by Andrew Marvell (1677) as “5,000l. in the King's debt, a Blackheath captain and a papist: at present has a company of foot and 1,000l. given him.”

^{page 100 note 2} An Irish peer, nephew and successor of the Lord Aungier whom Evelyn often speaks of as his friend and a man of learning. This Lord Aungier was created Viscount Longford in 1675.

^{page 100 note 3} Fairfax, the writer of this letter, was now engaged by the Duke of Ormond to act as travelling companion and tutor to the young Earl of Derby, who had just married his grand-daughter, Lady Elizabeth Butler, daughter of the Earl of Ossory. (See vol. i. p. 29, and note.) Lord Derby being young, and his wife younger, only fourteen, the bridegroom was sent to travel for a few years before consummation of the marriage, and a tutor, Forbes, the Phaleg of Dryden, was sent with him. The young Earl was very rakish and refractory, and Forbes unable to manage him. Carte, the Duke of Ormond's biographer, relates the selection of Fairfax to take Forbes' place, and Fairfax's success. “The Duke, seeing what the young gentleman would be at, resolved to send over one that should govern him. Tor this purpose he pitched upon Colonel Thomas Fairfax, a younger son of the great Lord Fairfax, a gallant and true man (as all the Fairfaxes were) and roughly honest. Lord Derby was restiff at first, but the Colonel told him sharply that he was sent to govern him and would govern him; that his Lordship must submit and should do it; so that the best method he had to take was to do it with decorum and good humour. He soon discharged the vicious and scandalous part of the Earl's acquaintance, and signified to the rest that he had the charge of that young nobleman, who was under his government, and therefore if any of them should ever have a quarrel with his pupil, who was young and inexperienced, himself was their man and would give them satisfaction. His courage was too well known to tempt any body to make a trial of it; the nobleness of his family and his own merit procured him respect from all the world as well as from his pupil. No quarrel happened; the Earl was reclaimed, being always very observant of his governor.” James Forbes, the governor whom Fairfax succeeded, is described by Carte as “a grave, sober-minded man, whose sage remonstrances had no manner of effect on Ms pupil.” (Carte's Life of Duke of Ormond, vol. i. p. 445.) Dryden has very grossly libelled Forbes, under the name of Phaleg, in the Second Part of Absalom and Achitophel, lines 330–849, where see note at p. 161 of Globe edition of Dryden's Poetical Works.

^{page 111 note 1} The words in italics are in cipher in the original.

^{page 111 note 2} The Earl of Arlington.

^{page 113 note 1} The questions and answers are to be read in the Parliamentary History, vol. iv. pp. 643–5. Like questions were afterwards put to Arlington.

^{page 114 note 1} Sir Scroop Howe.

^{page 114 note 2} Sir Robert Thomas opened the matter against Lauderdale, and named Sir Scroop Howe, Mr. Man, Mr. Robert Pierpoint, and Lord St.John, as witnesses of Lauderdale's words. Lord St.John testified at some length: the three others briefly: all four testified positively.

^{page 116 note 1} Perhaps Sir Nicholas Armourer.

^{page 116 note 2} The Duke of Buckingham.

^{page 119 note 1} Mr. Howe.

^{page 119 note 2} Sir John Otway, Attorney of the Duchy of Lancaster.

^{page 120 note 1} The ruffian who attempted to murder the Duke of Ormond and to steal the regalia from the Tower, and who, on being pardoned by the King, became a privileged frequenter of the Secretary of State's office. See vol. i. p. 14, note.

^{page 121 note 1} The desire of Lord Arlington's friends for an impeachment is explained in a letter of Sir William Temple to Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, then in Ireland as Lord Lieutenant, written January 21,1674, the day after the rejection of the motion for an Address to remove Arlington from all his employments and from the King's presence and councils. “I thought the hest service I could do your Excellency was to give you no trouble; nor should I do it now, but to tell you how far two of your friends have been concerned in the affairs of this day, which I think my Lord Arlington ought to esteem the happiest of his life. After five days' debate, we at length passed a negative upon that question wherein the affirmation went so deep with the two Dukes: and the other question for his impeachment was the thing wholly pursued and carried for him by his friends as that which must fall, or, if it proceeded, must end with honour to him.” Lord Essex's other friend, about whom Temple wrote, was his brother Sir Henry Capel, who, according to Temple, had done Arlington more good than any one else in the House of Commons. (Courtenay's Life of Temple, ii. 93.) Mr. Courtenay remarks that Sir Henry Capel is not mentioned in the Parliamentary History as taking part in these debates; but the Parliamentary History gives very little of the debates: they are fully reported in Anchitel Grey's Debates, where a long speech of Sir Henry Capel may be read. The accounts in these letters mention incidents not even recorded in Grey's Debates.

^{page 122 note 1} The Duke of Monmouth.

^{page 123 note 1} The Earl of Arlington.

^{page 123 note 2} The writer alludes to the great man he is addressing.

^{page 126 note 1} By 166 to 127.

Peer. This refers to proceedings against Buckingham in 1667, when he was proclaimed a traitor, dismissed from the Privy Council, and sent to the Tower, but soon obtained the King's forgiveness, and returned to greater favour and power than before. See letter No. 178, p. 130.

^{page 127 note 1} Digby, fifth Lord Gerard.

^{page 127 note 2} See note at p. 110.

^{page 131 note 1} Dr. Sprat, afterwards Bishop of Rochester, was the Duke of Buckingham's chaplain.

^{page 131 note 2} Alluding to the legend of Saint Christopher wading across the ferry.

^{page 133 note 1} The anniversary of the execution of Charles I.

^{page 134 note 1} “as before ” means ending as the Lords' Address, “to proceed to a treaty in order to a speedy peace.” This Address was agreed to by the Commons, January 27.

^{page 136 note 1} Elsewhere spelt Milward, M.P. for Stafford.

^{page 136 note 2} This refers to a late election for Newark, where Sir Lionel Jenkins had been put up as a candidate, and there were two returns. Sir Paul Neal claimed the seat, and had appeared in the House on October 30, when Mr. Saclicyerell took notice of his presence without leave, and he was obliged to withdraw.

^{page 136 note 3} M.P. for Beverley.

^{page 138 note 1} The committee on the Earl of Arlington's impeachment.

^{page 139 note 1} The Duke was a lunatic. It waa set about that he had become a Protestant, and that his brother, a Roman Catholic, Earl of Norwich and Earl Marshal, sent him away and kept him abroad on that account, and that lunacy was a pretext. This resolution of the Commons did not bring the Duke over. The Lords did not concur in this Address, and the matter dropped. The question of his detention abroad again arose in 1677, when Sir John Eeresby testified in the House of Commons to his insanity. (Eeresby's Memoirs, p. 190, ed. 1831.)

^{page 141 note 1} This means that he had tried to hasten the trial of his election for Newark.

^{page 142 note 1} Sir Henry de Vic, the King's resident at Brussels.

^{page 144 note 1} The Lords did not concur.

^{page 145 note 1} Sir William Bucknell. This extraordinary speech is given somewhat differently in Anchitel Grey's report: “Gives an account how upon occasion, going to wait upon Lord Clifford (Treasurer), he was brought into an outward room by a page, and, being there, heard loud talking in the next room, Lord Clifford often saying his Majesty would never be brought to it; and some time after' Lord Arundel of Wardour came out. Lord Clifford, seeing Bucknell, was much surprised, and, after many reviling words, as calling him ‘dog’ and the like, asked who brought him thither, and how he durst come there. He answered bis page brought him. Some time after he met Lord Clifford at Tunbridge Wells by accident, and there my Lord proffered reconciliation and oblivion of what was passed.” (Grey's Debates, ii. 397.) Sir William Bucknell's account is probably exaggerated.

^{page 145 note 2} Lord Arundell of Wardour was a prominent Roman Catholic Peer. He was one of the very small party which met the King and the Duke of York on January 25, 1669, to consult about promoting the Roman Catholic religion in England, Arlington and Clifford being the two others. He was also one of the five Roman Catholic lords impeached with Viscount Stafford in 1678, on occasion of the Popish plot, the other three being the Earl of Powis and the Lords Petre and Bellasis.

^{page 147 note 1} This did not happen.

^{page 150 note 1} With the Earl of Peterborough, when Ambassador, to find a wife for the Duke of York. See vol. i. pp. 27, 157, 164, 188.

^{page 153 note 1} The Duke of Monmouth.

^{page 157 note 1} This reference to Halifax and another at the end of the letter are very interesting as showing the complete union of Halifax at this time with Shaftesbury, his uncle by marriage, to whom towards the end of Charles II.'s reign he was bitterly opposed. They quarrelled in 1679, after haying been both appointed, Shaftesbury as President, to the new Privy Council of that year.

^{page 157 note 2} Sir Nicholas Carew.