^{page 1 note a} Sir George Savile (afterwards Marquess of Halifax) was the eldest son of Sir William Savile, of Thornhill, who died 1643, by Anne, daughter of Thomas Lord Keeper Coventry, and was born 25th August, 1633. His first wife was Dorothy, daughter of Henry, Lord Spencer, Earl of Sunderland, and their eldest son Henry was born in February, 1660–1. She died 16th, and was buried at Thornhill 31st, December, 1670. (MSS. Coll. Arms.)

^{page 1 note b} In the volume of “ Familiar Letters, written by the Right Hon. John late Earl of Rochester and others,” and published in 1697, are nineteen letters addressed by Lord Rochester in and about the year 1679 (the year before his death) to Henry Savile, in which the stoutness of Savile's person is more than once alluded to.

^{page 2 note a} He became entitled on his father's death to a small family estate at Barroughby, Notts.

^{page 3 note a} Robert Spencer, second Earl of Sunderland, was now just of age, and must have been travelling to complete his accomplishments with his cousin Sidney and his sister's brother-in-law. Eight years afterwards (1671), Sunderland began his public life as ambassador to Madrid.

^{page 4 note a} Roger Boyle, Earl of Orrery. His poems were published in folio in 1681. He was also author of English Adventures, by a Person of Honour, published in the Savoy in 1676, and on this novel Otway's Orphan is founded. This play of The Widow is not mentioned in the Biographia Dramatica.

^{page 5 note a} The queen mother arrived a second time in England after the Restoration, on 28th July, 1662, and had Somerset House assigned to her as a residence. She returned to France in 1665, where she died 10th August, 1669.

^{page 5 note b} The seat of Sir George Savile in Notts. It had been a Cistercian monastery.

^{page 5 note c} It will be seen that the sea was the occupation in which he took most interest.

^{page 5 note d} The plague broke out in London in December 1664, but was checked by a hard frost that lasted till the middle of April: in June and July the disease extended itself rapidly over the town, and reached its height in the week ending 19th September. (See Notices of the Last Great Plague, Archæologia, vol. xxxvii. 1.)

^{page 6 note a} In 1665 Henry Savile was appointed Groom of the Bedchamber to the Duke of York, and so continued till 1672, his salary being 500l. a year. Pepys, under date of 16th November, 1665, says that the Duchess of York had “ fallen in love with her new Master of the Horse, one Harry Sidney, and another Harry Savile.” (Diary, ii. 343.)

^{page 6 note b} For the amusements of Tunbridge Wells, see Grammont's Memoirs, chap. xii. 325, and Notes and Queries, second series, vol. vi. 8.

^{page 6 note c} The letter refers to the action off Lowestoft, 3 June, 1665, between the Duke of York and Opdam, in which the English fleet was victorious. Waller wrote a poem on the occasion, intituled “ Instructions to a Painter for the Drawing of the Posture and Progress of His Majesty's Forces at Sea, under the command of his Highness Royall.”

^{page 6 note d} Francis Digby, second son of George Earl of Bristol. He-had been Lieutenant in the Royal Charles, and now (1666) had the command of the Jersey; in 1667 he had the Greenwich, and in 1668 the Montague. In all of which he shewed so much gallantry that on the first rumour of the second Dutch war, 1672, he was promoted to the Henry, 72 guns, and was killed in the action of 28th May, 1672, in which Lord Sandwich also fell. (Charnock's Biogr. Navalis, i. 222.)

^{page 7 note a} He joined the Earl of Sandwich's ship the“ Revenge,” and displayed great courage in the attack on the Dutch fleet in the port of Bergen.

^{page 7 note b} Tunbridge Wells.

^{page 7 note c} Dorothy Sidney, daughter of the Earl of Leicester, sister of Algernon Sidney, and the Sacharissa of Waller. Fenton, editing Waller's poems, 1730, did not know when she was born. She was born at Sion House, and baptised at Isleworth 5th October, 1617, whilst her grandfather was yet in prison. She had married Henry Spencer, first Earl of Sunderland, killed at the first battle of Newbury, September, 1643, and remarried Sir Robert Smythe.

^{page 7 note d} Henry Sidney, afterwards Earl of Romney.

^{page 7 note e} Lord Muskerry resided at Summer Hill, near Tunbridge Wells, where he entertained the court, and made great improvements at the Wells for the accommodation of visitors. He was killed in the naval action with Opdam, 3rd June, 1665. (See Grammont's Memoirs, chap. xii. 328.)

^{page 7 note f} Afterwards (1672) Secretary of State, brother of Sir William Coventry. Andrew Marvell thus describes them :

^{page 10 note a} Sir John Hanmer, in command of the “Henry” 72, most gallantly saved her from the fire-ships, and ran her disabled into Harwich, killing the Admiral of Zealand in the last broadside. (Charnock's Biogr. Navalis, i. 97.) Fretcheville Hollis commanded the “ Cambridge ;” he was much distinguished as a naval officer, and was killed on board that ship in the battle of Solebay, 1672.

^{page 13a note a} Sir William Coventry.

^{page 13a note b} Thomas Thynne, murdered by Count Conigsmark, 12 February, 1681–2.

^{page 15a note a} The second fight off the North Foreland, in which De Ruyter's line was broken and the English were decidedly victorious.

^{page 15a note b} There is here a break of ten months in the correspondence, during which the fire of London happened and the disgrace of Buckingham took place.

^{page 15a note c} The Dutch fleet under De Ruyter and Van Ghent had arrived at the Nore on the 8th of June. Ghent left it on the 10th; and on the 12th, ascending the river to Chatham, recaptured and burnt the “ Unity,” “Matthias,” and “Charles the Fifth,” and afterwards took the “ Royal Charlfis,” which had been left in an exposed situation down the river. On the following day Ghent again sailed up the Medway: burnt the “London,” the “ James,” and the “ Royal Oak,” with some smaller vessels, and destroyed Sheerness.

^{page 15a note d} The Royal Charles, of 80 guns, had been the flagship of the Duke of York, as Lord High Admiral.

^{page 16 note a} Andrew Marvell satirised this proceeding:—

See also Pepys' Diary, vol. iii. 258, 393–4. Pett was afterwards impeached for neglect of duty to the Fleet, but seems to have escaped. (State Trials, vi. 866.)

^{page 16 note b} The other children were Anne, born 1663, for whom Halifax wrote his “ Advice to a Daughter,” and who became the wife of John Lord Vaughan; William, born 1665, who became second Marquess, and ob. s. p. masc. 1700; and George, born 1667, dangerously wounded at the siege of Buda, 1686, and died s. p. according to Banks (iii. 334), in 1688.

^{page 17 note a} They were closely followed up by Sir Edward Spragge, and were forced to retire to their own coast without doing further injury in England.

^{page 19 note a} The Duke of Buckingham.

^{page 19 note b} Charles took a dislike to Clarendon, and was active in his hostility. See his Letter to the Duke of Ormond dated 15th Sept. 1667 (Ellis, 2d Ser. iv. p. 39); but the Duke of York stood firm to his father-in-law.

^{page 19 note c} Lord Sunderland's house.

^{page 19 note d} There was no vacancy.

^{page 19 note e} Alexander Hyde.

^{page 19 note f} Seth Ward.

^{page 20 note a} This is an early notice of the houses built in Pall Mall.

^{page 21 note a} Sir Stephen Fox was at this time paymaster of the army.

^{page 22 note a} Anne Maria, daughter of Roger Brudenell, Earl of Cardigan, afterwards the mistress of the Duke of Buckingham, a married man, who killed her husband in a duel in 1668. On 9 August, 1671, Andrew Marvell wrote, “ Buckingham runs out of all with Lady Shrewsbury, by whom he believes he had a son, to whom the King stood godfather: it dyed young, Earl of Coventry.”

^{page 22 note b} Rye was at this time much used as a port for travellers. (See Evelyn's Diary, 4th to 10th June 1652, ed. 1818, vol. i. p. 259.)

^{page 22 note c} The proposal to raise Sir George to the Peerage.

^{page 22 note d} There are no letters for nearly two years, which included the impeachment of Clarendon ; the rise of the Cabal ; the attack of Louis XIV. on Flanders ; the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle ; and the subsequent secret negociation with Louis. By Pepys Diary, (iv. 255–277,) * we learn that on 1st March, 1668–9, Henry Savile took Sir W. Coventry's challenge to the Duke of Buckingham : and, though the duel was prevented by Lord Arlington, the King was told of it. Sir William Coventry was committed to the Tower, and Savile to the Gatehouse : the Duke of York was incensed at his officer being sent among rogues and not to the Tower : it appears by a subsequent letter of Savile that he was removed to the Tower. Both were discharged on 21st March, but Savile was denied the honour of kissing the King's hand ; the Duke was directed not to receive him, to wait upon him in his chamber till further orders : and Savile went abroad for a time.

^{page 24 note a} See ante p. 22, note ^d.

^a Created Baron and Viscount 13th January, 1668.

^{page 23 note b} Widow of Robert Sutton, first Baron Lexington, of Aram, Notts, who died 1668.

^{page 25 note a} A new writ was issued 24 Oct., on death of Sir Clifford Clifton.

^{page 26 note a} There is no other letter till Henry Savile was, in October, 1672, sent as envoy to Paris. Among the domestic papers [Oct. 1672,] is a docquet for an allowance of 5l. a-day to Henry Savile, appointed to be an Envoy Extraordinary “ to our good brother the Most Christian King,” for his ordinary entertainment and allowance till his return. The object of the special mission was to secure more cordiality and a closer union between the fleets of the two countries; Louis having become cool in consequence of the assumed favour in which the Prince of Orange was with Charles, and of which Louis complained to Lord Sunderland.

^{page 28 note a} He had written to Lord Arlington to have an allowance paid through Sir Stephen Fox.

^{page 29 note a} The Earl of Sunderland had succeeded Sidney Godolphin as Ambassador at Paris.It is evident that there had arisen some coolness between him and Savile, for Henry Savilein his letter of the 4th October from Calais to Lord Arlington said, “ I need not tell your lordship how willing I am to pay all manner of obedience to the first of your commands as touching my L^d of Sunderland, it being one of the most agreeable circumstances of my voyage that I hope for an opportunity of returning to his friendship, it having all my life been one of the greatest pleasures of it, and the losse of his kindness one of the greatest troubles that ever hapned to me, soe that for any misbehaviour or disrespect on my side your lordship need not doubt either my care or obedience.” As the court went to St. Germain on the 10th, Mr, Savile's audience was delayed till the 14th, and he was then conducted to it in “ his Majesty's coaches.” Lord Sunderland had an audience of the King to prepare his Majesty for the coming, but “ could not present him, because he could do nothing publicly as an ambassador till he had made his entry.” (MSS. StatePaper Office.)

^{page 29 note b} He was made Groom of the Chamber to the King.

^{page 30 note a} Of York. The sale of places at court with the assent of the King was common. The other letters shew that Savile had become much dissatisfied with the court, but did not succeed in completing the sale.

^{page 33 note a} Sir Edward Spragge, writing from on board the “ Resolution,” 30th Sept. 1672, said, “ Since my last I have taken ten doggers, one busse, and a privateer of eight guns, I am using my best endeavours for the river, having cleared these seas of all fishermen except our own.” (Charnock's Biogr. Navalis, i. 73 n.)

^{page 33 note b} The Scilly Islands.

^{page 36 note a} Sidney Godolphin.

^{page 37 note a} Lord Halifax's eldest son Henry.

^{page 38 note a} On the 14th August, 1672, Savile wrote to Pepys from on board the “ Prince ” in Burlington Bay by desire of the Duke of York about the present of a shallop to the French Count D'Estree, and Pepys' entry into parliament. (Pepys' Memoirs, v. 33.)

^{page 39 note a} There is another break in the correspondence of nearly two years and a half.

^{page 42 note a} Ralph Montagu, who remained till his return to betray the Earl of Danby in 1678.

^{page 42 note b} The Earl of Halifax's second wife was Gertrude, daughter of William Pierrepoint of Thoresby, son of Rob. first Earl of Kingston, and by her he had an only child Elizabeth, who married Philip, eldest son of Philip 2nd Earl of Chesterfield. (Banks, iii. 334.)

^{page 44 note a} Although Newark was the last borough enfranchised by a royal charter, granted so late as 4th April, 1667, the electors fell at once into the “ good old ways ” of other and more ancient towns. The Commons Journals show that the committee appointed on 12 Nov. 1675, on the exorbitant drinking and expenses at elections, were directed to prepare a bill: they were on 20 Nov. ordered to report, and on 15 Feb. 1676–7 a bill was introduced and read a second time to regulate these expenses; and on the 19th, on its being ordered to be committed, a clause was presented to prevent bribery and excessive treating at elections. No further notice appears on the Journals of a bill, but the resolution against corrupt practices was passed, which gave such offence to the worthy electors of Newark. Treating had become a very common practice at elections. Samuel Jeake, in mentioning the election in 1661 of Sir John Robinson, Lieutenant of the Tower of London, for Rye in Oct. 1661, says: “Besides his expenses of well nigh 100l. he did greatly hazard it, and if he had feasted much longer would have done so more than he did.” Mr. Robert Wharton, writing to Sir Gilbert Ireland on 12 Nov. 1670, about the Liverpool vacancy, says: “If you please to treat the towne, or any other way that may advance my election, shall very thankfully repay you.” (Sussex Arch. Coll., ix. 59, 60.) And George Spencer, the agent of Henry Sidney, in informing him of his election for Bramher under date of 1st Sept. 1679, tells his master:—“ Promises on the one hand, and Mr. Goring's frequent treats and drinkings on the other, made us spend much more than we should, to keep our party firm.” The charge of Sir John Fagg “ was 80l., which I have engaged to pay this week. ’Twas more than we thought it could have been, but it is not to be imagined what those fellows, their wives and children, will devour in a day and a night, and what extraordinary reckonings the taverns and alehouses make, who being burghers are not used to be disputed with on that point. We have spent you almost 200l. more, and not been bad husbands either.” (Blencowe's Diary, &c, of Henry Earl of Romney, i. 116.)

^{page 45 note a} Sir Robert Markham stood on the same interest with H. Savile, and Penistoun Whalley stood with Sir Richard Rothwell. The numbers polled do not appear on the records of the corporation.

^{page 46 note a} Mr. Savile and Sir Paul Neale had been returned in 1673 under the new charter, but, as the parliament was sitting and the writ had not been issued by the House of Commons, they were not allowed to take their seats. On 31st Jan. 167¾ therefore they petitioned the Commons claiming their seats as being duly elected, and the petition was referred to the committee of privileges: on which nothing was done till 10th May, 1675, when other parties petitioned the House complaining of undue means and practices resorted to for obtaining the charter for sending two members. This petition was also referred to the Committee without effect: the matter still lingered : and at length Sir W. Coventry and Mr. Guy, Secretary of the Treasury, were tellers, on 26 Feb. 1677 in a majority of 147 to 98 Noes (for whom Sacheverell and Andrew Marvell were tellers) determining to hear the petitioners at the bar: they were heard on 21st March, when a resolution that Mr. Savile and Sir Paul Neale were duly elected was negatived by a majority of one (102–103). Ultimately a writ was issued to the corporation on 7th April. That the exertions of Henry Savile in procuring the adjustment of the difficulties about the charter might be suitably acknowledged, the corporation passed an address, which, with all its defective latinity, I am enabled to give through the kindness of P. F. A. Burnaby, Esq., clerk of the peace, who also informs me that the corporation books contain no record of the election of 1673 or of that of 1677.

^{page 48 note a} William Marberry, of Great Budworth, Cheshire, She was sole heiress of — Colombine, of Darley, co. Derby. (Ormerod's Cheshire, i. 470.)

^{page 49 note a} The Duke of Marlborough's biographers have not mentioned this projected marriage of the colonel at the age of 27 with the celebrated daughter of Sir Charles Sedley, created by James II. on 20 January, 1685–6, Countess of Dorchester for life. She was a relative of the Saviles, her grandmother having been Elizabeth, only child of the learned Sir Henry Savile, Provost of Eton, and the lady on whom Waller wrote the epitaph :

Churchill's marriage with Sarah Jennings is supposed to have taken place early in the next year. In 1674 he had bought an annuity of Lord Halifax out of a present from the Duchess of Cleveland. Count de Grammont gives the report that he was a friend of the duchess when the King disavowed her daughter. The version given by Lord Chesterfield in his letter to his son dated 18th November, 1748, is that “ while he was an ensign of the guards, the Duchess of Cleveland, then favourite mistress to King Charles the Second, struck by those very graces, gave him 5,000l., with which he immediately bought an annuity for his life of 500l. a-year of my grandfather Halifax, which was the foundation of his subsequent fortune.” (Letters, ed. 1845, i. 221.) It appears by his Life (ed. 1847, i. 8) that the annuity was purchased in 1674 for 4,500l. The following letters shew that Lord Halifax was fond of granting annuities.

^{page 49 note b} Sir George Sondes had been created Earl of Feversham in 1676, with remainder to his son-in-law Lewis de Duras, in default of issue male.

^{page 50 note a} These three lords were committed at the meeting of the parliament in February, for arguing that the effect of the late prorogation had been a legal dissolution of the parliament.

^{page 50 note b} Lord Halifax personally interested himself for Lord Shaftesbury.

^{page 50 note c} It had been adjourned by the King till the 21st of May, but was again adjourned, and did not meet till the 16th of July.

^{page 52 note a} Penniston Whalley was the defeated candidate at the election, and on the 31st January, 1677–8, presented a petition against Henry Savile's return. The petition was referred to a Committee of Privileges to report whether it was preferred within time or not, and on the 12th February Sir Thomas Meeres reported that it did not come in due time, and it therefore fell to the ground.

^{page 54 note a} This secret service among the “ Swiss ” portion of the electors has not become less useful during the last 180 years, notwithstanding the eighty-eight acts which have at different times passed the legislature to prevent corrupt practices.

^{page 56 note a} On 9th April the Lords had ordered Sir Jeremy Witchcot to put in his answer, and appointed a day for hearing. Sir Jeremy disobeyed the order, and the 26th of May was named for the hearing: it was finally fixed for Monday 28th May, but on that day parliament was adjourned by the King's command, and did not meet again for business till 28th January, 1677–8. (Lords' Journals, xiii. 122–127.)

^{page 64 note a} Henry Howard, who succeeded his father as Duke of Norfolk in 1684. He was divorced in 1700, and Lady Mary remarried Sir John Germain.

^{page 66 note a} At the close of the year 1677, Algernon Sidney obtained, through the influence of Henry Savile, pardon and permission to return home from Gascony on the plea that he was anxious to see his aged father before his death, which took place on the 2d Nov. in that year. In 1682 Algernon Sidney was again abroad, and again, through the intercession of Henry Savile, obtained the King's leave to return to England for three months. Writing from Nerac (Lot et Garonne), on December, 1682, Sidney thus thanked Henry Savile, “ My obligation unto you I so far acknowledge to be the greatest I have a long time received from any man as not to value the leave you obtained for me to return into my country after so long an absence at a lower rate than the saving of my life.”

There is an interval of a year in the correspondence, and then Henry Savile appears in Paris acting under the Lord Ambassador Sunderland, who had replaced Ralph Montagu; and Savile had succeeded Sunderland at that court in March 1678–9, but with the title only of Envoy.

^{page 59 note a} Afterwards Earl of Portland.

^{page 69 note a} On the 12th August, 1678, Henry Savile wrote also from Paris to his uncle Secretary Coventry, and, after speaking of the good reception he had always found at his house, he adds, “ These I hope are the charms that have prevailed with me to remember (that is, to trouble) you oftener than I am apt to do other of my friends whose butteryhatch is not so open, and who call for tea, instead of pipes and bottles after dinner ; a base unworthy Indian practice, and which I must ever admire your most Christian family for not admitting.” (Sir Henry Ellis, Original Letters, 2nd Ser. iv. 58.)

^{page 69 note b} He is thus mentioned in “ the D. of B's Litany ” (Poems on State Affairs, ed. 1703, iii. 93) :—

^a This passage relates to George Fitzroy, Earl of Northumberland, the King's third son by Barbara Duchess of Cleveland. The “ Lady B. P.” was the Lady Elizabeth or Betty Percy, the only daughter and heiress of Joceline 11th and last Earl of Northumberland of the old line. She was four years old at her father's death in 1670, and therefore between twelve and thirteen when this letter was written. The King had made his son Earl of Northumberland in 1674, and he advanced him to the dignity of a Duke with the same title in 1682 ; but the Lady Betty was married at the latter end of 1679 to her first husband Henry Cavendish, Earl of Ogle, only son of the Duke of Newcastle, who died in 1680 : she was then affianced to Thomas Thynne, of Longleat, and was the cause of his murder : and at last she became the wife of Charles Seymour, the proud Duke of Somerset.

^{page 60 note a} Henry Savile experienced on more occasions than one the friendship of Danby. In 1695, Danby, then Duke of Leeds, told with great complacency a story against himself. “ When I was Treasurer in King Charles's time the excise was to be farmed; there were several bidders. Harry Savile, for whom I had a great value, informed me that they had asked for his interest with me, and begged me to tell them that he had done his best for them. ‘ What,’ I said, ‘ tell them all os, when only one can have the farm !’ ‘No matter,’ said Harry, ‘ tell them all so; and the one who gets the farm will think that he owes it to me.’ The gentlemen came—I said to every one of them separately, ‘ Sir, you are much obliged to Mr. Savile ; Sir, Mr. Savile has been much your friend.’ In the end Harry Savile got a handsome present; and I wished him good luck with it.” (Lord Maeaulay, iv. 558).

^{page 63 note a} State Trials, vi. 1270, and Cooke's Life of Shaftesbury, ii. 165.

^{page 76 note a} When Henry Savile had been appointed Envoy Extraordinary to France, Algernon Sidney addressed to him weekly, or nearly so, the letters published in 1742. They began 3 (i.e. 13th) February, and continued till the 31st October (i.e. 10th November) 1679. As the letters of Henry Savile written from Paris are dated in the new style, I have added those dates to the letters of Lord Halifax.

^{page 76 note b} The impeachment of the Earl of Danby at the bar of the Lords was 23rd December, 1678, but parliament was prorogued on the 30th Dec., and dissolved on the 25th January.

^{page 76 note c} The King rejected Seymour, who had been chosen unanimously by the new house ; after the short adjournment, Serjeant Gregory was elected by a compromise.

^a The five proposed commissioners were mentioned (ante, p. 76), but the Earl of Essex was placed at the head of the Treasury, and the Earl of Sunderland and Henry Coventry were Secretaries of State ; the Earl of Arlington was Lord Chamberlain.

^{page 79 note a} Algernon Sidney wrote to Henry Savile May, 1679, “ The horrible reports made from Prance of poisoning affright reasonable persons here as much as the discourses of the Fleet at Brest do fools.” (Letters, p. 59.)

^{page 80 note a} See post, note ^a, p. 84.

^{page 80 note a} The Commons insisted on proceeding notwithstanding the King's pardon ; a bill of attainder was passed : and on Danby's surrendering himself on 10th April he was committed to the Tower.

^a Savile had written to Jenkins on 14th April, tendering his services at Paris.

^a Marie Louise, daughter of Philip Duke of Orleans by Henrietta of England, and niece of Louis XIV : she was married to Charles II. of Spain in the month of August of this year.

^{page 84 note a} Sir William Temple, under date of 21st April O. S. 1679, says, “ I had proposed Lord Halifax as one of the Lords [of his new council of 30], whom the King had indeed kicked at on our first consultation more than any of the rest; but upon several representations of his family, his abilities, his estate, and credit, as well as talent to ridicule and damage whatever he was spited at, I thought his Majesty had been contented with it: but at this meeting he raised new difficulties upon it, and appeared a great while invincible in them, though we all joined in defence of it: and at last, I told the King we would fall on our knees to gain a point that we all thought necessary for his service, and then his Majesty consented.” (Sir William Temple's Memoirs, ii. p. 495.) In Dalrymple the appointment is ascribed to the influence of Algernon Sidney.

^{page 85 note a} The Commons voted that the Duke of York's popery encouraged the papists in their murderous and traitorous designs; and the Lords agreed to it with the introduction of the word “ unwillingly” on the part of the Duke.

^{page 62 note a} Near Maidenhead.

^{page 62 note b} Lieutenant of the Tower, and M.P. for Rye.

^{page 62 note c} George Rodney Bridges, second son of Sir Thomas Bridges of Keynsham, Somerset: she died 20 April, 1702, and was buried at St. Giles-in-the-Fields. Mr. Bridges survived her and proved her will. Ex inf. T. W. King, Esq., York Herald. See also note ^a p. 22.

^{page 86 note a} Algernon Sydney had sent the rumour of this supposed appointment in his letters of 7th April and 1st May N. S.

^{page 86 note b} Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Stafford, whose eldest sister had married Sir, George Savile. Strafford was guardian of her infant children; and in his Letters (vol. i. p. 169) is one to his nephew Sir William Savile (Halifax's father), dated from Dublin Castle, 29th Sept. 1633, advising him “ to distrust himself, and fortify his youth by the counsel of his more aged friends before he undertakes anything of consequence.”

^{page 87 note a} In allusion to this fear, Savile, on the 13 May, 1679, wrote to Jenkins :—“ I agree with y^r Exe^y that the generall peace is now soe neare as that it can very hardly by any accident miscarry. But I am yet awhile a little too sanguine to thinke the leasure it will produce heer can occasion any present mischiefe to us. God send us but moderate and prudent at home, and I will yet hope we may be secure from our most potent neighbours abroad. But, though we differ in opinion in this matter, I am confident wee agree in our prayers for the quiett of our country.” (MS. State Paper Office.) And Algernon Sidney (Letter 36) said :—“ We have every day foolish alarms from the French fleet, and find none but my L^d Sunderland and myself that believe not one word of it.”

^a The despatch is not among the MSS. in the State Paper Office. It was evidently aimed at M. Barillon.

^a The famous bill of exclusion against the Duke of York was read a first time on 15th and a second time on 21st May (O. S.) by a majority of 207 to 121.

^{page 65 note a} The information preferred against Joseph Browne, an attorney, was for publishing several scandalous libels: he was found guilty of one only, called “ The Long Parliament Dissolved;” in Trinity term, 1677, exception was taken that the information did not set forth the libel in hœc verba, but only recited part of it; but it “ was ruled to be well enough either in indictment or information to avoid prolixity.” (Browne's case, Freeman's Reports, i. 465.) This was one of the cases in which the House of Commons took exceptions to the conduct of Scroggs and the other judges of the King's Bench. On 23rd December, 1680, (Com. Journ. ix. 689), the committee reported that he was ordered to be struck off the rolls without any offence alledged in his vocation ; that the publishing this libel consisted only in subscribing a packet with this inclosed to the East Indies ; that, not being able to pay the fine, living only upon his practice, he lay in prison for three years till the King pardoned him, and by his warrant of 15 Dec., 1679, recommended him to be restored to his place again as an attorney, but that he had not obtained such restoration. And the house resolved that Joseph Browne ought to be restored to all the offices and places which were taken from him by occasion of the judgment given against him.

^a On the same day Algernon Sidney wrote ;—“ Your nephew arrived here last night. His friends find he bears in his face too fair marks of his Spanish journey; but in all things else I believe he will give them as entire satisfaction as unto me, who ever had an extraordinary good opinion of him.” (Letters, p. 76.)

^b Algernon Sidney, writing on the prorogation, said:—“All men's wits have been screwed ever since that day to find out its consequences. Every body hath had his conjecture, and the most ignorant shewed themselves the most bold in asserting their opinions. Many find that the King would not have done it if lie had not resolved to send for the Duke… sell Jersey and Tangier to the French (for which Mr. Savile is to make the bargain), &c. The place from which the foreign assistance should come is not known. Mr. Savile is not thought very good at such treaties.” (Ibid. p. 77.)

^a Lords Stafford, Arundel of Wardour, Bellasis, Powis, and Petre.

^{page 100 note a} This irregular tribunal, called the Chambre Ardente, consisting of eight councillors of state and six masters of requests, was appointed by a royal commission, dated 7th April, 1679 : at first it was to inquire only into all cases of poisoning, witchcraft, impiety, sacrilege, profanation, and coining.

^{page 101 note a} Lady Scroope was a Catholic, and sister of Lady Holles. In a letter dated 19th Feb. 1679–80, Lady Sunderland tells Mr. H. Sidney: “ My Lady Scroope writes to me that Mr. Savile is sometimes a very impertinent minister. He is more than ever with her, in what he writ hitherto. She is in as ill hands as can be for her.” (Blencowe's Diary, &c, i. 280.) And in his diary, under date of 15th April, 1680, H. Sidney, giving the story of one Butler, as to a plot said to be hatching in France, describes that person as saying: “ that he would not speak of it to Mr. Savile, because they told him he told all he knew to a woman.” (Ib. ii. p. 30.)

^{page 101 note b} Parliament was prorogued on 27th May O. S., till 14th August; it was dissolved in July, and the new parliament met 26 January O. S., 1679–80.

^a In a letter written to Henry Savile on the 25th June O. S. 1679, Lord Rochester thus rallies him on this subject:—“ I cannot deny you a share in the high satisfaction I have received at the account which nourishes here of your high Protestancy at Paris ; Charenton was never so honour'd as since your residence and ministry in France, to that degree, it is noe doubt, if Parliament be sitting at your return or otherwise, the Mayor and Common Council will petition the King you may be dignified with the title of that place by way of Earldom or Dukedom, as his Majesty shall think most proper to give or you accept.” (Familiar Letters, p. 18.)

^a On the 9th, i.e. 19th, June Algernon Sidney wrote :—“ I presume you know that H. Sidney hath bought Mr. Godolphin's place of Master of the Robes : gives 6,000l., and is to go Envoy Extraordinary into Holland. The Lord Ranelagh, for the same sum paid to the Lord Sunderland, is made Gentleman of the Bedchamber in his place.” (Letters, p. 91.) H. Sidney was Minister at the Hague till June, 1681, when he was recalled, to the great regret of the Dutch. (Blencowe's Diary of H. Sidney.)

^a The rising at Bothwell Bridge after the murder of Archbishop Sharp, on 3rd May, 1679. The decisive action in which Monmouth routed and dispersed the rebels, whose numbers had increased to 17,000 men, was fought on 22nd June O. S. 1679. Waller addressed some complimentary lines to Monmouth on this successful expedition.

^a The Infanta Isabella Louisa was only child and presumptive heir of the Prince Regent: it was intended to suspend the fundamental law of Lamego in her favour, but neither this nor any other proposal for a marriage with a foreign prince was concluded.

^a Andrew Marvel's Advice to a Painter, written in 1667. (Poems on Affairs of State, ed. 1703, i. 89).

^a Created Earl 16th July, 1679.

^{page 110 note a} Algernon Sidney wrote on July 16, “The Lord Wiltshire's marriage with Mrs. Coventry was the last week celebrated with great solemnity, and yesterday the young couple came to the Marquess of Winchester's house, where there was a mighty feast and much dancing and rejoicing.” (Letters, p. 136.)

^{page 111 note a} For the copies of the letters and documents relative to the Treaty of Nimeguen, see Wynne's Memoirs of Sir Leoline Jenkins. In recent works the dates have been somewhat confused. From the MSS. in the State Paper Office, it appears that in July, 1674, the King of England offered his mediation for a peace between France and the Allies; this was accepted, and a congress arranged. The instructions to the English plenipotentiaries, John Lord Berkeley, Sir W. Temple, and Leoline Jenkins, are dated 9th December, 1675, and the mediators arrived at Nimeguen in July, 1676; negociations went on, but it was not till 17th September, 1678, that a treaty of peace was signed between France and Spain, and at length on 3rd February, 1678–9, the treaty of peace was concluded and signed between the Emperor and the Empire on the one part, and the French King and his Allies on the other, by which Phillipsburgh was ceded to the Emperor, and Friburgh to the French King, whilst the Duke of Lorraine was restored on conditions. By the conclusion of this treaty the general peace was restored. Some months elapsed before the exchange of the ratifications, and Leoline Jenkins finally left Nimeguen on the 8th August, 1679.

^{page 112 note a} These were Whitebread or White, Fenwick, Harcourt, Gavan, and Turner, the five Jesuits convicted 13 June, 1679, on the false evidence of Oates and Bedloe. (State Trials, vii. p. 311.) They died with solemn protestations of their innocence before God and man.

^{page 113 note a} Sir J. Reresby ascribed the large expense of elections to the great anxiety of candidates to fill the few seats that came vacant during a long parliament.

^{page 113 note b} Eland was the seat of the eldest branch of the Saviles.

^{page 113 note a} The prorogation had taken place on the advice of the triumvirate Sunderland, Essex, and Halifax ; the dissolution was agreed upon by them and Sir William Temple : and was strongly opposed by the Lord President (Shaftesbury), the Lord Privy Seal (Anglesey), Lord Russell, and two or three more of the Privy Council: at length the King was “ forced to enlarge on his utter despair of coming to any agreement with the present parliament and the reasonable hopes he had of more compliance with another, and finally to order the Chancellor to draw up a proclamation for dissolving the parliament and calling another,” upon which the council broke up in displeasure. (Ralph, i. 472.)

^a He had stood for Guildford unsuccessfully; and the parliament did not last long enough to decide his petition, presented 28 March, 1679, against the return. At this July dissolution he and Sir William Drake, knt., were returned on a double return for Agmondesham. Both petitioned, and the House held that neither was duly elected. A writ was issued on 11th Dec, and on the 20th Algernon Sidney again petitioned. The House had decided that the right was in the inhabitants paying scot and lot; and after the general election for the parliament that met at Oxford 21 March 1680–1, Algernon Sidney writes :—” Of those who by the last parliament were judged capable of giving their voices, Sir Robert Hill had 40, Mr. Sidney 37, Sir Jos. Drake 28, and Mr. Cheyney 29; and the constables have pleased to return the two latter.” He was again beaten by the influence of the court, and on the 24th March again petitioned, but the dissolution put an end to it. At the election July 1679 it was Henry Sidney and not Algernon who was elected for Bramber. (See ante, p. 44, note a.)

^a It was upon this first illness of the King in Sept. 1679, that Lords Sunderland, Halifax, and Essex, unknown to Sir William Temple, were induced to send for the Duke of York : and this secret communication caused the estrangement between Temple and Halifax, (Temple's Works, ii. p. 517 ; Life of Duke of York, i. 564.) Upon this occasion (11th Sept. 1679) Henry Savile, ignorant of what his brother had done, in writing to Henry Sidney says :— “The news of our master's illness has so frighted me that I expect this day's letters with great impatience, as well as with fear and trembling. Good God, what a change would such an accident make ! the very thought frights me out of my wits. God bless you, and deliver us all from that damnable curse !” (Blencowe's Diary, &c. i. p. 141.)

^{page 120 note a} He was Groom of the Bedchamber and Secretary of the Treasury.

^{page 121 note a} In a letter to the Lord Ambassador Jenkins from Paris, 18th July, 1679, Savile told him that “Monr de Los Balbaces makes great court to his future Queen, and that will bee the first good businesse that will entertaine us heer, newes coming dayly from Spayn of the great preparations to receeve her, that King resolving that shee shall not go by the way of Burgos, that shee may not see the sterility of old Castile, but by that of Roughillon, Barcelona, and Arragon, that her way to Madrid may not give her any prejudice to that place before shee comes att it. The truth is, if her Majty like it not better then I did (See Letter II. ante p. 3), shee will find enough there to dislike without preparing herself beforehand.” Writing after the marriage to Henry Sidney on the 28th August, 1679, (Blencowe's Diary, i. p. 102) Henry Savile says: “Thursday next will be the ceremony of the marriage; which will be in every thing else splendid to the same degree of my being in clothes of two hundred pistoles. This may make you laugh, but it makes me cry that I am not in the modest garb of the head of my family, a plain band … . Fail not to pity my suffering self in the midst of all the gaudy fools I shall see for a fortnight before I return hither “(Paris). In his letter of Sept. 8th to Henry Sidney (ib. p. 133) Savile observes of the marriage :” There was nothing more magnificent than the French, except the English minister, nor nothing more shameful than the Spanish. For Balbazos, he has been long given over fora niggard, but Pastrana, who is rich, young, and handsome, we expected some mighty things from; and I am very confident the only suit he has worn ever since he came did not cost him seven pistoles. We are told he will make amends by a wonderful splendid entry on the 15th, beeing to go envoy on the 20th, so that he has not much time to recover his reputation;” and in a further letter of 11th (ib. 140) he adds : “On Thursday the Duke of Pastrana makes his entry at Fontainbleau ; he has three coaches, of which two are so fine that they are supposed to be for his master. I wish you saw him, that you might know a person that at Madrid is called the terror of husbands.”

^a Simon Arnauld, Marquis de Pompone, appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs in 1671, was dismissed 18th November, 1679, through the influence of Louvois, for his delay in communicating to Louis the reply of the electoral court to the proposal of his son for the hand of a Bavarian princess. He was succeeded by Colbert de Croissy: but was reinstated 1691, and died in 1699, universally regretted.

^a This letter is by mistake dated October instead of November, as the subject shews it ought to have been.

^a The Duke of York visited Windsor on the 2nd Sept.; on the 12th the Duke of Monmouth was deprived of his command of the army, and on the 24th he was on hia way to Holland, upon the King's express commands to quit the kingdom. On 7th October the Duke of York obtained leave to reside in Scotland. (Ralph, i. 479.)

^a But he, with Lords Russell and Cavendish, left the council in the next month.

^b Lady Scroope was daughter of Sir Robert Carr of Sleaford, Lino, and widow of Sir Adrian Soroope. Evelyn mentions her (13 Oct. 1683) as “my Lady Soroope, the great witte.” She died in the autumn of 1685. See also ante, p. 101, note ^a.

^a Lords Halifax and Essex, finding that they had no part in the King's confidence or the Duke's, but were other men's dupes and did other men's work, and that no measures would be taken for satisfying and uniting the nation, would have no more concern in public affairs. Essex resigned, and was succeeded by Hyde (afterwards Earl of Rochester), and Lord Halifax retired to Rufford. (Ralph, i. 488.)

^a The Marquise de Brinvilliers, who poisoned her father, two brothers, and a sister, was the first case clearly proved ; she was beheaded and then burnt. She was charged also with committing the same crime on a number of other individuals totally unconnected with her. The Duchess of Bouillon, the youngest of Mazarin's nieces, was accused, but established her innocence. The famous Countess de Soissons on being interrogated flew from Paris and took refuge at Madrid. The cases of the Duke of Luxembourg and his sister are mentioned afterwards, p. 154.

^a See other letters in 1684, post.

^b The seat of the Earl at Rufford is near the village of Ollerton.

^a Sir Leoline Jenkins writing from Whitehall, 13 (i. e. 23) May, 1680, informed Savile of the renewed illness of the King, saying:—” There arrived here from Windsor this day about three a messenger to command the attendance of two or three of the King's physicians upon his Maiestie, who was seized this forenoon with a fitt of his ague and tooke his bed upon it at 12 ; this the messenger sayes: but we have no newes of any such thing from any other of the court. His Matu walked abroad this morning ; the newes of his being ill flyes about like lightning, which makes me give you this trouble, for by that time it will have reached you it will be grown to some prodigious story or other! I beseech God to bless ye King with health and long life, and that it may not be in the power of these restless spirits to disturbe him.” The apprehension for the King's safety soon passed away, and Sir Leoline told Savile on the 17th (i. e. 27th) of May:—” I rejoice to be able to give you ye news of his Mate having escaped his fitts on Saturday and yesterday. His physitians have no apprehension of ye returne of his ague. The parlt was prorogued this day to the 1st July.” (Secretary Jenkins's Letter-book. MSS. State Paper Office.)

^{page 154 note a} The charge was of having attempted to destroy a person who had incurred his displeasure ; and, that failing, associating with sorcerers, or frequenting fortune-tellers. His trial was protracted for fourteen months, during which he was debarred the use of pen and ink, and was from time to time brought up before the chamhre ardente, interrogated and confronted with witnesses, but nothing was proved except that he had once seen the priest Le Sage, and for idle curiosity asked him to draw the horoscopes of various persons. On the trial Le Sage declared that Luxembourgh had made application to Satan to destroy a girl Dupin, with whom some concealed papers were found; and that Le Sage and his companions by the Duke's orders had assassinated her, cut her in quarters, and thrown her into the Seine : but the evidence was shown to be forged, and Luxembourgh waa acquitted 14 May, 1680. Bonard, his intendant, was condemned to the galleys.

^a The Countess Dowager of Sunderland writing on July, 1680, to Lord Halifax, (Letters, ed. 1819, p. 346), thus notices Lord Eland:—” I have a better subject now, my Lady Scroope's recommendation of your son. Of his wit she says great things ; of his disposition she believes very well by all he says of those he should show it best to. For his discretion in marriage she will undertake you may leave it to him. There is a Protestant, he says, is the handsomest woman he ever saw, but she is not rich enough for him ; her portion is not above 8,000l. English. There is another very rich that I told your Lordship was spoken of for Spencer. My Lady Seroope had heard of it; but she says she is not fit for him : she is 18 years old. Her mother sent my Lady Sunderland a fan, with diamonds upon the sticks that cost 50 pistoles: she had sent her a Japan cabinet, that is Madame de Gouvernet. Your son says he could be in love, but he can stop it before it is any trouble to him. My Lady Seroope says she is sure he has no attachment. She says he does very pleasantly rally his uncle with watching his ways, and he is as fond of him as he can be. She did not know that he loved play; she says he went his uncle's half two or three times at my Lady Exeter's at small ombre, and at the fair for some little trifles, but nothing else at all.”

^a On June, 1680, the Countess Dowager of Northumberland told Lord Halifax : “My Lady Scroope is very angry, Mr. Savile says, with his Most Xan Majesty for refusing her a pass.” (Letters, p. 332.)

^a Writing on the same day, the Dowager Lady Sunderland said, “Mr. Savile does not desire to quit France till we have less of the politics and better wine. He is fatter than he was.” (Letters, p. 356.)

^b See Letter CXXV.post, p. 167.

^a Lady Rachel Russell, in a letter of Sept. 1680, said, “Lord Halifax came to town on Thursday, and next morning his coach stood at Sir Thos Chichley's (Master of the Ordnance and M.P. for Cambridge, who had married Lord H's mother). The town says he is to hear all sides, and then choose wisely. He kissed the Dutchess’ (Portsmouth's) hand last night, and she is gone this morning to tell the news at Newmarket;” where the King was.

^b Henry Savile was on 3rd (13th) Sept. 1680, sworn as Vice-Chamberlain to the King, which place had been vacant since the death of Sir George Cartwright. (Kennet, iii. 380.) Savile held it during the remainder of Charles's reign, and was reappointed by James II. on 17th Feb. O.S. 1684–5. In that year 150l. a quarter is charged in the “Secret Service Expences,” (ed. J. Y. Akerman, Camd. Soc.) as paid to him ‘. the last payment was in the account allowed 22 March, 1686–7. On the 8th March, O.S. Col. James Porter was sworn Vice-Chamberlain, (Lond. Gaz. 2223); and we find that in July of that year Savile went to Paris for surgical aid.

^b Dr. John Tillotson, afterwards (1693) Archbishop of Canterbury.

^b Dr. John Tillotson, afterwards (1693) Archbishop of Canterbury.

^a The part taken by Halifax against the Exclusion Bill, rejected in the Lords by 63 to 30, so incensed the Commons that they addressed the King for his removal from his Majesty's presence and council as a favourer of popery : the private reason being his advice for the last dissolution. The King replied on 26th November (O. S.), that he did not find grounds in the address for the removal: but that if the Earl or any other member of the council should in due and regular course be charged with any crime, his Majesty would leave him to his legal defence without interposing to protect him. (Com. Journal, ix. 663.)

^{page 171 note a} The memorial was in favour of the exemption of English subjects residing in Prance from the recent decrees against the Protestants.

^{page 172 note a} The Earl of Halifax had been “one that gave his voice for Lord Stafford.” (Sir J. Reresby's Memoirs, 237.) Sunderland voted for the condemnation.

^b It had been adjourned from the 10th to the 30th January, and in the mean time dissolved. A new Parliament was called to meet at Oxford on the 21st March.

^a The haughty and supercilious reply of Louis to the representations of Spain, and the memorials presented from the latter and the States General to Charles II., advising him to reconcile his differences with parliament and to oppose the designs of Prance, are given by Ralph, (i. 548).

^{page 176 note a} See Sir J. Reresby's Mem. 113, 114. Lord Halifax had said “that the King's uncertainty and silence as to what he proposed to himself made men afraid to serve him.”

^{page 177 note a} Henry Savile's answers to this and the following Letters, although alluded to by Lord Halifax, are not in the Duke of Devonshire's MS.

^a See Lord Halifax's “Character of a Trimmer.”

^{page 180 note b} The removal of Sunderland from the Secretaryship, and of Essex and Sir Wm. Temple from the council, left Hyde with the chief power in the government. Halifax again returned to Rufford. Sir Leoline Jenkins had announced his appointment in a letter to II. Savile dated 3rd (ye 13 Feby N. S.) which was on its way. (Secretary's Letter Book.)

^{page 181 note a} Barillon states that he sent home on 22nd Dec. 1678 an account of the sums expended by him to that date, leaving 21,915l. 11s. 7d. then in hand, which on 14th Dec. 1679, was reduced to 17,674l. 11s. 7d., by presents to the Duke of Buckingham, Wm. Harbord, Algernon Sidney, Sir Edward Harley, Sacheverel, and others whose names are given in Dalrymple. (Appendix, pp. 315, 317.) The report of a fresh remittance in 1681 may have been true, though all the other rumours were false. Barillon had been instructed to offer Charles pecuniary aid or a pension. (Ibid. p. 291.)

^a The return for Westminster was unopposed. The “two very honest men “in Southwark were Sir Richard How, knt., and Sheriff of London in 1678, a colonel of the Southwark trained bands, and Peter Rich, Esq., the former members, who were re-elected. Nearly 3,000 persons polled, but it was said that not more than 1,800 or 1,900 had a right to vote.

^b The release of French ships seized at Tangier.

^{page 188 note a} On 8th April, 1681, H. Savile wrote to Secretary Jenkins, saying, “To-morrow the Spanish Ambr is to have an audience: hee will acquaint this King with the resolutions taken by the Prince of Parma to evacuate Wirton and leave it wholly to the possession of the Prenche, desiring at the same time all this King's troopes may marche out of Luxembourgh, and that the conferences at Courtray may put an end to all other disputes betwixt the two crownes; how hee will succeed in this latter part of his addresse I will not undertake to tell you.”

^{page 189 note a} In his next letter of the 8th March, he says :—” Eight sea-officers were putt out of their employments the last weeke, onely for being of the religion, and such methods are taken that within a yeare there will not bee any left unlesse perhaps the age and merite of Monr do Quesne may get him alone excepted.”

^a Burnet described Halifax as “not only not a papist, but not even a Christian.” (Dalr. App. 302, 310.) In the satire entitled, “A young gentleman desirous to be a minister of state thus pretends to qualify himself,” these lines are given :

James called him an atheist and republican : no one however can read the excellent chapter “on Religion” in Halifax's “Advice to a Daughter,” without finding that he was not only no atheist, but was impressed with the pure, mild, and charitable rules of Christianity.

^a The seat of Sir W. Coventry.

^b The leave was communicated by Sir L. Jenkins in a letter of April, as having been given on the application of Lord Halifax to the King.

^c On the 1st April 1681, Charles II. had entered into a new treaty with France, which was so secret that the terms even were not committed to writing, and were known only to Hyde. The letters from Lord Halifax, Sir L. Jenkins, and H. Savile, make it certain that no one of them was aware of it. The terms were that Charles should disengage himself from the alliance with Spain; that he should either not call a Parliament, or prevent it from taking any measures against France ; and that he should receive a pension of two millions of crowns for one year, and 500,000 for two years after. (Dalr. App. 301). All the subsequent correspondence with Henry Savile at Paris conveying any orders from Charles must he read therefore by the light now afforded by this secret treaty.

^a The seat of Sir W. Coventry.

^b The leave was communicated by Sir L. Jenkins in a letter of April, as having been given on the application of Lord Halifax to the King.

^c On the 1st April 1681, Charles II. had entered into a new treaty with France, which was so secret that the terms even were not committed to writing, and were known only to Hyde. The letters from Lord Halifax, Sir L. Jenkins, and H. Savile, make it certain that no one of them was aware of it. The terms were that Charles should disengage himself from the alliance with Spain; that he should either not call a Parliament, or prevent it from taking any measures against France ; and that he should receive a pension of two millions of crowns for one year, and 500,000 for two years after. (Dalr. App. 301). All the subsequent correspondence with Henry Savile at Paris conveying any orders from Charles must he read therefore by the light now afforded by this secret treaty.

^{page 194 note a} He was allowed 400 crowns (911. 13s. 4d.) for the expenses of his journey. (Secret Service Expences, p. 31.)

^{page 195 note a} In this letter the Secretary had said, “Wee are bid heer to expect another mem” from the Dutch Ambr to the same effect I told you of. I am loath to give a guess why they should at this time presse to doe things that we are not obliged to by treaty, much less invited by reason and ye present circumstances. Nulla dies sine lined, of an address is the truth at Windsor.” (Letter Book.)

^{page 194 note b} On 16th April, 1681, Savile had said, “Monr de Lauzan, after neer tenn yeares imprisonment, has leave to come to Bourbon with guardes to drinke the waters, and twenty mousquetaires are gone hence for that purpose; ‘tis said hee shall returne to Pignerol again and continue in his confinement, but the whisper of the Court provides better for him, and ‘tis there thought hee shall have his liberty purchased by Madamoyselle de Montpensier at the price of her principality of Dombes, which upon these termes shee will give to the Duke de Mayne ; of this wee shall soon know the truth. The Duchesse of Bouillon, after fifteen monthes banishment, is alsoe permitted to returne to Court.” (MSS. State Paper Office.) Lauzun had offended Louis by a bond of secret marriage with Madle de Montpensier, but was sent to the prison of Pignerol in Nov. 1671, for having hid himself under the bed to overhear the conversation of the King with Madame de Montespan.

^a Lord Howard of Escrick was charged by FitzHarris with having given instructions for the libel for which FitzHarris was in prison, and FitzHarris called him as a witness on his (FitzHarris's) own trial. (State Trials, viii, 370.) The grand jury threw out the bill against Lord Howard; and Secretary Jenkins, writing on 23rd June, (i. e. 3rd July,) said, “Wee had an ill day yesterday at Westminster Hall, for ye grand jury wd not find ye bill of indictment against the Lord Howard, tho' ye evidence was such as grand juryes satisfy themselves withall.” (Letter Book.) There was however a discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses. Neither Lord Howard's own solemn protestation previous to his receiving the Sacrament, that he had been in no way concerned in or privy to any part of the libel, nor his humble petition to the King asserting his innocence and beseeching to be discharged with or without bail, could procure his enlargement (Ralph i. 607); he was detained in the Tower till after the failure of the prosecution against the Earl of Shaftesbury : he was then liberated on bail, and escaped to take his disreputable part in the depositions relating to the Ryo House Plot in 1683.

^a Edward FitzHarris had been sent to the Tower 11th March O. S. 1680–1. On 6th June O. S. Mr. Secretary Jenkins wrote to Savile, “Mrs. FitzHarris has braved the Queen's Bench to that point as to desire that her husband may be sure to come to his tryall on Thursday next;” and on 9th June O. S., “Mr. FitzHarris is this day found guilty of the treason charg'd against him; the evidence was very clear ; the foreman of the jury rais'd some scruples upon the late votes in parliament, but was satisfyed by the court, which did its part with great gravity and weight of reason: the pannell was of very disaffected men, yet the jury proved not refractory, so as to resist the light of their evidence.” (Letter Book. State Trials, viii. 388.)

^a In his answer of 23 June (i. e. 3 July) Mr. Secretary Jenkins said, “I see the Dutch Ambr there would have you undertake ye forlorn hope on yt side. This is consonant to what the Dutch Ambr here hath now of late press'd for, vizt., a declaration of what his Majty will doe in case of further molestations and insults of ye French upon the Spaniards. Mr. Van Citters hath taken a turn into Holland, and Mr. Sidney arriv'd here yesterday; who tells us of a wonderfull opinion yt is entertained abroad of ye beeing of our affaires upon the mending hand.” (Letter Book.)

^a In his letter of 5th July Henry Savile said further : “Old Monrde Ruvigny has given a memoriall to the King concerning the edict comeing forth about the children of the Huguenots. The King said hee would consider of it, but these poor people are in such feare that they hurry theire children out of France in shoales, not doubting but this edict wille soon bee followed by another to forbid theire sending them out of the kingdome. I will confidently averr that had a bill of naturalization pass'd in England last winter, there had been at least fifty thousand soules pass'd over by this time.” (See also letter CLXI post.)

^a He had been tried at Hertford in 1679 as a popish priest and acquitted. (State Trials, vii. 707.) FitzHarris in his confession accused Kerne and others with the design of seizing upon the King's person. Kerne's trial took place in the King's Bench, 22 June, 1682, when he challenged nineteen of the jury. Neither Dr. Oates nor Mr. Jennison appeared, and, the Attorney-General having no evidence to offer, Kerne was acquitted. (N. Luttrell's Diary, i 196.)

^a In his letter of 16 July, H. Savile further reported, “Concerning the complaint I made in my last, notwithstanding the doubts of Monr. de Croissy, on Sunday last the curate of St. Sulpiee (ordered by the Archbyshop to doe soe) came to my house and made mee his excuses for what he had done to my Lord William Hamilton, with assurances that hee would never more doe the like to any Protestant subject of the King our master's ; so that, having gayned that point, I thinke this matter need bee noe more stirr'd; all those heer who thought themselves inj ured by the action thinking the reparation sufficient, as I hope the King himselfe will also doe. Pray Sr let this bee told my Lord of Arran, and that his brother continues in very little likelihood of recovery.” On the 11th (i. e. 21st) August, Mr. Secretary Jenkins told Savile, “Your conduct in the affaire of Spain was perfectly approved of, and your zeal in my Lord William Hamilton's case very much commended. I have orders to speak to the French Ambassador on that subject, and to desire that some notice may be taken to the curé of that scandalous excess, soe as to prevent such abuses for the future.” And further, on the 28th July (i.e. 7th August), “Your victory over the Curé of St. Sulpiee is very much to the satisfaction of his Maty, who had an account of it in both your last letters this day at a Committee of foreign affaires.” (Letter Book.)

^a Master of the Robes to James II., drowned at sea 9th Nov. 1689, married Mary Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Sir John Savile of Copley. His eldest brother Henry, Duke of Norfolk, died s. p. 1701 ; and Thomas the eldest, and Edward the second, sons of this marriage became successively Dukes of Norfolk, and so continued till 1777, both being Catholics. (Tierney's Arundel, ii. 553–562.)

^{page 208 note a} The sovereign chamber of Metz declared that far the greatest part of Luxembourg and its dependencies were part of the bishoprick of Metz.

^{page 209 note a} The memorialls presented by our minister at Paris upon this and a subsequent occasion and Savile's account of the Dutch Ambassador's recent instructions wholly negative Ralph's charge, that the Dutch had reason to despair for ever of the co-operation of England.

^{page 209 note b} Bishop Burnet, (Hist, of his Own Times, i. 659,) under date of 1685, briefly alludes to these sufferings of the Protestants in France: but in Savile's letters they are fully stated, and to him belongs the honour of suggesting that wise course which turned the revocation of the Edict of Nantes to such an advantage for the future prospects of England.

^{page 211 note a} One of the commissioners for the office of Master of the Horse, and in Feb. one of the Clerks Comptrollers.

^{page 212 note a} Herein he was honourably distinguished; his name no where appears in Barillon's list. FitzHarris had falsely charged Lord Halifax with being among the pensioners.

^{page 212 note b} The speech of Dr. Plunket, titular primate of Ireland, at his execution, is printed in State Trials, viii. 495. On 26th July, 1681, Henry Savile had written: “These last three dayes Plunkett's speech has been cryed about the streets in such a manner as might animate the people against the Huguenots, at least the Lieutenant Civile did soe far feare it that he did yesterday forbid the cryeing of it. I question whether the edicts against the Protestants heer have been cryed in Englishe in the streets of London. I wishe there were a composition that neither should be done; but I am sure wee ought to doe it if they doe. Pray, sir, think of this point, it is not very frivolous.”

^{page 212 note c} On 5th Aug. Savile wrote : “You may bee sure there are many comments heer on the Prince of Orange's voyage into England, though wee have noe certain newes of his having left Holland.” On 24th July, O.S. 1681, the Prince of Orange arrived at Windsor. On 28th June (i.e. 8th July,) 1681, Henry Sidney told the Prince: “I believe there are some in the Cabinet Council that are desirous enough to see a breach between the King and your Highness. I told my Lord Halifax and my Lord Hide in plain terms that I was of that opinion. They answered that they could not imagine there was such a villain, and such a fool too, amongst them; for it would not only destroy the nation and all the royal family, but all Europe. I am apt to believe that these two lords are not so inclined but that they would be glad to see a good understanding between the King and your Highness, especially my Lord Halifax.” …. He “is highly incensed against the House of Commons and must stick to the Court (for he hath not a friend anywhere else), and therefore he is obliged to comply sometimes against his inclination.” (Dalr. App. 9–11.) See further, Letter CLXVII. post, p. 217.

^a In his letter of Aug. 2nd Savile says : “The soe many late edicts against the Huguenots doe now begin to take effect amongst the rabble, who did last week at Blois pull downe a corner of the temple, breake the windows, [and] severall other insolensyes have been done at Charreandun; and I suppose wee shall dayly heare of these sorte of accidents.” And in his letter of 20th Aug.: “Three temples are condemned within this week in Dauphiné, and others in Xaintonge. You can not imagine the joy here upon the news of ye care ye King is pleased to have of the Protestants who seeke refuge in England. No question but he will soon be sensible of the good effects of it.”

^b Savile concluded his letter of 2nd August with “doubting if the Spaniards can be ready in one spring as the D. de Medina Cœli counts on; if they can it will then be too late.”

^a Barillon asserts that Charles apologised to him for seeing his nephew, and concerted with the French Ambassador his answer to the Dutch and Spanish Ambassadors.

^a On 17 (i. e. 27th) of this month he was one of the witnesses against Colledge, the Protestant joiner : he followed James II. to Prance, and took a command in the French navy.

^b The bill of indictment against him had been thrown out by the grand jury.

^a A great mystery has been made as to the reasons for this visit of the Prinoe of Orange, and Ralph doubted Roger North's statement of the chief subject being the relations with France : these letters make the object sufficiently intelligible. Sir L. Jenkins in his letter of 8th, i, e. 18th, August had said : “I may with confidence refute all that is or can be suggested of the Prince's going away hence not well satisfyed. The French Ambassador gives out that they are satisfied with the rendition that is made of Chiny and its dependencies, and that they will referr all other differences to the conference at Courtray.” It was, according to Savile, reported in France that the Prince's voyage “had been very ineffectuall.” Writing however to Mr. Fanshawon 15th, i. e. 25th, August, Mr. Secretary Jenkins reiterated that “The Prince of Orange took a turn hither to wait on the King, whereby the measures between the King and the States are confirmed and fitted to the present occasion.” To Sir H. Croodrick at Madrid he said on the same day, “The expectation of those who desired a war against France was very much heightened. His Majesty and the Prince agreed very fully in their sentiments. Ye King our master is resolved to use all the means possible to save the Spanish Netherlands in conjunction with his allyes,” but cautions him against “entering into the warmth of the Dutch Ambassador” at Madrid. The immediate result of the Prince's visit was the joint memorial of England, Holland, and Spain presented in October. The other objects of the visit are explained in Lord Halifax's letters.

^{page 219 note a} On the same day Secretary Jenkins conveyed the King's directions to Savile “to ask the Most Christian King in his Matys name, that he would give leave to a learned man to transplant himself hither (London) with his family and fortune : his Majesty intending to make him chief Library Keeper at St. James's,” as his Majesty “intends to furnish and adorn that Library with manuscripts of the best sort, and to give the superintendancy of it.”

^{page 219 note b} In his letter to Secretary Jenkins of 3rd September H. Savile, alluding to a new correspondent he had engaged, says “I have putt him in the way of knowing those matters as exactly as myselfe had learnt to doe, not soe much I assure you for my owne ease as that it may bee continued to you, though his Maty should at any time thinke fitt to withdraw mee from this station, where I have now continued allmost as long as any one man has done at one time.”

^{page 221 note a} Secretary of Ireland 1692 under Lord Sidney, and died Jan. 1707. (Luttrell's Diary.)

^{page 221 note b} The proposal of the Court to go to Chambert was only a feint to cover the intention of going to Strasbourg, which was to be invested by Mon. de Montclar. The King started from Fontainbleau on that expedition on 30th Sept. N.S., the Queen and her Court with the Dauphine going to Nancy.

^a Savile wrote to Secretary Jenkins on 5th Sept. to tell him of the attack made on 3rd Sept. on his servants by those of the Duke d'Elbuf, beating at the gates with staves and stones and iron bars. On the arrival of the Escuyer they knocked him down, and so beat him till they cried he was dead ; upon which, Savile's servants, having no longer patience, sallied out, killed three and hurt two in the Duke's livery. Mr. Pulteney, on Savile's side, had two wounds with a sword, one in the head and the other in the back, but they were not adjudged dangerous. The Duke d'Elbuf went himself to make all the excuses and offers that were possible with all manner of respect to the King and civility to Savile. His son, brother, and most of the house of Lorraine did the like. On the 12th Savile wrote to say that he had obtained all the satisfaction he could desire, the whole house of Loraine having loaded him with excuses and civilities. (MSS. State Paper Office.)

^a By Secretary Jenkins's letter, it appears that one memorial was drafted by the Dutch Ambassador with the assistance of the Spanish, but that was set aside in favour of another drawn by the Earl of Halifax and others, reliance being placed on Mon. de Barillon's representation of Louis being ready to remit the matters in difference to the Courtray conferences. Henry Savile having expressed a dislike to the address, Jenkins on 15th, i.e. 25th, Sept. assures him that his great friend who was in London lately (the Prince of Orange) from Holland pressed it so that “we could not refuse to comply. The matters of fact are no otherwise alledged than they were vouched by the Spanish Minister, and for the success, we have been used so bad that if the address does not excite some displeasure and indignation upon it we think ourselves well enough. The truth is, I could have wished heartily we had not been preat so violently: you know the suspicion we labour under, and how a want of complaisance in some things would be construed at this time.” (Letter Book.)

^{page 225 note a} On the 4th Savile reported that the troops had entered Strasbourg, and “little or noe blood drawne upon soe great an occasion.”

^{page 226 note a} Purchased by Louis by the bribery of the Duke of Mantua.

^{page 226 note b} Barillon's conferences were privately with Hyde, whose colleagues were kept in the dark. Sir L. Jenkins, replying on Oct. to Henry Savile, said, “I can beare witness to your predictions: but the reports raised there of discourses between the King and Mr. Barillon are most intollerably suspicious : there could bee noe account to bee had there at Paris of what pass'd at Newmarket; for soe it must be between his Maty and the French Ambr if it be supposed to have passed after the taking of Strasbourg ; for ye letter bears date the 3rd and Strasbourg was taken but three days before. If it be surmised that the discourse had between his Maly and Mr. Barillon was before the enterprise, pray judge whether, the design being not communicated to Mr de Crequy and two of the secretaries, we were considerable enough to have that participation. But this is an old ruae, and you are sufficiently acquainted with it.” (Letter Book.)

^{page 227 note a} On

Oct. Sir L. Jenkins conveyed the King's pleasure that Savile should “not fullow the King's court till further order. My Lord your brother was at Newmarket when this resolution was taken last night: the reason being that his Majty hath obliged himself to act joyntly with the States Generall for the preservation of Flanders, and therefore, unless their Ambdr doe goe upon the same errand, his Majty will not send you to act singly by yourself.” (Letter Book.)

^a In his letter of 26th Sept., i. e. 6th Oct., Secretary Jenkins had said, “Wee doe all wee can to content the poor Protestants that would be denizen'd here (London).” Among the Domestic papers in the State Paper Office is a book (No. 694) containing the names of persons having letters of denization 1681–8. There is also (Dom. 1682) the following certificate of good conduct at Rye, where many settled. “These are to certifie all whome it may concerne, that the French Protestants that are settled inhabitants of this towne of Rye are a sober, harmless, innocent people; such as serve God constantly and uniformely according to the usage and custome of the Church of England; and further that wee beleive them to be falsely aspersed for Papists and disaffected persons : no such thing appearing unto us by the conversations of any of them. This we do freely and truely certifie for and of them. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands the 18th day of Aprill, 1682. Wm. Williams, Vicar, Tho. Tournay, Francis Lightfoot, collr Maties Customes, Mil. Edgar, King's searcher, Lewis Gillart, jurat, Mich. Cadman, jurat. Noble Waterhouse, waiter and searcher, Tho. Markwicke, clerk.” And on 3rd May several of the inhabitants of Rye declared their willing consent that the French Protestants newly settled in that place n ight continue their assemblyes in their church from 8 till 10 P.M., and from 12 till 2 P.M., and have the use of the pulpit and seats. The metal service used by them at their communion is still preserved in the town ; and one at least of their descendants, Mr. Dansay, became a jurat of this cinque port. Rye had been an asylum for the Huguenots after the fearful day of St. Bartholomew, 1572, and a record of their names is in Lansd. MS. 1570.

^a North says that he was in the front of a design to surprise the Tower and Whitehall. He was afterwards tried for this offence after the Rye House Plot, and was executed 20th July, 1683. (State Trials, ix. 638, 667.)

^a On the day this letter was written the Earl of Halifax, the two Secretaries of State, and others, had been appointed Commissioners to treat with the Dutch Ambassador about a Protestant League. (Luttrell's Diary, i. 139.)

^b Esther, daughter and coheir of Charles de la Tour, Marquis of Gouvernette, however married in 1684 Henry Lord Eland, eldest son of the Marquis of Halifax.

^a In his letter of 12th November, he says he is “assured there is a body of 15,000 men at Y pres.” The King however returned to St. Germain's, “having been oblidged to stay a little longer at Stenay then hee intended, for the accident of the Queen and all her weomen beeing lost in a wood in a most romantick manner.”

^b Mad. de Montespan had eight children by Louis XIV. Five sons, two of whom died young without titles; the Duke of Maine ; the Count of Vexin, who also died in his youth; and the Count of Toulouse : and three daughters, Louisa Francisca Madlle de Nantes, who married the Duke of Bourbon, grandson of the great Condé; Louisa Mary Anne Madlle de Tours, whose death is here mentioned ; and Francisca Mary Madlle de Blois, who married the Regent Duke of Orleans. (Anderson's Genealogies.)

^c See this corrected hereafter, p. 240.

^a The reply of Charles to Beuninghen does not appear in the letters sent to H. Savile; but, writing on 15 November 1681, Barillon stated, “I have had a long conference with my Lord Hide upon the terms in which his Britannic Majesty's answer to Van Beuning should be conceived. He told mee that, though the King of England did not enter into the league, he would not avoid explaining himself as if he intended it hereafter, and for this reason he thought himself obliged to answer, that when the Emperour, the King of Denmark, and the principal Princes of the Empire shall have entered into the league of association, he will be ready also on his part to enter into it.” (Dalr, App. 14).

^{page 239 note a} Louis Duke of Burgundy was born 6 August, N.S. 1682.

^{page 239 note b} 21 Feb. 1682, Savile told the result: “Mr. Talmache was tryed at the Chastelet heer on Wednesday last for the death of Mr. Kerneggy. Hee was acquitted for a fine of 1,000 pistoles; which beeing immediately paid, the use hee made of his liberty was to goe to Flanders to avoid an appeale to the parliament, and by consequence more trouble, though I thinke little danger.”

^{page 240 note a} Should be de Blois: the Count of Toulouse and Madlle de Blois were legitimated i Nov. N.S. 1681.

^{page 240 note b} Ann Mary Louisa, Duchess of Montpensier and Princess of Dombes; b. 29 May, 1627; died 5 April, 1693, N.S. See ante, p. 195, note b.

^a In his letter of 9 Dec. Savile says that Oppede had received a severe reprimand, and with orders to behave himself more discreetly for the future, and with more respect to the Queen and Prince.

^a In the letter of the 9th Dec. he says that the “definite resolution concerning the regale is said to bee that whatever has or may have been practised in times past they doe for the future grant it to the King, judging the power of donation to lye soe wholly in themselves that the Pope receaves noe injury by this act;” the parliament objected that the decision belonged to them, and on 24th Dec. he says: “This whole business of the clergy has something of the philosopher's asse mumbling thistles.”

^a Lords Shaftesbury and Howard of Escriek in a recognizance of 3,000l., and each of their four sureties in half that sum. Witmore, Whitaker, &c, were also bailed.

^b In his letter of 23rd Dec. Savile said : “As for the dyeing weoman at Marseilles, in my humble opinion, there is noe medium, and his Majty must either demand a publique arrest to exempt his subjects in this King's dominions from the like inconveniences, or his ministers must bee content to bee murmur'd against when these things happen. For my owne part, I keep all quiet heer, more by a perticuler management of the curates then by any security from the government.”

^a Formerly Sir Richard Grahme. (Luttrell's Diary.)

^a In favour of Luxembourg.

^b This was a promise made to the Prince of Orange.

^{page 250 note a} In his letter of Jan. 1681–2, Mr. Secretary Jenkins said, “The Holland Ministers are now more warm than ever in pressing to have a Parliament called, for ‘tis not onely the dread that Liege and Cologne may be taken in as Strasbourg was, but the very Mayerie of Dolduis being claimed as a dependency gives them cause to be very solicitous or rather anxious of the issue.”

^{page 251 note a} Anne countess dowager of Manchester, who afterwards married Mr. Montague. In the State Poems (vol. iii. 76, ed. 1704), under Queries and Answers from Garra way's Coffee-house,” is the Q. “How came Montague to gain the widow from Savile ?”— A. “The one was witty in going to bed; the other wiser in cutting the bell-rope,”

^{page 252 note a} Writing on 17th Nov. 1681, Barillon said that he had offered Hyde a million livres to be added to the yearly payment to Charles by Louis, for allowing the French to seize Luxembourg; and after many conferences Barillon on 1st Dec. informed his master that his proposals had been accepted by Charles and Hyde. (Dalr. App. 21.) The siege was raised in 1682, but the town was taken on a renewed siege in 1684. By the treaty of Ruyswiek, in 1697, France restored Mons, Charleroi, and Courtray, (taken 6th Nov. 1683,) and Luxembourg, to Spain, but kept Strasbourg.

^{page 253 note a} Another ambassador from Morocco arrived in England on January, 1681–2, bringing with him many presents, including lions sent to the Tower; he and his suite were much flocked after, and exhibited their prowess before the King in Hyde Park in managing their Barbary horses and shooting : they visited the play-houses and bear-garden, St. Paul's, and Westminster Abbey and Hall; hunted with the Duke of Monmouth at New Park; and were entertained by the benchers of Lincoln's Inn, at both the Universities, and by the King at Newmarket and Windsor: the audience on taking leave being had on 15th June. (Luttrell's Diary, i. 154–206.)

^{page 253 note b} See ante, p. 104.

^{page 255 note a} During his contentions with the house of Austria Louis had stimulated the Turks to make war on the Emperor and create a diversion in his favour. At the beginning of 1682 formidable preparations announced to Europe that a great expedition was about to pour into Hungary, and support the insurgent population there against the Emperor Leopold.

^{page 255 note b} Governor of Tangier. His letter is not among the MSS.

^{page 256 note a} On 20th Dec. Savile said, “The Chamber of Metz, which wee were told was abolished, begins to discover new dependencyes, more especially about Liege; but, what is more extraordinary, they have brought under that predicament some streets in the very towne of Mayence, and severall seignuries beyond the Rhine.”

^b The new Admiralty Commission bore date 20th Jan, O. S. 1682. Henry Savile was sixth Commissioner, after Lord Brounker and before Sir John Chicheley: he was continued in all the Commissions till 22nd May, 1684, when the last Commission was revoked, and Charles declared himself Lord High Admiral.

^a In his letter of 17th January Savile added, “Foreigne Ministers have heer busied themselves with finding examples of Ministers of different erownes having audiance together upon ye same businesse, of which there are soe many that it has been practised three or foure times by this very King ; but where reason doe soe apparently require a practise I doe not build upon confirming it by custome, nor upon this occasion should I have in the least grudged to stand with my hatt off whilst the Dutch Ambdr had it on, ever preferring the essentiall part of businesse to ye formes of it, how disagreeable soever…. I cannot conclude without wondring att the reportes of this towne, wch will have it that this King's troopes are drawn off from Luxembourg. In that ease I can not phancy they would have refused to heare us ; but our answer was calme and gentle in comparason of one given ye Spanishe Ambdr on Wednesday, who, pressing for an answer to a memoriall hee had long delivered, was told hee should have an answer sooner then he desired it.”

^b The Morocco Ambassador who came to England, had a private audience on January, but made no overture on business, and only enlargements on “the sincerity of his master's friendship.” The Emperor in his credentials said that “we need have noe apprehension for Tanger: it shall be safe from the Moores and from all others, tho’ there shd be but one woman to keep it.” (Secretary's Letter Book.) The real object was to obtain a treaty of peace with Tangiers, which was signed 22 February, O.S. On 26th Jan. O.S., Jenkins said, “The Ambr showes himself a rational civil person, but (between you and me) he absolutly denyes him that is with you in that Court to have any power or character from his King, and affirmes that he is come into France from ye Governor of Sallée, onely to recover some shipps or vessels yt ye French have taken from them, and to settle a commerce between that government and France. I pray lett us hear from you what ye man hath done besides his gallantyes in ye Gazette.” (Ibid.) A treaty of commerce with France for six years was agreed to, and on 11th February Savile replied, “I wondred at what your Morocco Ambassadour says of ours heer, there beeing noething to make us doubt of his comeing from that King but some mincing the matter in point of ceremony at his reception, which I confesse makes mee suspect something of what is averr'd on your side.” The letter of the Emperor to Charles II. is published in Familiar Letters, (ed. 1699, vol. ii. 103,) in which he alludes to his recent conquest of Sallée, and calls the people “rebellious pirates.” He goes on, “Since it hath pleased God to be so auspicious to our beginnings in the conquest of Sallée, we might join and proceed with hope of like success in the wars of Tunis, Algiers, and other places (dens and receptacles of the inhumane villaines of those who abhor rule and government). Herein, whilst we interrupt the corruption of malignant spirits of the world, we shall glorifie the great God and perform a duty that shall shine as glorious as the sun and moon, which all the earth may see and reverence: a work that shall ascend as sweet as the perfume of the most precious odour in the nostrils of the Lord, a work grateful and happy to men ; a work whose memory shall be reverenced so long as there shall be any remaining amongst men that love and honour the piety and virtue of noble minds. … Now because the islands which you govern have been ever famous for the unconquered strength of their shipping, I have sentt this my trusty servant and Ambassadour to know whether, in your princely wisdom, you shall think fit to assist me with such forces at sea as shall be answerable to those I provide by land, which if you please to grant, I doubt not but the Lord of Hosts will protect and assist those that fight in so glorious a cause.”

^a In his letter of 26th January (i. e. 5th February), Mr. Secretary Jenkins replied, “You will see by the inclosed memll that you had reason to say that ye answer to your memll hath been sent to the French Ambr here. It was communicated late last night to ye Spanish and Dutch Minrs here; they have thereupon demanded a conference, and his Maty hath appointed my Ld yor brother and several others to wait on them tomorrow;” and acknowledging thia on the 11th February, Savile said, “I have the honour of yours, with the memoriall delivered on the 25th by Monsieur Barillon, and by this time I hope you will have receaved the answer to my memoriall heer: which of them his Majty will like best I know not, but it is now plaine enough Luxembourgh is to continue under its present restraint till better arguments than paper ones can bee found.”

^{page 262 note a} Savile had written on the 21st January, “Though my courier bee not yet returned, I have reason to thinke there is one very lately arrived from Monsr Barillon : great councells were held yesterday and the day before amongst onely such as are in the privacy of foreigne affaires.” On the 24th, having acknowledged the receipt of the orders of January, he says, “I went immediately to the Dutch Ambassdr, who upon the letter receaved from Messieurs Van Citters and Van Buninghen did not hesitate to send as well as myseife to Monr de Croissy for separate audiences ;” and on the 27th, “The Dutch Ambdrs expresse is alsoe arrived, with orders to take the same method that shall bee prescribed to mee from England : to-morrow morning is appointed for his audiance, and Thursday for mine.”

^{page 263 note a} These addresses began at Blandford, Ld Shaftesbury being a Dorsetshire man : Somerset, Middlesex Justices, Durham, and Gloucesterfollowed, and even the Benchers of Gray's Inn and Barristers of the Middle Temple joined in the movement. (Ralph, i. 668.) Among the State Papers are similar addresses presented between January and October ; and Luttrell in his diary gives a further list, including the Inner Temple and Lincoln's Inn, the university of Cambridge, the grand juries and magistrates of 38 English counties, above 60 English boroughs, and several places in Ireland, from which like addresses were presented.

^{page 264 note a} The answer was inclosed in a letter of the 7th, and Jenkins on February said that the Spanish and Dutch Ministers in London understood it as a flat refusal to cease the voyes de fait before Luxembourg, and therefore pressed with all earnestness to have a Parliament called out of hand ; although, as Jenkins told Sir H. Goodrick, neither of the Ministers could frame to himself any probable hopes that a Parliament sitting would be any help to a negociation of that kind, much less that they would enable his Majesty to enter into a war with France. In “The Idea of the Court of France and the Method of their Proceedings from the time of the Peace of Nimeguen until the Spring of the year 1684,” (translated into English 1711,) ascribed to Don Pedro Ronquillo, it is said (p. 39), “Under cover of taking possession, the French hindered all the provisions from being carried into Luxembourg, neither would they suffer any person whatsoever to come out of it;” and that the King of England “looked on and saw all this without appearing to be the least concerned at it; and so secure was the King of France of that prince, that he did not only continue his hostilities, but did offer to make him the judge of all his pretensions.” The Earl of Conway writing on the 7th of March, 1681–2, to Sir L. Jenkins, however, said (MSS. State Paper Office, Domestic), “His Majesty was very sensible that the Prince of Orange would not carry on affairs in Holland to such a height nor go so far to bring a war upon Flanders if he were not encouraged and directed to it by the disaffected party in England, among which he thinks Mr. [H.] Sydney a great agent… . His Majesty's commands are that my Lord Hallyfax, my Lord Hyde, and yourselfe, should speake with the French Ambassador [M. Barillon] in such manner as you think fit, and as positively as you shall judge most proper upon this occasion, for the obtaining a free passage for provisions into Luxembourg ;” and on the 13th Lord Conway says, “Monr Barillon doth assure his Maty that he hath writt with all the earnestnesse imaginable to procure provisions to goe into Luxembourg, and doth hope to attaine it ; “and on the 17th, that the blockade was raised at the instance of Charles; and further Conway said on the 21st March, “Mr. Sidney came hither (Newmarket) yesterday, and was much surprised at the releefe of Luxembourg. His Maty found it both in his countenance and discourse, and was so malitious, to use the French phrase, as to presse him the harder upon it.”

^{page 265 note a} At the assembly of French clergy four famous propositions were made, which formed the basis of the liberties of the Galilean Church. 1. That the power of the Pope extends only to things spiritual, and has no concern with temporal matters; 2. That the authority of the Pope in spiritual matters is subordinate to a general council ; 3. That it is even limited by the Canons, the customs and constitution of the kingdom, and the Gallican Church ; 4. That in matters of faith the Pope's authority is not infallible.

^a True enough.

^a On 21st Feb. Savile had told Mr. Secretary Jenkins : “The next may tell you, if I receave my letters of revocation from your handes in a poste or two, that I am alsoe taking my leave to goe home and enjoy the benefit of his Majtys grace and abundant favour to mee in placing mee in the Admiralty. It shall bee then, Sr, that I shall render you my most humble thankes for the most obliging considerations you have ever been pleased to have of mee since I have been in your province, pardoning and concealing such errours as I am very sure I can not but have committed.” The letters of revocation were sent by Sir L. Jenkins on 20th Feb. (i. e. 2nd March) accompanied with the expressions of good will men tioned in the introduction.

^b The murder took place on the 12th February. The Count was taken in disguise by a servant of the Duke of Monmouth just as he was stepping out of a sculler, intending to embark next day in a Swedish ship. (See Sir J. Reresby's Mem. 135, &c.)

^c The three principals were convicted; but the jury, who were half foreigners, acquitted the Count as accessary, who immediately left England. He was about to be followed by Lords Cavendish and Mordaunt, and to be called upon to give satisfaction to them for the injury done to their relative, but they were stopped by Lord Aylesbury ; and on the 11th March, 1681–2 O.S., the Earl of Conway, speaking of Lord Aylesbury's desire that his Maty should by his injunctions and command confirm what his lordship had done to Lord Cavendish and Lord Mordaunt to prevent their going over to fight Count Coningsmark, informs Mr. Secretary Jenkins: “His Maty thinks that their parolle given to his lordship is a greater tye upon them than any injunctions whatever; and that if his Maty should interpose with his authority they would think themselves disengaged of their parolle.” But on the 23rd March Conway conveyed the King's commands to Mr. Secretary Jenkins to do what he thought fitt to prevent the duel. “My Lord Aylesbury proposes a writ of ne exeat regnum. His Ma's'3 commands are that you should advise with my Lord Chancelor about it, and doe what his lordship thinks fit;” and a writ of ne exeat was awarded against and served on them. (Luttrell's Diary, i. 174.)

^a The Duchess went over with her son the Duke of Richmond, who, to natter her pride, was treated with all the honours of a prince of the blood. The object of her jour, ney is stated by Ferguson to have been, as agent of the two courts, to carry out the money treaty and alliance against Spain.

^b Henry Savile's last letter from Paris is dated 18th March, N.S. 1681–2; and Richard Viscount Preston, who succeeded him, is called by Ralph “a creature of the Duke “of York. On 22d March O. S. Luttrell noticed the arrival of Henry Savile in London and his journey to Newmarket “to give his Majesty an account of his negotiation.” The Duke of York was there and the Earl of Hallifax, for the Earl of Conway, writing on the 20th March O. S. from Newmarket, said, “I was surprised yesterday morning to see my Lord Hallifax here, having heard nothing of it from you. The Duke [of York, who had just come from Scotland] receaved him with great kindnesse, and severall conferences they have had together. I hope they will agree well.” The Earl of Halifax returned to town on the 25th.

^a For nearly another year -we have none of Savile's letters. He seema to have attended to his new duties at the Admiralty, and not to have been in attendance on the Court.

^b See ante, p. 204.

^a He had been created Marquess of Halifax 17th August, 1682.

^b Other letters shew that the Court life at Newmarket was sufficiently dull. In theletter of the Earl of Conway thence on the 7th March, 1680–1, he tells Sir L. Jenkins: “I found his Majesty so much alone that for his diversion he was forced to play at bassett; and as I am informed retires to his chamber every night at 9 o'clock.” Nor was the King always successful in his favourite sport, horseracing. In his letter of 10th March O. S. the Earl of Conway informs Mr. Secretary Jenkins: “The King's horse, called Corke, had the ill fortune to be beaten by Mr. Rider's, called the French horse; and the crack this day is 6 to 4 on Sir Rob. Car's horse called Postboy against a gelding of his Majtys called Mouse. Pray don't acquaint my Lord Halifax with this, for he will laugh at us secretarys for communicating such secrets, which I assure you is all the place affords.” And next day : “The King's horse lost yesterday, and there is no less than 3 to 1 generally offered against his horse that is to run this afternoon.”

^c Cheveley, formerly the residence of the Cottons. Sir John Cotton sold the estate in 1673 to Henry Jermyn, second son of Thomas Jermyn, elder brother of Henry Earl of St. Alban's: he was created in 1685 Baron Dover, and in July, 1686, a privy councillor; and was Le Petit Germain of Grrammont's Memoirs.

^a On 13 August, 1669, Charles II. wrote through Lord Arlington to the constable of Castile, entreating him to restore Mr. Taaffe, Lord Carlingford's secretary, to the command of a troop of horse, which he lost in the Marquis Castel Rodrigo's time for serving the Count de Grinsbergh as second in a duel, or to give him some equivalent employment. (Arlington's Letters, 411). No peerage was conferred on him.

^b He was made Lord Privy Seal 26th October 1682.

^a This unexpected removal of the Court from Newmarket to London on account of the fire, was the cause assigned for the failure of the so-called “Rye-House Plot.” H. Savile's letters about this time are very few, and do not allude to the subject.

^b Henry Fitzroy, the King's second natural son, by Barbara Countess of Cleveland, was created Earl of Euston 16th Aug. 1672, and raised to the Dukedom of Grafton, 11th Sept 1675.

^{page 274 note a} The King and Duke of York set out from Windsor on 30th August 1682, to see the horse-racing at Winchester, returning on the 2nd September (Luttrell's Diary, i. 214), and on that day the corporation granted to the King the site of the demolished Castle of Winchester. On 23rd March, 1683, was laid the foundation of the intended royal palace, with a large cupola, from the design of Sir Christopher Wren. On 21 August, 1683, the necessary regulations were made by the corporation for the intended visit of the King and Queen, the Duke of York, and others of the royal family. (Bailey's Transcripts of Winchester Records, pp. 126, 157).

^{page 275 note a} For his deliverance from the late conspiracy : “at night were ringing of bells and bonefires in divers places.” (Luttrell, i. 279.)

^a For his deliverance from the late conspiracy : " at night were ringing of bells and bonefires in divers places." (Luttrell, i. 279.)

^b Doan of Windsor ; translated to Ely 1681. His text was Psalm cxliv. 9, 10.

^a Mad. de Gouvernette, Countess de la Tour, mother of Lady Eland, who was just married. In one of the lampoons of the day she is called “Eland's vain wife.” Her husband did not long live to enjoy his married life, for his will was proved in 1688, and he left no child. Lord Eland is mentioned in State Poems (vol. ii. 135, edit. 1703) as a rhyming Lord :—

^a James II. had succeeded to the throne on 6th February, and Henry Savile had been on 17th February reappointed Vice-Chamberlain: the Earl of Arlington being still Lord Chamberlain; the Earl of Rochester became Lord High Treasurer, and the Marquess of Halifax was appointed Lord President of the Council, but held that office only till October 1685, wlien he retired from the government and was succeeded by the Earl of Sunderland. At the general election in March 1684–5, Lord Eland was pressed to stand on the court interest for the county of Nottingham, but refused. (See Duke of Newcastle's letter 24 March, MSS. State Paper Office. Dom.)

^{page 281 note a} The treatment of the newly-married Duchess of Northumberland is thus alluded to in State Poems (iii. 223).

To the great match his uncle had made him : Was the counsel of kidnapping Grafton. The Duke of Northumberland married Catherine, daughter of Thomas Wheatley of Brecknoe, Berks, widow of Thomas Lucy of Charlecote, Warwickshire, and ob. s. p. 1716. See also ante, note a page 73.

^{page 281 note b} Alluding to the ordinance in 1685, usually known as the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. This ordinance revoked all that was left of the tolerance of religion ; forbade all assemblies or exercise of the reformed religion; banished all their ecclesiastics from the kingdom in fifteen days; offered to such of them, as would recant, their pensions, augmented by a third, which was to be continued to their wives; compelled the baptism of all infants in the Catholic church ; and condemned to the galleys all except the pastors who should attempt to expatriate themselves. (Crowe's Hist, of Prance, II. 127.) And in the London Gazette of 8 May, 1686, (No. 2136,) it is stated that, on complaint of the French Ambassador, a book entitled “Les plaintes des Protestants cruellement opprimes dans le Royaume de France,” said to contain many falsities and scandalous reflections upon the Most Xlao King, with translations, was ordered to be publicly burnt by the common hangman in front of the Royal Exchange.

^{page 282 note a} At the end of October in this year Halifax ceased to hold the presidency of the council, because he was opposed to the repeal of the Test and Habeas Corpus Acts : his removal being most agreeable to Louis XIV., as he stated in his letters to Barillon.

^a Lewis de Duras, nephew of Marshal Turenne, (see ante, p. 49, n. b.) He was brother to the Duke de Duras; was naturalised in 1664, when Captain of the Guard to the Duke of York; in 1674 was created Baron Duras of Holdenby; and died 1709, s. p. He was ridiculed as :—

^b Charles Beauclerk, natural son of Charles II. by Nell Gwyn, was created Duke of St. Alban's 10th January, 1684, and married Diana, daughter and eventually sole heir of Aubrey de Vere, 20th Earl of Oxford :—

^a She is thus mentioned in “Poems on State Affairs,” 1703, (vol. ii. 152,) in a poem on Madame le Croy:—

^a Offen or Buda, and the finest parts of Hungary, were taken by Solyman II. in 1526; the Turks were turned out in 1529, but retook Buda the same year. It was attempted to be regained from them in 1540,1598,1601, and 1684. The final and successful siege began on 19th June, 1686. On the night of the 23rd the lower town was attacked and taken, and the Turks retired into the castle: the great tower was taken in a general assault on the 27th July. On the 23d August the Bavarians were masters of the castle, and the whole town was captured on the 2d September, 1686.

^{page 286 note a} John Dolben.

^{page 286 note b} He was Privy Purse.

^{page 286 note c} Jane, youngest daughter of Sir Stephen Fox, Knt. She died 10th July, 1721.

^{page 287 note a} The celebrated and beloved mistress of the Duke of Monmouth. She was only daughter and heir of Thomas Lord Wentworth, and died 23rd April, 1686, unmarried.

^{page 288 note a} Of 15,000 men, infantry and cavalry, on Hounslow Heath, which the King manœuvred frequently with much pride. (Dalr. App. 167 171.)

^{page 288 note a} Son to the Earl of Carberry. In August, 1682, he married Lady Anne Savile, his second wife. They had an only daughter and heir, Anne, who became the first wife of Charles Marquess of Winchester, and afterwards Duke of Bolton.

^b Lord Strafford gives an amusing anecdote of James I., when hunting with his Court at Rufford (afterwards the seat of the Saviles) :—“The loss of a stag, and the hounds hunting foxes instead of a deer, put the king into a marvelous chaff, accompanied with those ordinary symptoms, better known to you courtiers, I conceive, than to us rural swains; in the height whereof comes a clown gallopping in and staring him full in the face: ‘His blood ! (quoth he,) am I come forty miles to see a fellow?’ and presently in a great rage turns about his horse, and away he goes faster than he came; the address whereof caused his Majesty and all the company to burst out into a vehement laughter; and so the fume for that time was happily dispersed.” (Strafford Papers, i. 16.) This is doubtless the incident on which the popular story of “The King and the countryman “ was founded.

^a A notice of the formulary used by Queen Mary I. is given in the Proceedings of the Soc. Ant. II. 293–4.

^b “An humble and hearty address to all the English Protestants in the present army,” written by Samuel Johnson, chaplain to the late Lord Russell, and still a prisoner for writing the libel of “Julian the Apostate” on James as Duke of York. The address circulated “with electric rapidity through the camp, and defeated by its single force all the art» of James.” The author was tried, condemned, and sentenced to pay a fine of 500 marks, to be exposed three times in the pillory, and to be whipped from Newgate to Tybourn. (State Trials, xi. 1339.)

^{page 293 note a} Sir William Coventry, youngest son of the Lord Keeper, b. 1626, and ob. unmarried. After his challenge to the Duke of Buckingham in March 1668–9 (see ante, note b, page 22), he did not hold office, but lived much at Minster Lovell near Witney, Oxon. The “Character of a Trimmer “has been ascribed, though it is believed erroneously, to him.

^{page 293 note b} Henry Coventry himself died in November, 1686. (Luttrell, i. 390.)

^{page 293 note a} See the high character given of him by Clarendon (Hist, of Rebellion, i. 45); and Burnet (Hist. ii. 138).

^a He was buried at Penshurst, where a monument was erected to his memory, with the following inscription:—

^b Who had found their refuge here after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

^a Lord George Savile was wounded in the unsuccessful attack on the breach of the town, and in the attempt to make a lodgment upon it, on 13th July, 1686. The London Gazette (No. 2158) thus describes the attack and the loss : “Most of the volunteers were ready at the head trenches and followed the grenadiers, who were to clear the breach; they mounted in two places, and in both found the Turks in a posture to receive them : the fight was very obstinate for near an hour, and many faggots and sacks of earth were placed to cover our men, but the Turks fought very desperately, and most of the officers and volunteers who bore their fury being killed or wounded, the soldiers quitted their posts. The English volunteers shewed all possible bravery on this occasion ; of twenty, only Mr. Fitz-James and five or six more are not hurt, the rest are killed or woundedj the Lord George Savile [is shot] through the belly.”

^a This is the last letter from the Marquess of Halifax to his brother Henry Savile : but among the Duke of Devonshire's MSS. is the following letter (printed in the Life of Rachel Lady Russell, ed. 1819, p. 102), written by the Marquess after the loss of his eldest and youngest sons, within twelve months, which is worth reprinting. “MADAM, London, July 23, 1C89.

^a In the second volume of Familiar Letters (1699, p. 42) is one addressed by Henry Savile, without date, but during his illness in England, to his old friend Henry Killigrew, in equally good spirits:—