Page images

to publish an explicit account of his pecuniary dealings with Mr. Jerningham! He says: "It is needless to explain minutely why papers of such value lay so long neglected and almost unknown. They are jumbled together in a mass of confusion." And the Colonel asks: "Why did Carte think them so unimportant as to leave them huddled away in this style, and to maintain perfect silence on their existence?" And why did he omit them from the parcels consigned by him to the Bodleian? "Is it not possible . . that, that, knowing, as he must have known, something of their antecedents, he may have looked on them as especially worthless, and may therefore have especially avoided to send them?"

Before raising these "crucial" difficulties, and making these conjectures, the Colonel might have examined the romantic life of Carte himself. After George Kelly was arrested in 1723, Carte acted as agent between Atterbury and James III. He characteristically uses "manuscripts," not the usual "muslin," as a cant word for money or munitions of war.1 But the excellent Carte, in his later years, had little time for historical composition. Manuscripts were his heart's desire; the delightful sport of document-hunting Carte never abandoned. Deep in the intrigues of the hidden Prince, he tasted the joys of trying to make secret history; but he was the collector all the time. He was the conspirator first, but he never ceased to be the amateur. Till his death, in 1754, Carte was coming and going to and from France as an emissary to Prince Charles.

dismissed from his secretaryship to the Prince. Pickle the Spy says (December 1752), "Mr Carte, the historian, has carried frequent messages," in the thick of the Elibank Plot to kidnap George II. Again (March or April 1753), "Carte has been several times over, he is trusted, and it is by his means chiefly that the P. turned off Kelly," to whom the P. was much attached.2

Now, it must be said that Mr Pickle's intelligence, as far as it can be tested, is usually accurate. A great Highland chief, he had access to the best information, and he frequently marks the limits to which his exact knowledge does. not extend. We see, then, that just before his death, in 1754, Carte was often in France, and was in the highest trust with Prince Charles. What cheaper yet more satisfactory reward could an impoverished prince grant to an enthusiastic collector of documents than the papers of Nairne, the secretary of his father's and grandfather's Ministers (16891718), and of his grandmother. Carte, like Bishop Forbes, must have dreamed of presenting his History to the king, at St


Very probably Carte was only permitted to borrow the MSS. from the Scots College, the Jacobite Record Office. If so, of course he could not, and did not, send them in 1753 to the Bodleian. But even if Carte got the papers from the Nairne of 1753 (at whose house near Paris a spy reports Charles to have lain concealed), it would have been very unsafe for Carte to send them to the Bodleian. "How and whence did

He helped to get George Kelly you get these, Mr Carte?" would

1 See "The Report of the Lords' Committee on Layer's Case."

2 Pickle the Spy, pp. 178, 190.

have been a natural and damaging question. Again, if Carte got the Nairne Papers while he was actively engaged, just before his death, in a plot to seize St James's and the royal family, he would not have leisure to arrange them. They would come to Macpherson, as the Stuart Papers avowedly came to George IV., when Prince Regent, "jumbled together in a mass of confusion," as Macpherson says. Finally, Macpherson, writing in 1775, shortly after the marriage of Charles, and while there were French and American schemes for raising the royal standard in America, while Nairne, as ever, was true to his king, would not, could not, be explicit as to how Carte got the Nairne Papers.

Thus the information of Pickle the Spy, which could not conceivably have been designed to that end, shows at once how Carte may have got the Nairne Papers into his possession, why he "kept silence about them," why Macpherson could not explain the facts in public, why the papers were in a jumble of confusion, and why Carte, and, later, Mrs Carte, did not send them to the Bodleian.

The circumstances which Colonel Parnell thinks suspicious really afford presumptions of the truth of Macpherson's statement.

Next we turn to the anonymous 'Life of James II.,' the other source of information as to the treasons of Arran, Godolphin, Shrewsbury, Danby, Russell, and Marlborough. The MSS. of the Life have their own romance. Burns's "Bonnie Lass o' Albany," Charlotte, daughter of Charles Edward and Miss Walkinshaw, died within a year

of the death of her royal father. She bequeathed to bequeathed to the Abbé Waters, of the great Jacobite banking family, Prince Charles's confidants, the papers "found in her father's library at Florence," including four volumes of a MS. 'Life of James II.' The Life, says the Abbé, is "asserted to have been collected from Memoirs written in his own hand, to which they bear continual references, citations, and long extracts." i Nobody denies the existence of the autograph Memoirs of James II. On March 24, 1701, he deposited them in "Our Scotch Colledge of Paris," under the care of Lewis Innes, the Queen's Almoner. On January 12, 1707, his son, James III., had them sent to him at St Germains, and then and there, probably, the

Life of James II.' was compiled from the king's own autograph Memoirs. We know, from a letter of worthy James Edgar, the loyal servant of James III., dated January 10, 1740, that Carte was given access to "the Complete Life of the late King "—that is, to the Life founded, in or near 1707, on his autographs. That Carte saw these, is doubtful; and, in 1802, Charles Fox was informed, by survivors of the Scots College, that Macpherson never saw them.2 They were destroyed, in the Reign of Terror, by a timid lady at St Omer, to whose husband they had been intrusted. not like to have royal MSS. in her possession. Thus perished, in all probability, the ciphered original of Marlborough's famous letter of May 4, 1694, with all other original reports from Arran, and from Godolphin, Shrewsbury, Sunderland, and the rest of William's

1 Life of James II., 1, xiv., January 12, 1805. 2 Edinburgh Review, June 1816.

She did

dubious Ministers. For these we have only the evidence of (1) the drafts of translations into French, for Louis, in the Nairne Papers, and (2) the extracts and reports in the Life of James II.'

But Jamie Macpherson, who could never run straight, has mystified the facts. In his introduction to the "Original Papers" (1775), he says that Carte (in 1740) obtained access "to such papers, belonging to the family of Stuart, as LAY OPEN in the Scotch College at Paris. . . . In particular, he made very large and accurate extracts from the 'Life of James II.,' written in that Prince's own hand."1

The blushless Jamie now insinuates that he, as well as Carte, made extracts from the autograph MSS. of James II. But Edgar's letter of 1740 does not admit Carte himself to these sources. Macpherson doubtless worked on the anonymous 'Life of James II.,' perhaps receiving information from Jesuits who had seen the original. Thus our Celtic bard mystified matters, more suo: it does not follow that he forged documents.

Colonel Parnell's first difficulty, then, as to the provenance of the Nairne Papers, as to how Carte got them, why he was silent about them, why he left them in disorder, and did not send them to the Bodleian, we have tried to solve. Next we have admitted that, as an able writer in the 'Edinburgh Review' showed long before Macaulay wrote (June 1816), Macpherson equivocated,


even fabled, as to his use

of King James's autograph Memoirs.

We now turn to Colonel Parnell's other objections to the Nairne Papers. They are not "original." "All are projects or drafts, with corrections. All are written by Ministers of James. Six are in the handwriting which Macpherson attributes to Nairne," the other two, Colonel Parnell admits, are in the writing of Melfort, attested by "harmless papers in the same collection, which would not repay the trouble of forging." Again, none of the papers have been folded, or show signs of having been transmitted to Versailles. No fair copies are in the French archives.

That drafts of letters afterwards despatched in fair copies are not original documents, one can hardly admit. What can be more "original"? Such drafts are not folded or sent anywhere; they are kept by the writer or by his secretary. As to the absence of fair copies from the French archives, I have reason to know that the absence of later Stuart memorials, certainly sent, from the French archives (as far as they have been searched) is very inexplicable. But Macaulay (iv. 158, 159, 166) avows that one, at least, of the fair copies from the Nairne drafts

King James's Memorial of November 1672-is actually in the archives of France. The question of "the handwriting attributed by Macpherson to Nairne," can be tested by Nairne's other letters, which must exist at Windsor, and, probably, in the possession of his representative. Moreover,

1 Macpherson adds, "But his most valuable acquisition was the papers of Mr Nairne." Edgar says nothing about giving to Carte Nairne's papers. Jamie himself says, in the next page but one, that how Carte got Nairne's papers "is imperfectly known." Then it is not known that he got them in 1740. My hypothesis that he got them in 1752-53 is unshaken.

such an "innocent" document as in what Admiral Russell sent him his preface to James's devotional word of by the Earl of Middleton, papers is actually in the Bodleian. and Mr Floyd" (or Lloyd). We Nairne's handwriting is therefore shall presently prove the reality as certain as Melfort's. Again, of Lloyd's dealings with Admiral Melfort himself undeniably made Russell. Colonel Parnell says that corrections, in his own hand, in the date is after Melfort was these Nairne drafts, even in the superseded as James's secretary by draft of the translation of Marl- Middleton. Middleton arrived at borough's letter of May 4. Con- St Germains in April 1693, but sequently the papers must have Macaulay says that he was joined been written by his secretary,— with Melfort as secretary, not that who was Nairne. Thus Colonel he superseded Melfort. Macaulay Parnell does not succeed in dispar- is right. aging the authenticity of Nairne's handwriting. He does not speak of comparing it with other specimens, or of any search for them, though he visited the Bodleian, where they lie. He cites no expert's opinion. All these objections, therefore, fall to the ground. The Nairne Papers, so far, are just what they were bound to be a secretary's drafts and brouillons. The first document is a draft of a French translation of James's Memorial to Louis, dated November 1692. Macaulay accepts it as "James's words," "James's concise narrative" of his dealings with William's English Ministers. This is the paper in which he describes Marlborough's plot for his Restoration (1691), and the disclosure of that plot by indiscreet Jacobites, who thought that Marlborough was fighting for his own hand. Colonel Parnell dismisses all this as a specimen of "the brazen style in which poor James was deluded by the Ministers and secretaries who designed and drafted his Memorials to Louis." But Macaulay supports James's statement by one of Burnet's, in the Harleian MSS. (6584). This the Colonel does not notice.

In the next document (October 16, 1693), we find Melfort's Instructions to William's Ministers. "His Majesty" (James) "trusts

The third document need not detain us: the fourth calls itself, "Draft of certain reports from England," and is in Melfort's hand. It inculpates the usual English nobles, and Colonel Parnell supposes it to be, not a true copy of reports, but a thing concocted by Nairne and Melfort, in collusion with their English reporting agents. This is only his theory. The fifth document, another draft of English reports, by Nairne, implicates Sunderland, Arran, and Churchill. As Macpherson points out, the passages concerning them are deleted by pen strokes. For some reason Melfort and Nairne did this, and we can only conjecture at their motive. The paper represents an abandoned project. Why abandoned, as all the characters were already implicated, we do not know. Then we have a French rendering, by Nairne, of a letter from Arran to James, implicating Sunderland. It is, says Colonel Parnell, "considerably corrected," -as drafts of translations usually are.

We now come to a human being, Captain Lloyd, whose report of what he did in England (in April 1694) is done by Melfort into French, and is indorsed " carried to Versailles, the 1st of May 1694." Lloyd reports on his interviews with Admiral Russell,


arrived at St Germains, King James used to ask him if he had seen me, and he saying 'No;' 'What, in the name of God, do you come over without imparting it to my best friend?'" 2

Captain Lloyd, adds Ailesbury, was "a snarling creature of my Lord Middleton.'

Thus Lloyd's dealings with Admiral Russell were well known at the time. He was also a "creature," not of Melfort's, but of Melfort's coadjutor and rival Middleton.

Now, observe, about May 1 1694, Middleton's creature and Melfort are (Colonel Parnell says) "concerting a report for Louis. But Colonel Parnell makes it an argument against Marlborough's letter of May 4-three days later

Marlborough, and Godolphin. Russell, he says, made vague promises, Marlborough paid compliments, Godolphin betrayed the attack on Brest,-familiar to Louis weeks before. Colonel Parnell decides that "if not a later forgery," Lloyd's report "was quietly composed at St Germains by Melfort and Lloyd in concert," to delude Louis, who, the Colonel thinks, was easily deluded about Englishmen. Louis was not so simple! Of Lord Ailesbury he said, "This is the first man of quality with a great estate that hath repaired to you; the first man that came over about an affair of the most high importance; and the first that never asked anything for himself." This is not the tone of credulity. But did Lloyd in fact have inter--that Sackville and Marlborough views with Admiral Russell, as Melfort makes him say? He did; and for William's admiral to receive an agent of James and France is sufficient treason. Lloyd was no ordinary man; he had served James on the deck as captain of a ship, on shore as groom of the bed-chamber. Lord Ailesbury, who hated him, says :"He was the very picture of Captain Surly, in the Comedy of 'Sir Courtly Nice.' . I was most credibly informed that once he went from my Lord Marlborough and Admiral Russell, and I know that, at his return, he did alight at the house of the latter, and was carried into his closet in the presence of Captain Priestman, and Captain Matthew Aylmer, and other sub-officers. And a little before, the two last had told it as news of the town, that Lloyd was in France, and he coming in soon after, the old Admiral said, 'See, gentlemen, how you are mistaken!' This Lloyd, as I said, went often over, but the secret was to be kept from me, to my great satisfaction. When he

are communicating news, not to the Protestant Middleton, but to "the displaced and more or less disgraced " Catholic, Melfort. "Does not this alone destroy the possibility of the paper" (the French draft of Marlborough's letter) "being authentic?"

Alas! Marlborough's letter is not to Melfort, but "to the King of England," James. It is enclosed with one from Sackville, to whom addressed we do not know. But, as the Lloyd report of three days earlier shows, even Middleton's very "creature," Lloyd, had, when preparing memorials for the French Court, to deal "in concert" not with Middleton, but with Melfort. This was the regular course of business. So Colonel Parnell's argument against the authenticity of the letter vanishes. Vanishes, too, his theory that the letter was "a design of Melfort's to show Lɔuis and his Ministers that, though a Roman Catholic and nominally

1 Memoirs of Lord Ailesbury, i. 335, May 1693

2 Ibid., i. 273.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »