II. 1685. one who seems to have known that James's preten- CHAPTER sions of independency with respect to the French King, were, (as he terms them,) only a show; but there can now be no reason to doubt the truth of the anecdote which he relates, that Lewis, soon after, told the Duke of Villeroy,* that if James showed any appa· rent uneasiness concerning the balance of power, (and there is some reason to suppose he did,) in his conversations with the Spanish, and other foreign ambassadours, his intention was, probably, to alarm the Court of Versailles, and thereby to extort pecuniary assistance to a greater extent; while, on the other hand, Lewis, secure in the knowledge, that his views of absolute power must continue him in dependance upon France, seems to have refused further supplies, and even in some measure to have withdrawn those which had been stipulated, as a mark of his displeasure with his dependant, for assuming a higher tone than he thought becoming.+ to the Prince Whether with a view of giving some countenance His advances to those who were praising him upon the above of Orange. mentioned topick, or from what other motive it is now not easy to conjecture, James seems to have wished to be upon apparent good terms, at least, with II. 1685. CHAPTER the Prince of Orange; and after some correspondence with that Prince, concerning the protection afforded by him, and the States General, to Monmouth, and other obnoxious persons, it appears that he declared himself, in consequence of certain explanations and concessions, perfectly satisfied. It is to be remarked, however, that he thought it necessary to give the French ambassadour an account of this transaction, and in a manner to apologize to him for entering into any sort of terms with a son-in-law, who was supposed to be hostile in disposition to the French King. He assured Barillon, that a change of system, on the part of the Prince of Orange, in regard to Lewis, should be a condition of his reconciliation: he afterwards informed him, that the Prince of Orange had answered him satisfactorily in all other respects, but had not taken notice of his wish that he should connect himself with France; but never told him that he had, notwithstanding the Prince's silence on that material point, expressed himself completely satisfied with him.* That a proposition to the Prince of Orange, to connect himself in politicks with Lewis, would, (if made,) have been rejected, in the manner in which the King's account to Barillon implies that it was, there can be no doubt; but whether * Barillon's Dispatches, March 1, and 5, Appendix, p. xli. et seqq. II. 1685. James ever had the assurance to make it, is more CHAPTER questionable; for, as he evidently acted disingenuously with the ambassadour, in concealing from him the complete satisfaction he had expressed of the Prince of Orange's present conduct ;* it is not unreasonable to suppose, that he deceived him still further, and pretended to have made an application, which he had never hazarded. However, the ascertaining of this fact is by no means necessary for the illustration, either of the general history, or of James's particular character; since it appears, that the proposition, if made, was rejected; and James is, in any case, equally convicted of insincerity; the only point in question being, whether he deceived the French ambassadour, in regard to the fact of his having made the proposition, or to the sentiments he expressed upon its being refused. Nothing serves more to show the dependance in which he considered himself to be upon Lewis, than these contemptible shifts, to which he condescended, for the purposes of explaining, and apologizing for, such parts of his conduct, as might be supposed to be less agreeable to that monarch than the rest. An English Parliament acting upon constitutional principles, and the Prince of Orange, were the two enemies II. 1685. CHAPTER Whom Lewis most dreaded ; and accordingly, whenever James found it necessary to make approaches to either of them, an apology was immediately to be offered to the French ambassadour, to which truth sometimes and honour was always sacrificed.* The primary object of his reign, Mr. Hume says, the King found himself, by degrees, under the necessity of falling into an union with the French monarch, who could alone assist him, in promoting the Catholick religion in England. But when that historian wrote, those documents had not been made publick, from which the account of the communications with Barillon has been taken, and by which it appears, that a connection with France was, as well in point of time, as in importance, the first object of his reign, and that the immediate specifick motive to that connection, was the same as that of his brother; the desire of rendering himself independent of Parliament, and absolute, not that of establishing Popery in England, which was considered as a more remote contingency.+ That this was the case, is evident from all the circumstances of the transaction, and especially from the zeal with which he was served in it by Ministers who were never suspected of any leaning towards Popery, and not one of whom, (Sunderland excepted,) could be brought + Appendix passim. * Vide Appendix passim. to the measures that were afterwards taken in favour CHAPTER II. sented by of that religion. It is the more material to attend 1685. to this distinction, because the Tory historians, especially such of them as are not Jacobites, have taken much pains to induce us to attribute the violences misrepreand illegalities of this reign to James's religion, historians which was peculiar to him, rather than to that desire of absolute power, which so many other princes have had, have, and always will have in common with him. The policy of such misrepresentation is obvious. If this reign is to be considered as a period insulated, as it were, and unconnected with the general course of history, and if the events of it are to be attributed exclusively, to the particular character, and particular attachments of the monarch, the sole inference will be, that we must not have a Catholick for our King; whereas, if we consider it, which history well warrants us to do, as a part of that system which had been pursued by all the Stuart Kings, as well prior, as subsequent, to the Restoration, the lesson which it affords is very different, as well as far more instructive. We are taught, generally, the dangers Englishmen will always be liable to, if, from favour to a Prince upon the throne, or from a confidence, however grounded, that his views are agreeable to our own notions of |