LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

LIFE OF THE FIRST EARL OF SHAFTESBURY. TO THE EDITOR OF THE usrserseolt..1

Sin,—An instructed and conscientious reviewer must always be welcomed by an honest author, and such a reviewer will in turn be willing to receive corrections of his criticisms.

As you are good enough to acknowledge the labour I have given to a vindication of the first Earl of Shaftesbury, and speak of my biography as "the first complete life of Shaftesbury ever written from original research," you will not quarrel with me for my desire to show that I am not justly chargeable with some omissions attributed to me in your review of July 15.

1. On the subject of Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper's quitting the

King's party in 1644 and going over to the Parliament, you men- tion that Clarendon distinctly ascribes his change to anger at being superseded in the government of Weymouth, and represent me as saying that " there is no reason to doubt Shaftesbury's own statement that he had received no slight from the Royal party, but the contrary, and that he went over because of plainly seeing the King's aim destructive to religion and the State ;' " and, while you discredit Clarendon's state- ment for the reason that a man of Shaftesbury's character was not likely to be governed by resentment, you say that, "sav- ing his own belief in Shaftesbury, Mr. Christie throws no further light on the question between treachery and change of opinion." If the writer of this criticism will again refer to my account of this change and its circumstances in seven pages of vol. i. (pp. 47-53), I think that he will see that I bring forward a good deal more than he has credited me With. Cooper himself said more than the reviewer quotes, both in his Declaration before the Committee of both Kingdoms, which is quoted by me at full length, and in an extract from his early autobiography, which I also quote. Cooper declared distinctly to the Committee that he had resigned his commission (a flat contradiction to Clarendou's assertion that he was superseded). I argue in favour of the truth of Cooper's statement, that it was made publicly at a time and under circumstances which ensured prompt exposure of false- hood, if he declared falsely. The statement that he resigned occurs also in his autobiography, written in 1646, which would itself not be of the same value for proof as the public declaration of March, 1044; but the latter authenticates the former, and the statement of the autobiography goes further, and tells us that at

the moment of his defection he had the promise of a peerage from Charles I., and had "but two days before received a letter from the King's own hand of large promises and thanks for his service." Cooper's statement of the King's favour to the last is confirmed by facts which I mention. He had been appointed governor of Weymouth in August, 1643; he went over to the Parliament in the first week of January, 1644. In the short interval he had been made sheriff of Dorsetshire for the King, and president of the King's council for war in the same county. I further argue, in support of Cooper's sincerity, that the time of his defection was a critical one, and that other leading Royalists left the King's party at the same time, giving the ?Jame reason as Cooper gave for change (I name the Earl of Westmoreland, Sir Edward Daring, and Lord Inchiquin). I further quote from the letter of a zealous Royalist, announcing the simultaneous defection of Cooper and of his neighbour and friend Sir Gerard Napier, and imputing no bad motive. Finally, I mention, and endeavour to prove by quotations from Clarendon, that when Cooper left the King's party, the King's cause was very prosperous in the West of England, and that generally there was no sign of coming discom- fiture. My "conclusion" in this case may be right or wrong, you seem to think it right ; but my belief that Shaftesbury did not act on this occasion from resentment rests on more than belief in the truth of that one statement of his which you quote, and I think I may fairly claim to have brought forward, in support of my conclusion and to throw light on the question, a good deal, more than "my own belief in Shaftesbury."

2. As to the secret treaty of Dover of June 1, 1670, for alliance of England and France for war against Holland, by which Charles, in view of declaring himself a Roman Catholic, was to receive from France, in order to quell expected disturbances, two millions of francs and the aid of six thousand soldiers, to be maintained at the expense of France as long as wanted, I have maintained, that this treaty was deliberately, sedulously, and successfully kept a secret from Ashley, Buckingham, and Lauderdale, while these three were juggled and duped by the King and the very few in his confidence into negotiating and concluding two other treaties with France for an alliance hostile to Holland, of December 31, 1670, and February 2, 1672, in which the articles relative to the Roman. Catholic religion were suppressed. Lord Macaulay has chosen to say that Shaftesbury and the two others "were not men to be easily kept in the dark, and probably suspected more than was distinctly avowed to them." This, of course, is mere suspicion. and surmise of Lord Macaulay.

You refer to Lord Macaulay's suggestion, calling it, however, what it does not amount to,--." a confident statement ;" and you say, "Mr. Christie cites a communication of Colbert to Louis XIV., expressly recommending that the intended declaration of the Roman Catholic religion should be kept secret from Ashley and Lauderdale. It is a pity that no reference is given to the documents in which this is to be found, but, taking it as it stands, it simply eihibits what Macaulay starts with, viz., that Ashley and Lauderdale were intended to be kept in the dark, but not that the blind proved effectual, whereas Mr. Christie treats it as mak- ing it clear that Ashley had no suspicion.'" My account of the I ong intrigue and tortuous negotiations of eighteen months, from June, 1670, to February, 1672, during the whole course of which it was not only intended to keep Ashley, Buckingham, and Lau- derdale in the dark, but the intention was also accomplished, is to be found in pp. 22-28 of vol. ii. ; and it has been avowedly taken and abridged from M. Mignet's narrative, which has been public property for thirty years. M. Mignet's account of the negotiations from June, 1670, to December of the same year, when what he calls the first troth!' simule; and Dalrymple calls "mock-treaty," was signed by Ashley, Buckingham, and Lauderdale, together with Arlington and Clifford, who were in the secret of the treaty oil Dover, occupies fifty pages of the third volume of M. Mignet's work, which are full of documentary evidence (vol. iii, part 4, sec. 1, pp. 214-268), and M. Mignet briefly describes the subse- quent negotiations which immediately preceded the second mock- treaty of February, 1672, at the end of the fourth section of part of his work (vol. iii). Having begun by avowing that my account was taken from M. Mignet, I thought I had done enough and done honestly in making my references to M. Mignet's work I refer also to Sir John Dalrymple's work ; and he made public ninety years ago the main facts of the trickery practised on Ashley, Buckingham, and Lauderdale, with references to and extracts from Colbert's despatches. I do make in a note, referring to volume and page, a quotation from M. Miguet as to fears that Ashley and Lauderdale, who were sharper than Buckingham, might begin to, suspect, if those who were duping them went too fast, which, he derives from letters of Colbert to Louis and Louis to Colbert of August and September, 1670. I agree with you that the intention to conceal is one thing, and success in concealing another. Lord Macaulay merely conjectures that Shaftesbury was too clover not to suspect. The following are some reasons for believing that Shaftesbury had neither knowledge nor suspicion, which are to be found in or suggested by my biography. If he and the two others suspected, their suspicions would have been betrayed during the long eighteen months of intrigue and negotiation, and either their suspicious would have been lulled, or perseverance in concealment rendered vain. The object of the treaties which Shaftesbury and the two others signed was quite distinct from the special matter of the Roman Catholic religion comprised in the treaty of Dover ; there was nothing in the negotiations which they joined in conduct- ing necessarily to suggest or lead to the secret of the Dover treaty. Those who knew the secret were very few, and very careful. After the Dutch war began, we learn from Colbert, Juno 20, 1672, that the great secret had then been told to Buckiugham, who was proceeding with Arlington and Halifax on a special mission to Louis XIV. Colbert says at the same time that Halifax was entirely ignorant of it (We of Shaftesbury, ii. 85). Now Halifax was as acute a man as Shaftesbury, and it is quite as easy to say of him as of Shaftesbury, that he was too clever not to have suspicions. Colbert never reports that Shaftesbury was told the secret by the King, or by his desire. After Shaftesbury as Chancellor separated from Clifford and the Duke of York and promoted the 'Fest Act, and Arlington went with Shaftesbury, Col- bert writes that he bad reason to suspect that Arlington had then I. et je n'ai quo trop d'indices quo, pour perdre le feu milord

told Shaftesbury the secret. "Milord Arlington tactic de sauver sa fortune par une entiere complaisance aux volontes du Parlement, Clifford, il donna conuaissance au due d'Ormond et au Chancelier [Shaftesbury], et par eux au Parlemeut, du premier dessien," The date of this letter of Colbert's is November 10, 1673. Colbert does not know, he only suspects, that Shaftesbury then knew the secret. After Shaftesbury had been dismissed from the Chancellorship, and when he was known to be in Opposi- tion, the King opened his Parliament of January, 1674, with a speech in which he declared that his alliance with France had been misrepresented, and that there were no dangerous secret articles, as had been rumoured, and a great deal also equally mendacious, which, if the King had known that Shaftesbury knew the secret or had suspicion of it, he would hardly have dared to utter. I do think it clear that Shaftesbury "had no suspicion of the secret engagements of the treaty of Dover."

3. My letter is already long, but I wish also to remark on the following passage of your review :—" Mr. Christie tells us very little about Shaftesbury's ' Delenda eat Carthago' speeches against Holland, the country to which he fled on the break-up of his scheme for a rising with Russell and Monmouth in 1682 Shaftesbury fled, Russell remained and suffered ; it does not

appear to have occurred to Mr. Christie that this sudden sauce qui peut of his hero suggests anything unfavourable to

him." I say a good deal about the " Deleuda eat Carthago" speech ; there is only one speech in which those words occur, though there are two speeches delivered by him as Chan-

cellor in support of the Dutch war. The " Delenda eat Carthago" speech is described and commented on at pp. 113-118 of vol. ii. Shaftesbury as a minister advocated the Dutch war, and he had, as a minister, carried on for eighteen months negotiations with France for making this war, The war must be judged on its own merits. Parliament and the nation supported it. In the first year of the war, Shaftesbury as minister, speaking for the King, urged a vigorous prosecution of it, and not illegitimately capped his rhetoric with the words " Delenda eat Carthago." Dryden, who afterwards reviled him for the Dutch war, did at the same time his inflaming part in the theatre, wrote an anti-Dutch play, and versified " Delenda eat Carthage" in his epilogue. At the time of Shaftesbury's second Chancellor's speech, October 29, 1673, he was doing all in his power to termi- nate the war and get rid of the French alliance. For this and for his general opposition to the King's and Duke of York's policy he was dismissed in November. Niue years after he flew for safety to Holland. I have argued more than once in my biography that, though he had ten years before applied to Holland, during war, the phrase " Deleuda eat Carthago," he had been ever since his Chancellorship the " constant, indefatigable, maligned, and persecuted friend of Holland and the Protestant interest," and that it was but natural that he should be kindly received in Holland. It is true, as you say, that Shaftes- bury fled and that Russell remained and suffered, and I acknowledge

that Shaftesbury's flight has not suggested to me anything unfavour- able in comparison with Russell. First of all, Shaftesbury was sick and old, Russell young and vigorous. Your antithesis in- volves a mistake. Shaftesbury fled to Holland in November, 1682, and died there in January, 1683. When he fled, he was in imminent danger of a second arrest and prosecution ; he had already been in prison for five months on a charge of high treason, from which a Whig grand jury saved him. Russell was not in danger, and not threatened. The arrest of Russell occurred seven mouths after Shaftesbury's flight, in June, 1683, and arose out of discoveries unconnected with what, seven months before, had made Shaftesbury's danger. In the interest of accuracy and truth, I hope that you will be able to find room for this letter.-1 am, Sir, &c., [1. In the letter from the King to Hertford, printed by Mr. Christie, "from a copy among Lord Shaftesbury's papers at St.

Giles'," Hertford is recommended to prevail with Cooper, on account of his youth and inexperience, to " resign his command willingly." Mr. Christie admits that a resignation on such terms would be a virtual removal, but conjectures that the King's recom- mendation was not put in act, because "there is no evidence of any endeavour made by Hertford or any one else to persuade Cooper to resign, and it is quite likely that the King's sugges- tion of his resignation, made at the time of compromise between the King's and llertford's partizans, was not afterwards thought of." Cooper relinquishes his command, his relinquishment being preceded by the King's expressed desire that he should be induced to relinquish it ; setting aside the presumption that these two events were cause and effect, the presumption that Cooper knew of the King's wish is a stronger one, and is further strength- ened by the presence of a copy of the King's letter among the papers at St. Giles'. Yet, as Mr. Christie does us the justice to note, we have rejected the supposition that Cooper's defection was actuated by resentment at this, and for the reason that he was not, in our opinion, a man to be governed by impulses of resentment. Then, if his sudden shift was not the offspring of a warm impulse of pique, there is but one alternative :—either it was a piece of cool treachery, or it was due to a bond fide change of opinion ; and we must repeat the asseveration, quoted by Mr. Christie from our review, that upon that question (" the question between treachery and change of opinion "), "saving his own belief in Shaftesbury, Mr. Christie throws no further light."

2. Macaulay's opinion (and Mr. Christie is quite right in ob- serving that Macaulay does no more than state his own opinion) is that Ashley was too sharp to be kept in the dark respecting the Treaty of Dover. Mr. Christie says (ii., 22), "It is clear and in- contestable that Lord Ashley had no part in and no knowledge of the Treaty of Dover, and what follows will make it clear that he had no suspicion of it ; "—" what follows" is an account of the "long intrigue and tortuous negotiations of eighteen months," during which it undoubtedly was intended that Ashley should be kept in the dark ; but in the whole of the seven pages occupied by this narrative, Mr. Christie adduces no evidence, incontestable or otherwise, that secrecy was attained, excepting the undoubted evidence that it was attempted. He does, in fact, treat evidence of the intention to conceal as incontestable evidence of success in concealing. Upon the merits of the question we need not enter, since we expressed no opinion in our review.

In "regretting that no reference is made to the documents in which Colbert's communication to Louis is to be found," we merely intended that such a despatch as this might have been worth fuller reference in Mr. Christie's own work, which, taking rank as the book on Shaftesbury, will be read by hundreds who cannot go to either Mignet or the French Foreign Office. We cerlaiuly did not intend any imputation (which would be quite groundless) of plagiarism.

3. Lastly, we must apologize to Mr. Christie for having over- looked the fact that the "Deleada eat Carthago" speech is printed in the appendix and noticed at pp. 113-118 of vol. ii. Whether or not Shaftesbury's final stampede to Holland is a fact unfavourable to his character is a matter of opinion, but we made no " mis- take " in our terms of mentioning Shaftesbury and Russell. These two personages stand side by side, and the mind naturally con- trasts their behaviour, while, of course, it is open to any supporter of Shaftesbury's to argue that the contrast is not in his dis- favour. Whatever were the causes of Russell's arrest, he cer- tainly suffered for what he was engaged in with Shaftesbury.— ED. Spectator.]