FN 12 The contemporary tracts in various languages on the subject of this persecution are innumerable. An eminently clear, terse, and spirited summary will be found in Voltaire's Siecle de Louis XIV.
FN 13 "Misionarios embotados," says Ronquillo. "Apostoli armati,"says Innocent. There is, in the Mackintosh Collection, a remarkable letter on this subject from Ronquillo, dated March 26./April 5. 1686 See Venier, Relatione di Francia, 1689, quoted by Professor Ranke in his Romische Papste, book viii.
FN 14 "Mi dicono che tutti questi parlamentarii no hanno voluto copia, il che assolutamente avra causate pessime impressioni."--Adda, Nov. 9/13. 1685. See Evelyn's Diary, Nov. 3.
FN 15 Lords' Journals, Nov. 9. 1685. "Vengo assicurato," says Adda, "che S. M. stessa abbia composto il discorso."--Despatch of Nov. 16/26 1685.
FN 16 Commons' Journals; Bramston's Memoirs; James von Leeuwen to the States General, Nov. 10/20 1685. Leeuwen was secretary of the Dutch embassy, and conducted the correspondence in the absence of Citters. As to Clarges, see Burnet, i. 98.
FN 17 Barillon, Nov. 16/26. 1685.
FN 18 Dodd's Church History, Leeuwen, Nov. 17/27 1685; Barillon, Dec. 24. 1685. Barillon says of Adda, "On l'avoit fait prevenir que la surete et l'avantage des Catholiques consistoient dans une reunion entiere de sa Majeste Britannique et de son parlement."Letters of Innocent to James, dated July 27/Aug. 8 and Sept. 23 /Oct. 3. 1685; Despatches of Adda, Nov. 9/19. and Nov. 1685. The very interesting correspondence of Adda, copied from the Papal archives, is in the British Museum; Additional MSS. No. 15395.
FN 19 The most remarkable despatch bears date the 9/19th of November 1685, and will be found in the Appendix to Mr. Fox's History.
FN 20 Commons' Journals, Nov. 12. 1685; Leeuwen, Nov.; Barillon, Nov. 16/26.; Sir John Bramston's Memoirs. The best report of the debates of the Commons in November, 1685, is one of which the history is somewhat curious. There are two manuscript copies of it in the British Museum, Harl. 7187.; Lans. 253. In these copies the names of the speakers are given at length. The author of the Life of James published in 1702 transcribed this report, but gave only the initials, of the speakers. The editors of Chandler's Debates and of the Parliamentary History guessed from these initials at the names, and sometimes guessed wrong. They ascribe to Wailer a very remarkable speech, which will hereafter be mentioned, and which was really made by Windham, member for Salisbury. It was with some concern that I found myself forced to give up the belief that the last words uttered in public by Waller were so honourable to him.
FN 21 Commons' Journals, Nov. 13. 1685; Bramston's Memoirs;Reresby's Memoirs; Barillon, Nov. 16/26.; Leeuwen, Nov. 13/23.;Memoirs of Sir Stephen Fox, 1717; The Case of the Church of England fairly stated; Burnet, i. 666. and Speaker Onslow's note.
FN 22 Commons' Journals, Nov. 1685; Harl. MS. 7187.; Lans. MS.
FN 23 The conflict of testimony on this subject is most extraordinary; and, after long consideration, I must own that the balance seems to me to be exactly poised. In the Life of James (1702), the motion is represented as a court motion. This account is confirmed by a remarkable passage in the Stuart Papers, which was corrected by the Pretender himself. (Clarke's Life of James the Second, ii. 55.) On the other hand, Reresby, who was present, and Barillon, who ought to have been well informed, represent the motion as an opposition motion. The Harleian and Lansdowne manuscripts differ in the single word on which the whole depends.
Unfortunately Bramston was not at the House that day. James Van Leeuwen mentions the motion and the division, but does not add a word which can throw the smallest light on the state of parties.
I must own myself unable to draw with confidence any inference from the names of the tellers, Sir Joseph Williamson and Sir Francis Russell for the majority, and Lord Ancram and Sir Henry Goodricke for the minority. I should have thought Lord Ancram likely to go with the court, and Sir Henry Goodricke likely to go with the opposition.
FN 24 Commons' Journals, Nov. 16. 1685 Harl. MS. 7187.; Lans. MS.
235.
FN 25 Commons' Journals, Nov. 17, 18. 1685.
FN 26 Commons' Journals, Nov. 18. 1685; Harl. MS. 7187.; Lans.
MS. 253.; Burnet, i. 667.
FN 27 Lonsdale's Memoirs. Burnet tells us (i. 667.) that a sharp debate about elections took place in the House of Commons after Coke's committal. It must therefore have been on the 19th of November; for Coke was committed late on the 18th, and the Parliament was prorogued on the 20th. Burnet's narrative is confirmed by the Journals, from which it appears that several elections were under discussion on the 19th.
FN 28 Burnet, i. 560.; Funeral Sermon of the Duke of Devonshire, preached by Kennet, 1708; Travels of Cosmo III. in England.
FN 29 Bramston's Memoirs. Burnet is incorrect both as to the time when the remark was made and as to the person who made it. In Halifax's Letter to a Dissenter will be found a remarkable allusion to this discussion.
FN 30 Wood, Ath. Ox.; Gooch's Funeral Sermon on Bishop Compton.
FN 31 Teonge's Diary.
