doubtful. All depends upon to morrow. But it is not for myself that I care, George. It is for your darling sister-the best, and the bravest, and the most unselfish girl-why she wanted to stick to me through everything! She behaved as if it could make no difference between us."

I

"I should hope so indeed. would disown her if she did otherwise. Did you think that she was going to have you for your money, Jackson?"

"I am not quite so bad as that, you may be sure. Still you must excuse a modest fellow for thinking his money the best part of him." Here I was glad to see one of his old dry smiles. "But the point of it is this, as you know well enough without my telling-I can have nothing more to say to Grace; who was worth all my cash, and my credit, and ambitions, and everything except my conscience to

me.

"That is all very fine, and very lofty in its way," I answered with a superior smile, which refreshed him as it was meant to do; "and among City people it may hold good, or the big world of the Clubland. But no sound Englishman takes it 80. You don't suppose that my father approved of your going in for our Grace, because you then were a wealthy man, I should hope." I spoke with strong confidence; but perhaps the strength of it was chiefly in my voice.

"No,

"God forbid!" he replied with horror; while I tried not to doubt that God had forbidden. I am well aware that Sir Harold disliked it from the first, and Lady Cranleigh even more. It was nothing but the goodness of dear Grace. And that makes it such a frightful thing for me. Why, that Angel was ready to stick to me, like like a brick, if I only would

allow it. A man who knows the world would never believe it for a moment."

"Then he must know a very bad world, and be a worthy member of it. What do you suppose I would have done to my sister, if she had been mean enough to shy off, because of your misfortune?"

"How can I tell, George? You are one of the most pig-headed fellows going. But you could not have been angry with her, for not being quite as stubborn as you are."

"Jackson, this is what I would have done. I would have taken the mane scissors that hang above my mantel, and shorn off her great crop of hair to her ears. No gold for her there, if her heart were all pinchbeck."

Stoneman looked at me with outraged feelings. "Not even a brother could do that," he said, "brutal as brothers by nature seem to be. But without any humbug, George, do you really mean that you wish it to go on?"

"If I did not, I should be a wretched snob. It was not for money that you wanted Grace; and you insult her by fancying that she wanted you for yours."

"All this is very pleasant doctrine, and an edifying parable for little boys and girls ;" the stockbroker had a peculiar trick of showing his keen eyes as if in a gable, when his mind was puzzled or excited; "but it would not hold water, George, either in a court of honour, or a council of wisdom. Grace is entitled, both by birth and beauty, and I am sure that I might say by intellect as well, to a position which high rank alone, or wealth on her husband's part can secure. High rank I cannot give her. Wealth I could have given. But the prospect of that has vanished, and with it vanishes all my hope of

her. Oh that she had only thrown me over! I could have got over it then. But not now."

We

"Now look here," I said, as a Briton always calls attention to the knock-down blow he is delivering; "all that would be worth listening to, if it had anything to do with the matter. But as it happens, my sister Grace doesn't care a flip about position, any more than I do, or you, or anybody else with а ha'porth of common-sense. value the opinion of good people; and we like money for the comfort of others, as well as ourselves. But as for that mysterious affair you call 'position'-the more you poke your head up, the harder cracks you get on it. Grace will be contented with whatever pleases you. That holds you together, and you never slip away. People who have only got a lawn enjoy it a thousand times as much as a lord enjoys his park. And a man who loves his wife does not want to lose her among a thousand men and women he has never heard of, all pushing about to please themselves, and sneering at them both, by way of gratitude."

"You will make a fine domestic character, George, if you only act

I shall never

up to your theories. forget your true friendship and noble behaviour in this matter. I shall take my own course however, as I always do. I know what is right: and you may talk for ever. There is only one voice that could move me, and that one shall have no chance of doing it (even if desired) for her own sweet sake. But everything will depend upon to-morrow, if things are as bad then as they have been to day; there will be no escape for me. Grace shall never be a bankrupt's wife. If her sense of honour urges it, mine forbids. And it is not only honour, but common-sense, my friend. Your family has fallen in the world too much already. It shall not be dragged lower by any connection with a defaulting Stock

broker."

His face showed no sign of emotion now; and I owned to myself that from his point of view no other course was possible for a man of honour. Whether his point of view was right or wrong, is quite a dif ferent question; but in spite of all my reasoning, I have very little doubt that I should have done as he did.

"THE basest of all the hundred villanies of Marlborough," "the foulest treason," according to Macaulay, was Churchill's betrayal to James II. and Louis XIV. of the English attack on Brest, in June 1694.1 By announcing to James, in a letter variously dated "May 3" or "May 4," 1694, the start, on May 5, of the English expedition to Camaret Bay, "the traitor of Salisbury" enabled Louis to fortify the point of attack, to defeat our forces, and to deprive Marlborough, then in William's disgrace, of his chief rival, Talmash, who was mortally wounded. This is the accusation brought by Macaulay. Before examining the apologies of Marlborough's defenders, it may be as well to explain the military circumstances. After the defeat of La Hogue (May 19, 1692), the French fleets kept within their land defences, but a war-vessel would slip out, now and again, and prey on our commerce. William, therefore, determined to attack Brest, believing (and rightly believing) "that the state of its defences was such that the place might be taken by open assault if suddenly attacked before the French could have time to strengthen the works or to reinforce the garrison. But should it become known at Versailles that danger threatened Brest, the place could be easily rendered secure against any attack short of a regular siege. Secrecy was therefore of the first moment."

So writes Lord Wolseley in his 'Marlborough' (ii. 305), and every word is of importance, Lord Wolseley being one of Marl

borough's defenders. In pursuance of William's scheme, 7000 troops were encamped on Portsdown Hills, and transports were collected at Portsmouth. This was in April 1694. The expedition started on May 5. Yet Lord Wolseley writes: "For months before the troops put to sea the intended attack upon Brest had been the common talk of London dinner-tables." How could this possibly be, the preparations beginning "in April" and the expedition setting out on May 5? In fact, L'Hermitage, in his diary for May 15, says that many projects were talked about, "but not one of them came to the knowledge of the public."2 Marlborough gave James and Louis notice of the adventure against Brest the day before Russell set sail. Brest was instantly fortified and reinforced, and England sustained a disastrous defeat, through the treachery of Marlborough. So argues Macaulay.

To Macaulay's charges Mr Paget replied in 'Maga,' June 1859. His brilliantly logical essay is also published in one of the most entertaining of volumes, his 'Paradoxes and Puzzles.' "It must be admitted," said Mr Paget, "that in no view of the case can the conduct of Marlborough be justified." But Mr Paget argues that Marlborough purposely told James nothing which Louis and he did not know already. He revealed le secret de Polichinelle; he betrayed facts which he knew to be already familiar to the French Court, and "his offence seems rather to have been against James, in seeking

2 Ibid., vii. 134, note.

credit for a service of no value, than against William."

This is absolutely certain, it would seem, as Lord Wolseley proves. Say that Marlborough's letter was written on May 4 (May 14, new style, as used in France), Louis could not receive the deciphered and translated version before May 8 (18). But in the French archives is a letter of Louis's, dated April, in which he warns Vauban of the English attack, about which he has received intelligence, bids him assume command of Brest, and promises to send reinforcements.1 Manifestly, then, Marlborough's news was calculated to arrive nearly a month late. Hence, Lord Wolseley decides, "Tollemache's disastrous failure was due, it is proved beyond doubt, to the completeness of the preparations made by Vauban, in obedience to orders from Louis three weeks before the date of Marlborough's letter on the subject."

Mr Paget had not studied the French military archives, but he also demonstrated that Marlborough deliberately sent what boys call "stale news." The very Jacobites themselves were not persuaded by this, or by any other such step, of his loyalty to James, as the writer of 'The Life of King James II.' (about 1708) declares.

But what was Louis's real source of earlier information? Partly town talk. "Many guessed that Brest would be the point of attack, but they only guessed this," says Macaulay. This, indeed,

1 Wolseley's Marlborough, ii. 314. 2 Macpherson, ii. 479.

Marlborough indicates in his letters. Admiral Russell, he says, had known the fact for six weeks, but it only became a certainty on May 4. This constitutes Marlborough's claim of merit in James's eyes. He sends a certainty! But Louis had issued his orders as if on a certainty three weeks earlier. Again, how did Louis know? Our earliest hint of information previous to Marlborough's was only presented to Louis on May 1. The source of our knowledge is the 'Original Papers,' published by Macpherson in 1775. There occurs, in French, in the hand of Nairne, secretary to Melfort, one of James's Ministers, Accounts brought by Captain Floyd" (usually written Lloyd) "lately arrived from England."2 Godolphin told Lloyd "that Russell would infallibly appear before Brest." Lloyd himself suggested Brest to Russell as a probable point of attack. Marlborough's letter of May 4 could not reach Louis till several days, say a week, after he had received the same intelligence, through Lloyd, from Godolphin. According to the 'Life of James II.,' the king also had previous intelligence from Lord Arranlater, and immortally, Beatrix Esmond's Duke of Hamilton.3 From one or another source news had reached Louis long before Marlborough's letter, and William well knew it.4

It seems proved, then, to demonstration that Marlborough merely "hedged" against the off- chance

James.

1694.

of a Restoration; merely made friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, James, by sending intelligence of no real value. This, therefore, argue Lord Wolseley and Mr Paget-this, and not "the basest of his hundred villanies," is the real measure of Marlborough's roguery.

This contention seems satisfactory. Marlborough is a sly dog, but not a perfidious murderer. But now arrives a new defender, Lieut. Colonel the Hon. Arthur

Parnell, who will prove that neither Marlborough nor Godolphin sent any intelligence at all. Colonel Parnell's remarkable essay is entitled "James Macpherson and the Nairne Papers." As Colonel Parnell's theory would upset English history during much of William's reign, as he thinks that the treacheries of the Revolution statesmen Godolphin, Danby, Shrewsbury, Sunderland, Marlborough, and Russell-have been accredited on evidence which is "waste paper," I propose to examine his contention. The "waste paper" is, first, the "Nairne Papers," published by James Macpherson; next, to some degree, the anonymous 'Life of James II.' (1816), of which extracts, pretending to be from a MS. in James's autograph, are also published by Macpherson. The Colonel, for one argument, superfluously impeaches the character of Macpherson, the illustrious bard of Clan Chattan, and introducer of Ossian. He was a Government hack in 1775, and would stick at nothing to disparage the Whigs of 1688. Again, he gave us a tawdry sham epic, and forged the Gaelic originals. But, we reply, in these days, and later, a man would forge a ballad, or "fake" an epic, who

would not forge a historical document. Surtees of Mainsforth is an instance in point. The Colonel then impugns the authenticity of the Nairne Papers, one source of our knowledge of Marlborough's letter. He asks what is the real provenance of the Nairne Papers, which, according to Macpherson, Carte procured, and which, later,

were placed in the editor's " (that is, Macpherson's) "hands, as materials for a history"? Now on this question Macpherson is certainly vague, with good reason, as we shall make probable. He says in his preface: "Mr Nairne's papers came into the possession of Mr Carte some time before his death. . . . How Nairne's collection came into the possession of Carte is as unimportant as it is imperfectly known." The Colonel cries, "Observe the impudence with which he again faces the crucial point of the whole affair!" To this crucial point we shall return in a moment. Meanwhile, it is said in Macray's 'Annals of the Bodleian Library' that, in 1753-54, Carte consigned a vast supply of his MSS. collections to the Bodleian. He died, perhaps heart broken, when Prince Charles broke, for Clementina Walkinshaw's sake, with the English Jacobites in 1754. In 1757 Carte's widow presented nine more volumes of MSS. to the Bodleian. The rest (including the Nairne Papers) remained with her second husband, Mr Jerningham, to whom Macpherson paid £300 for leave to read and publish them. The Colonel is very angry with Macpherson for saying that these MSS. "were placed in his hands" for purposes of history. Well, we could scarcely expect Macpherson