Lives of the Founders of the British Museum, Part 1 of 2: With Notices of Its Chief Augmentors and Other Benefactors, 1570-1870.Edwards, Edward
History
Lives of the Founders of the British Museum, Part 1 of 2: With Notices of Its Chief Augmentors and Other Benefactors, 1570-1870.
Edwards, Edward
Book collectors -- Great Britain; British Museum
When the Earl at length appeared before his peers to answer to his
impeachment, he began by denying ‘that at any time or place in the
course of those negotiations,’ now incriminated, ‘he conferred
unlawfully or without due authority with any emissaries of France.’ He
affirmed that he neither promoted nor advised any private, separate, or
unjustifiable negotiation, and that he himself had no knowledge ‘that
any negotiation relating to Peace was carried on without communication
to the Allies.’
On the specific charge that he had traitorously given up Tournay to
France, his defence is twofold:—‘I used my best offices,’ he asserts,
‘to preserve that town and fortress to the States General. I believe
that at this time they are continued to the States General as part of
their barrier.’ And then he adds:—‘But I deny that for a Privy
Councillor and Minister of State to advise the yielding of any town,
fort, or territory, upon the conclusion of a Peace, is, or can be, High
Treason by any law of this realm.’
On the whole matter of the Peace, he asserts that ‘its terms and
preliminaries were communicated to Parliament. They were agreed on with
the concurrence of Parliament. The Definitive Treaty was afterwards
approved of by both Houses. Solemn thanks were rendered to God for it in
all our churches and also in the churches of the United Provinces. Her
Majesty received upon its conclusion the hearty and unfeigned thanks of
her people from all parts of her dominions.’
[Sidenote: _State Trials_, vol. xv, c. 1137 seqq.]
[Sidenote: _Commons’ Journals_, 9 June, 1715.]
It might well have been thought that even in those evil days it would be
difficult to induce a Committee of partisans to report to the House of
Commons that ‘large sums issued for the service of the war were received
by the Earl of OXFORD, and applied to his Lordship’s private use,’
without the possession of some plausible show of proof. There was not so
much as a decent presumption, or colourable inference, to back the
assertion. When the matter came to be probed, it appeared that a royal
gift of £13,000 had been received by the Earl in what were known as ‘tin
tallies,’ and that the sum had been a charge upon the revenues of the
Duchy of Cornwall.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account