Page:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 10.djvu/348

282 NOTES AND QUERIES. [ax.Anui,i.M. Morland, was in the room, which he had not observed before and, fearing he might have overheard their discourse, though he pretended to be asleep upon his desk, he drew a ponyard, which he always carried under his coat, and was going to despatch Morland upon the spot ; if Thurloe had not, with great entreaties, pre- vailed with him to desist, assuring him that Morland had sat up two nights together and was now certainly asleep. There was not the smallest accident that befell King Charles the Second in his exile, but he knew it perfectly well ; insomuch that having given leave to an English nobleman to travel, upon condition he should not see Charles Stuart, he asked him at his return, if he had punctually obeyed his commands. Which the other affirming that he had, Cromwell replied : ' It's true you did not see him ; for, to keep your word with me, you agreed to meet in the dark, the candles being put out to that end." And, withall, told him all the particulars that passed in conversation be- twixt the King and him at their meeting. On the face of it, it would not seem that these two paragraphs relate to one and the same matter, yet we have another account from Welwood which clears up the whole story and proves that they did. No writer has hitherto drawn attention to the fact that James Welwood, M.D., physician to William III., and, of course, a pronounced Whig, was also a journalist, and therefore I must give the proofs of this fact. On May 15, 1689, the first number of Mercurius Reformatus ; or, The New 06- servator, was issued. There were four volumes of this periodical published by Dorman Newman, and the last, the fifth volume, was published in 1691 by Richard Baldwin, and contained an " Appendix " (see ' The Times Tercentenary Handlist of English and Welsh Newspapers'). There are the following references to this perio- dical in the Journals of the House of Commons under the dates cited: 9 Nov., 1691. Mercurius Reformatus com- plained of and Baldwin the printer and the author sent for. The complaint was that the periodical reflected " on the proceedings of the House, in breach of the privileges thereof." 21 Nov., 1691. Baldwin appeared, confessed that Dr. Welwood was the author and was repri- manded and discharged. 27 Nov., 1691. Petition of James Welwood read. 30 Nov., 1691. Dr. Welwood reprimanded and discharged. The actual matter of complaint does not appear, and the point to which I wish to draw attention is that the "Appendix" to vol. v. is stated to be " By the same author," and was published in 1692. It, therefore, was the work of Welwood, and on pp. 3 and 4 he therein amplifies the incident described in the two passages I have quoted from his ' Memoirs,' as follows : - There was a gentleman employed by Cromwell as a spy about the King, who had the wit and dexterity to get into his most secret transactions and (as he was wont afterwards to say himself) into his very heart In this unsuspected and un- limited intimacy did he continue for some y^ars about the King ; and might have done it longer, if an unexpected accident joined to a piece of inadvertency in Cromwell had not occasioned the period of his intrigue and life together. Which was thus. The late Duke of Richmond, having for a con- siderable time preserved himself in the good opinion of the protector, begg'd leave at length to make a step over sea, for his health and diversion, as he pretended. Cromwell agreed to his request, but with this condition, " That he should not see his cousin, Charles Stuart," as he was pleased to call the King. The Duke coming to Brussels, and being resolved to wait upon his Prince, and withall, to save his credit with Cromwell, was introduced in the most secret manner several tunes to the King, in the dark. At his return Cromwell pretended to ask the Duke, only in jest, if he had been with Charles Stuart. Who, answering him, that he had never seen him, the other replied, in a passion, " It was no wonder, for the candles ware put out." This unexpected answer put the Duke of Rich- mond to write to the King that he must needs be betrayed by some in the greatest intimacy about him ; and, at last, the traytor was acci- dentally discovered in the very moment he was writing to Cromwell an account of the Duke of Richmond's letter to the King, and was thereupon shot to death upon the place. Thus for the first part of Welwood 's story, and before continuing it I should draw attention to the corroboration given by the regicide Ludlow in his ' Memoirs ' (ed. 1894, ii., pp. 41-42). Ludlow does not give the name of the nobleman in question, but states that the spy was Man- ning, who was shot by permission of the Duke of Neuberg. This event happened in 1655, four years beforethe Westenhanger incident. Welwood goes on to complete his story : It's more than tune to shut up this subject, and yet I know not but the reader may forgive me to mention further, a remarkable passage that hapn'd upon this reply of Cromwell's to the Duke of Richmond ; which as it was never yet com- mitted to print, for anything I know, so it carries with it one of the truest ideas we can ever attain of that great man's character. Scarce was the discourse I mentioned betwixt Cromwell and the Duke of Richmond ended, but the first found he had made a dangerous mistake, in letting the Duke know how much he was acquainted with King Charles's secrets, and thereby exposing his spy to the narrowest enquiry could be made upon it. The fear of this, obliged him to go strait to