ficial
communications which a Minister of State makes to his dearest friends
and nearest relations are as cold and formal as those which he makes to
strangers? Will it be contended that the General Wellesley to whom the
Marquis Wellesley, when Governor of India, addressed so many letters
beginning with "Sir," and ending with "I have the honour to be your
obedient servant,'' cannot possibly have been his Lordship's brother
Arthur?---- But, it is said, Oldmixon tells a different story. According
to him, a Popish lawyer named Brent, and a subordinate jobber, named
Crane, were the agents in the matter of the Taunton girls. Now it is
notorious that of all our historians Oldmixon is the least trustworthy.
His most positive assertion would be of no value when opposed to such
evidence as is furnished by Sunderland's letter, But Oldmixon asserts
nothing positively. Not only does he not assert positively that Brent
and Crane acted for the Maids of Honour; but he does not even assert
positively that the Maids of Honour were at all concerned. He goes
no further than "It was said," and "It was reported." It is plain,
therefore, that he was very imperfectly informed. I do not think it
impossible, however, that there may have been some foundation for the
rumour which he mentions. We have seen that one busy lawyer, named Bird,
volunteered to look after the interest of the Maids of Honour, and that
they were forced to tell him that they did not want his services. Other
persons, and among them the two whom Oldmixon names, may have tried to
thrust themselves into so lucrative a job, and may, by pretending to
interest at Court, have succeeded in obtaining a little money from
terrified families. But nothing can be more clear than that the
authorised agent of the Maids of Honour was the Mr. Penne, to whom the
Secretary of State wrote; and I firmly believe that Mr. Penne to have
been William the Quaker---- If it be said that it is incredible that
so good a man would have been concerned in so bad an affair, I can only
answer that this affair was very far indeed from being the worst in
which he was concerned.---- For those reasons I leave the text, and
shall leave it exactly as it originally stood. (1857.)]

[Footnote 462: Burnet, i. 646, and Speaker Onslow's note; Clarendon to
Rochester, May 8, 1686.]

[Footnote 463: Burnet, i. 634.]

[Footnote 464: Calamy's Memoirs; Commons' Journals, December 26,1690;
Sunderland to Jeffreys, September 14,