[351]. Reminiscences, p. 313.
[352]. With one exception: in her “Conduct” she seems to imply that the Duke of Marlborough had held no correspondence whatsoever with James the Second. She does not, indeed, say so; but disingenuously says, if Lord Marlborough had acted so and so. There was abundant proof of his negociations with the exiled family.
[353]. Such is the style of the work, entitled, “The Other Side of the Question,” and also of the “Review of a late Treatise, entitled ‘An Account of the Conduct of Sarah Duchess of Marlborough, &c.,’ in a Letter addressed to a Person of Distinction.” In this work, which was written by a nobleman, there seems to be more of invective than of fact.
[354]. Lord Wharncliffe’s edition of Lady Mary W. Montague’s Letters. Introduction, p. 75.
[355]. Review of a late Treatise, &c., p. 53.
[356]. Horace Walpole’s Reminiscences.
[357]. Conduct, p. 21.
[358]. Cunningham, vol. i. p. 257.
[359]. London Gazette.
[360]. Cunningham, Boyer, Dalrymple, Somerville.