I was looking for interesting books on French Revolution, when I stumbled across this history of British espionage in the late 1700s. The book is several hundred dollars, so I won't be able to procure it unless I take the trouble to hike out to a university library. What caught my eye is that the top review claims that the book shows that Robespierre was in the pay of the British government, who wanted to encourage the Terror in hopes that it would collapse the revolutionary government.
Both claims smell strongly like conspiracy theories. However, at least according to this obituary of the author (I could find little else on her), she was a self-trained but respected historian who based the book on extensive archival research. She had academic publications, and her work was generally well received. Her book is even cited in "Choosing Terror", a very mainstream history.
Of course none of this means she can't be completely wrong, or even a conspiracy theorist. The review might also not be representing her book accurately. All this is why I'd hoped to ask about the claim here.
Is there really any credible evidence that the "sea-green incorruptible" Robespirre was in the pay of the British? Or that the British government wanted to encourage the Terror? If these turn out to be serious claims, how do they fit into the most current historiography of the Revolution?