ver persons, with considerable talents for that kind | which they will meet the regulations of Lord Sidof employment. These talents have, with them, mouth, we will lay before our readers the sentiments their free and unbounded scope; while in the Eng-of Philagatharches-a stern subacid Dissenter. lish Church they are wholly extinguished and destroyed. Till this evil is corrected, the church contends with fearful odds against its opponents. On the one side, any man who can command the attention of a congregation-to whom nature has given the animal and intellectual qualifications of a preacher-such a man is the member of every corporation -all impediments are removed:-there is not a single position in Great Britain which he may not take, provided he is hostile to the Established Church. In the other case, if the English Church were to breed up a Massillon or a Bourdaloue, he finds every place occupied; and every where a regular and respectable clergyman ready to put him in the spiritual court, if he attracts within his precincts, any attention to the doctrines and worship of the Established Church.

church even within the precincts of the gaol. He, who by
these zealous exertions, becomes the honoured instrument of
converting one sinner unto God, will find that single seal to
his ministerial labours an ample compensation for all his suf-
ferings. In this manner the venerable apostle of the Gentiles
both avowed and proved his sincere attachment to the cause in
which he had embarked:-"The Holy Ghost witnesseth in
every city, that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of
these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself,
so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry
which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel
of the grace of God."
'In the early ages of Christianity martyrdom was considered
an eminent honour; and many of the primitive Christians
thrust themselves upon the notice of their heathen persecutors,
that they might be brought to suffer in the cause of that Re-
deemer whom they ardently loved. In the present day Chris-
tians in general incline to estimate such rash ardour as a spe-
cies of enthusiasm, and feel no disposition to court the horrors
of persecution; yet if such dark and tremendous days were to
return in this age of the world, ministers should retain their
stations; they should be true to their charge; they should
continue their ministrations, each man in his sphere, shining
with all the lustre of genuine godliness, to dispel the gloom in
which the nation would then be enveloped. If this line of
conduct were to be adopted, and acted upon with decision, the
cause of piety, of non-conformity, and of itinerant preaching,
must eventually triumph. All the gaols in the country would
speedily be filled: those houses of correction which were
erected for the chastisement of the vicious in the community,
would be replenished with thousands of the most pious, active,
and useful men in the kingdom, whose characters are held in
general esteem. But the ultimate result of such despotic pro-
ceedings is beyond the ken of human prescience: probably,
appeals to the public and to the legislature would teem from
the press, and, under such circumstances, might diffuse a
revolutionary spirit throughout the country.'-(239-243.)

We quote these opinions at length, not because they are the opinions of Philagatharches, but because we are confident that they are the opinions of ten thousand hot-headed fanatics, and that they would firmly and conscientiously be acted upon.

eternally exposed to the attacks of this discerning, dauntless, and most powerful speaker. Folly and corruption never had a more terrible enemy in the English House of Commons-one whom it was so impossible to bribe, so hopeless to elude, and so difficult to answer. Now it so happened, that, during the whole of this period, the historical critic of Mr. Fox was employed in subordinate offices of government ;that the detail of taxes passed through his hands;that he amassed a large fortune by those occupaticus; and that both in the measures which he supported, and in the friends from whose patronage he received his emoluments, he was completely and perpetually opposed to Mr. Fox.

Again, it must be remembered, that very great people have very long memories for the injuries which they receive, or which they think they receive. No speculation was so good, therefore, as to vilify the memory of Mr. Fox-nothing so delicious as to lower him in the public estimation-no service so likely to be well rewarded-so eminently grateful to those of whose favour Mr. Rose had so often tasted the sweets, and of the value of whose patronage he must, from long experience, have been so thoroughly aware.

We are almost inclined to think that we might at one time have worked ourselves up to suspect Mr. Rose of being actuated by some of these motives:not because we have any reason to think worse of that gentleman than of most of his political associates, but merely because it seemed to us so very probabic that he should have been so influenced. Our suspicions, however, were entirely removed by the frequency and violence of his own protestations. He vows so solemnly that he has no bad motive in writing his critique, that we find it impossible to withhold our belief in his purity. But Mr. Rose does not trust to his protestations alone. He is not satisfied with assurances that he did not write his book from any bad motive, but he informs us that his motive was excellent, and is even obliging enough to tell us what that motive was. The Earl of Marchmont, it seems, was Mr. Rose's friend. To Mr. Rose he left his manuscripts; and among these manuscripts was a narrative written by Sir Patrick Hume, an ancestor of the Earl of Marchmont, and one of the leaders in Argyle's rebellion. Of Sir Patrick Hume, Mr. Rose conceives (a little erroneously to be sure, but he assures us he does conceive) Mr. Fox to have spoken disrespectfully; and the case comes out, therefore, as clearly as possible, as follows.

Philagatharches is an instance (not uncommon, we are sorry to say, even among the most rational of the Protestant Dissenters) of a love of toleration combined with a love of persecution. He is a Dissenter, and earnestly demands religious liberty for that body of men; but as for the Catholics, he would not only continue their present disabilities, but load them with every new one that could be conceived. He expressly says that an Atheist or a Deist may be allowed to propagate their doctrines, but not a Catholic; and then proceeds with all the customary trash against t sect which nine schoolboys out of ten now know to refute. So it is with Philagatharches,-so it Sir Patrick was the progenitor, and Mr. Rose was th weak men in every sect. It has ever been our the friend and sole executor, of the Earl of Marchct, and (in spite of misrepresentation and abuse) mont; and therefore, says Mr. Rose, I consider it as shall be our object, to put down this spirit-to a sacred duty to vindicate the character of Sir Patrick, ect the true interests, and to diffuse the true spi- and, for that purpose, to publish a long and elaborate t, of toleration. To a well-supported national Estab-critique upon all the doctrines and statements containshment, effectually discharging its duties, we are ed in Mr. Fox's history! This appears to us about ery sincere friends. If any man, after he has paid as satisfactory an explanation of Mr. Rose's authorhis contribution to this great security for the existence ship, as the exclamation of the traveller was of the of religion in any shape, chooses to adopt a religion name of Stony Stratford. of his own, that man should be permitted to do so without let, molestation, or disqualification for any of the offices of life. We apologize to men of sense for sentiments so trite; and patiently endure the anger which they will excite among those with whom they will pass for original.

Before Mr. Rose gave way to this intense value for Sir Patrick, and resolved to write a book, he should have inquired what accurate men there were about in society and if he had once received the slightest notice of the existence of Mr.Samuel Heywood, serjeantat-law, we are convinced he would have transfused into his own will and testament the feelings he derived from that of Lord Marchmont, and devolved upon another executor the sacred and dangerous duty of vindicating Sir Patrick Hume.

CHARLES FOX. (EDINBURGH REVIEW, 1811.)
The life of Mr. Rose has been principally employed
A Vindication of Mr. Fox's History of the Early Part of the in the painful, yet perhaps necessary, duty of increa-
Reign of James the Second. By Samuel Heywood, Serjeant-sing the burdens of his fellow creatures. It has been

at-Law. London. Johnson & Co. 1811.

THOUGH Mr. Fox's history was of course, as much open to animadversion and rebuke as any other book, the task, we think, would have become any other person better than Mr. Rose. The whole of Mr. Fox's life was spent in oppposing the profligacy and exposing the ignorance of his own court. In the first half of his political career, while Lord North was losing America, and in the latter half, while Mr. Pitt was ruining Europe, the creatures of the government were

E

a life of detail, onerous to the subject-onerous and lucrative to himself. It would be unfair to expect from one thus occupied any great depth of thought, or any remarkable graces of composition; but we have a fair right to look for habits of patient research and scrupulous accuracy. We might naturally expect industry in collecting facts, and fidelity in quoting them. and hope, in the absence of commanding genius, to receive a compensation from the more humble and ordinary qualities of the mind. How far this is the

·re pre.

case, our subsequent remarks will enable the reader to | Mr. Fox said, in the House of Common judge. We shall not extend them to any great length, sence of Mr. Rose, as we have before treated on the same subject in our review of Mr. Rose's work. Our great object at pre-are so far from being magnanimity, justice, or mercy, that they "The proceedings with respect to the royal family of France, sent is to abridge the observations of Sergeant Heywood. For Serjeant Heywood, though a most respect able, honest, and enlightened man, really does require an abridger. He has not the talent of saying what he has to say quickly; nor is he aware that brevity is in writing what charity is to all other virtues. Řighteousness is worth nothing without the one, nor authorship without the other. But whoever will forgive this little defect will find in all his productions great learning, immaculate honesty, and the most scrupulous accuracy. Whatever detections of Mr. Rose's inaccuracies are made in this Review are to be entirely given to him; and we confess ourselves quite astonished at their number and extent.

lanimity. And afterwards declared his wish for an address to are directly the reverse; they are injustice, cruelty, and pusilhis majesty, to which he would add an xpression of our abhorrence of the proceedings against the royal family of France, in which, I have no doubt, we shall be supported by the whole country. If there can be any means suggested that will be better adapted to produce the unanimous concurrence of this House, and of all the country, with respect to the measure now son for his better suggestion upon the subject' Then, after under consideration in Paris, I should be obliged to any perstating that such address, especially if the Lords joined in it, must have a decisive influence in France, he added, ‘I have said thus much in order to contradict one of the most cruel misrepresentations of what I have before said in our late debates; and that my language may not be interpreted from the manner in which other gentlemen have chosen to answer it. I have spoken the genuine sentiments of my heart, and I anxiously wish the House to come to some resolution upon the subsent to Earl Gower, signifying that he should leave Paris, was laid before the House of Commons, Mr. Fox said,' he had heard it said, that the proceedings against the King of France are unnecessary. He would go a great deal farther, and say, he believed them to be highly unjust; and not only repugnant to all the common feelings of mankind, but also contrary to all the fundamental principles of law.'-(p. 20, 21.)

'Among the modes of destroying persons (says Mr. Fox, p. 14,) in such a situation (i. e. monarchs deposed), there can be little doubt but that adopted by Cromwell and his adhe-ject.' And on the following day, when a copy of instructions rents is the least dishonourable. Edward II., Richard II., Henry IV., Edward V., had none of them survived their deposal; but this was the first instance, in our history at least, when of such an act it could be truly said it was not done in

a corner.'

On Monday the 28th January, he said,

Two days afterwards, in the debate on the message, Mr. Fox pronounced the condemnation and execution of the king to be

What Mr. Rose can find in this sentiment to quarrel with, we are utterly at a loss to conceive. If a human being is to be put to death unjustly, is it no mitigation of such a lot that the death should be pub-majesty, which related to the late detestable scene exhibited 'With regard to that part of the communication from his lic? Is any thing better calculated to prevent secret in a neighbouring country, he could not suppose there were torture and cruelty? And would Mr. Rose, in mercy two opinions in that House; he knew they were all ready to to Charles, have preferred that red-hot iron should declare their abhorrence of that abominable proceeding.'— have been secretly thrust into his entrails?—or that (p. 21.) he should have disappeared as Pichegru and Toussaint have disappeared in our times? The periods of the Edwards and Henrys were, it is true, barbarous periods: but this is the very argument Mr. Fox uses. All these murders, he contends, were immoral and an act as disgraceful as any that history recorded: and bad; but that where the manner was the least objec- whatever opinions he might at any time have expressed in pritionable, was the murder of Charles the First-be-vate conversation, he had expressed none certainly in that cause it was public. And can any human being doubt, House on the justice of bringing kings to trial: revenge being unjustifiable, and punishment useless, where it could not operin the first place, that these crimes would be marked ate either by way of prevention or example; he did not view by less intense cruelty if they were public, and, se- with less detestation the injustice and inhumanity that had condly, that they would become less frequent, where been committed towards that unhappy monarch. Not only the perpetrators incurred responsibility, than if they were the rules of criminal justice-rules that more than any were committed by an uncertain hand in secrecy and other ought to be strictly observed-violated with respect to concealment? There never was, in short, not only a law, to which he was personally amenable, and even contrary him not only was he tried and condemned without existing more innocent, but a more obvious sentiment; and to to laws that did actually exist, but the degrading circumstan object to it in the manner which Mr. Rose has done, ces of his imprisonment, the unnecessary and insulting asperity is surely to love Sir Patrick Hume too much,-if there with which he had been treated, the total want of republican can be any excess in so very commendable a passion magnanimity in the whole transaction, (for even in that House in the breast of a sole executor. it could be no offence to say, that there might be such a thing as magnanimity in a republic,) added every aggravation to the inhumanity and injustice.'

Mr. Fox proceeds to observe, that he who has discussed this subject with foreigners, must have observ. ed, that the act of the execution of Charles, even in the minds of those who condemn it, excites more admiration than disgust.' If the sentiment is bad, let those who feel it answer for it. Mr. Fox only asserts the fact, and explains, without justifying it. The only question (as concerns Mr. Fox) is, whether such is, or is not, the feeling of foreigners; and whether that feeling (if it exists) is rightly explained? We have no doubt either of the fact or of the explanation. The conduct of Cromwell and his associates, was not to be excused in the main act; but, in the manner, it was magnanimous. And among the servile nations of the Continent, it must naturally excite a feeling of joy and wonder, that the power of the people had for once been felt, and so memorable a lesson read to those whom they must naturally consider as the great oppressors of mankind.

That Mr. Fox had held this language in the House of Commons, Mr. Rose knew perfectly well, when he accused that gentleman of approving the murder of the King of France. Whatever be the faults imputed to Mr. Fox, duplicity and hypocrisy were never among the number; and no human being ever doubted but that Mr. Fox, in this instance, spoke his real sentiments: but the love of Sir Patrick Hume is an overwhelming passion; and no man who gives way to it, can ever say into what excesses he may be hurried.

Non simul cuiquam conceditur, amare et sapere. The next point upon which Sergeant Heywood attacks Mr. Rose, is that of General Monk. Mr. Fox says of Monk, 'that he acquiesced in the insult so meanly put upon the illustrious corpse of Blake, under whose auspices and command he had performed the The most unjustifiable point of Mr. Rose's accusa- most creditable services of his life.' This story, Mr. tion, however, is still to come. If such high praise,' Rose says, rests upon the authority of Neale, in his says that gentleman, was, in the judgment of Mr. History of the Puritans. This is the first of many Fox, due to Cromwell for the publicity of the proceed- blunders made by Mr. Rose upon this particular topic: ings against the king, how would he have found lan- for Anthony Wood, in his Fasti Oxonienses, enumeraguage sufficiently commendatory to express his admi- ting Blake among the bachelors, says, 'His body was ration of the magnanimity of those who brought Lewis taken up, and, with others, buried in a pit in St. Marthe Sixteenth to an open trial?' Mr. Rose accuses garet's church-yard adjoining, near to the back door of Mr. Fox, then, of approving the execution of Lewis one of the prebendaries of Westminster, in which place the Sixteenth: but, on the 20th of December, 1792, it now remaineth, enjoying no other monument but

what it reared by its valour, which time itself can | curacies in a man, not only so much greater than himhardly efface.' But the difficulty is to find how the self in his general nature, but a man who, as it turns denial of Mr. Rose affects Mr. Fox's assertion. Mr. out, excels Mr. Rose in his own little art of looking, those admits that Blake's body was dug up by an order searching, and comparing and is as much his supeof the king; and does not deny that it was done with rior in the retail qualities which small people arrogate the acquiescence of Monk. But if this be the case, to themselves, as he was in every commanding faculty Mr. Fox's position that Blake was insulted, and that to the rest of his fellow creatures? Monk acquiesced in the insult, is clearly made out. Mr. Rose searches Thurloe's State Papers; but SerNor has Mr. Rose the shadow of an authority for say-jeant Heywood searches them after Mr. Rose: and, ing that the corpse of Blake was reinterred with great by a series of the plainest references, proves the probdecorum. Kennet is silent upon the subject. We have ability there is that Argyle did receive letters which already given Sergeant Heywood's quotation from might materially have affected his life. Anthony Wood; and this statement, for the present, To Monk's duplicity of conduct may be principally rests entirely upon the assertion of Mr. Rose; and attributed the destruction of his friends, who were upon that basis will remain to all eternity. prevented, by their confidence in him, from taking measures to secure themselves. He selected those among them whom he thought fit for trial-sat as a commissioner upon their trial-and interfered not to save the lives even of those with whom he had lived in the habits of the greatest kindness.

Mr. Rose, who, we must say, on all occasions, through the whole of this book, makes the greatest parade of his accuracy, states that the bodies of Cromwell, Ireton, and Blake, were taken up at the same time; whereas the fact is, that those of Cromwell and Ireton were taken up on the 26th of January, and that of Blake on the 10th of September, nearly nine months afterwards. It may appear frivolous to notice such errors as these; but they lead to very strong suspicions in a critic of history and of historians. They show that those habits of punctuality, on the faith of which he demands implicit confidence from his readers, really do not exist; they prove that such a writer will be exact only when he thinks the occasion of importance; and as he himself is the only judge of that importance, it is necessary to examine his proofs in every instance, and impossible to trust him anywhere.

Mr. Rose remarks that, in the weekly paper entitled Mercurius Rusticus, Number 4, where an account is given of the disinterment of Cromwell and Ireton, not a syllable is said respecting the corpse of Blake. This is very true; but the reason (which does not seem to have occurred to Mr. Rose) is, that Blake's corpse was not touched till six months afterwards. This is really a little too much. That Mr. Rose should quit his usual pursuits, erect himself into an historical critic, perch upon the body of the dead lion, impugn the accuracy of one of the greatest, as well as most accurate men of his time-and himself be guilty of such gross and unpardonable negligence, looks so very much like an insensibility to shame, that we should be loth to characterize his conduct by the severe epithets which it appears to merit, and which, we are quite certain, Sir Patrick, the defendee, would have been the first to bestow upon

it.

rity, 'I cannot forget one passage that I saw.
'I cannot,' says a witness of the most unquestionable autho-
Monk and his
wife, before they were moved to the Tower, while they were
yet prisoners at Lambeth House, came one evening to the
garden, and caused them to be brought down, only to stare at
them; which was such a barbarism, for that man who betrayed
so many poor men to death and misery, that never hurt him,
but had honoured him, and trusted their lives and interests with
him, to glut his bloody eyes with beholding them in their bon-
Hutchinson's Memoirs, 378.
dage, as no story can parallel the inhumanity of.'-(p. 83.)-

This, however, is the man whom Mr. Fox, at the distance of a century and a half, may not mark with infamy, without incurring, from the candour of Mr Rose, the imputation of republican principles; as if attachment to monarchy could have justified, in Monk, the coldness, cruelty, and treachery of his character,

as if the historian became the advocate, or the ene. my of any form of government, by praising the good, or blaming the bad men which it might produce. Ser. jeant Heywood sums up the whole article as follows:

'Having examined and commented upon the evidence produced by Mr. Rose, than which "it is hardly possible," he to establish a negative," we now safely assert that Mr. Fox had says, "to conceive that stronger could be formed in any case fully informed himself upon the subject before he wrote, and was amply justified in the condemnation of Monk, and the consequent severe censures upon him. It has been already demonstrated that the character of Monk had been truly given, when of him he said, "the army had fallen into the hands of one than whom a 'baser could not be found in its lowest The next passage in Mr. Fox's work objected to, is tain period of time were such as must naturally, if not necesranks." The transactions between him and Argyle for a certhat which charges Monk, at the trial of Argyle, with sarily, have led them into an epistolary correspondence; and having produced letters of friendship and confidence it was in exact conformity with Monk's character and conduct to take away the life of a nobleman, in the zeal and to the regicides, that he should betray the letters written to cordiality of whose co-operation with him, proved by him, in order to destroy a man whom he had, in the latter such documents, was the chief ground of his execu- part of his command in Scotland, both feared and hated. If tion.' This accusation, says Mr. Rose, rests upon the the fact of the production of these letters had stood merely on sole authority of Bishop Burnet; and yet no sooner by Mr. Rose and Dr. Campbell to impeach it; on the contraBishop Burnet, we have seen that nothing has been produced has he said this, than he tells us, Mr. Laing considers ry, an inquiry into the authorities and documents they have the bishop's authority to be confirmed by Cunningham cited, strongly confirm it. But, as before observed, it is a surand Baillie, both contemporary writers. Into Cun-prising instance of Mr. Rose's indolence, that he should state ningham or Baillie Mr. Rose never looks to see whe- the question to depend now, as it did in Dr. Campbell's time, ther or not they do really confirm the authority of the on the bishop's authority solely. But that authority is, in bishop; and so gross is his negligence, that the very itself, no light one. Burnet was almost eighteen years of age misprint from Mr. Laing's work is copied, and page spectator of public events; he was probably at Edinburgh, at the time of Argyle's trial; he was never an unobserving 431 of Baillie is cited instead of 451. If Mr. Rose had and, for some years afterwards, remained in Scotland, with really taken the trouble of referring to these books, ample means of information respecting events which had all doubt of the meanness and guilt of Monk must taken place so recently. Baillie seems also to have been upon have been instantly removed. Monk was moved,' the spot, and expressly confirms the testimony of Burnet. To says Baillie, to send down four or five of Argyle's let-these must be added Cunningham, who, writing as a person ters to himself and others, promising his full compliance perfectly acquainted with the circumstances of the transacwith them, that the king should not reprieve him. Bail- tion, says it was owing to the interference of Monk, who had been his great friend in Oliver's time, that he was sent back to lie's Letters, p. 451. He endeavoured to make his Scotland, and brought to trial; and that he was condemned defence,' says Cunningham; but chiefly by the discove-chiefly by his discoveries. We may now ask, where is the ries of Monk was condemned of high treason, and lost improbability of this story, when related of such a man? and his head.'-Cunningham's History, i. p. 13. what ground there is for not giving credit to a fact attested by Would it have been more than common decency re- three witnesses of veracity, each writing at a distance, and quired, if Mr. Rose, who had been apprised of the ex- separate from each other? In this instance Bishop Burnet is istence of these authorities, had had recourse to them, subject, can doubt of the fact he relates being true; and we so confirmed, that no reasonable being who will attend to the before he impugned the authority of Mr. Fox? Or is shall hereafter prove that the general imputation against his it possible to read, without some portion of contempt, accuracy made by Mr. Rose is totally without foundation. If this slovenly and indolent corrector of supposed inac facts so proved are not to be credited, historians may lay

aside their pens, and every man must content himself with the scanty pittance of knowledge he may be able to collect for himself in the very limited sphere of his own immediate observation.'-(p. 86-88.)

Speaking of the early part of James's reign, Mr. Fox says, it is by no means certain that he had yet thoughts of obtaining for his religion any thing more than a complete toleration; and if Mr. Rose had understood This, we think, is conclusive enough: but we are the meaning of the French word établissement, one of happy to be enabled, out of our own store, to set this his many incorrect corrections of Mr. Fox might have part of the question finally to rest, by an authority been spared. A system of religion is said to be estabwhich Mr. Rose himself will probably admit to be de-lished when it is enacted and endowed by Parliament; cisive. Sir George Mackenzie, the great tory lawyer but a toleration (as Serjeant Heywood observes) is of Scotland in that day, and Lord Advocate to Charles established when it is recognized and protected by the II., through the greater part of his reign, was the lead- supreme power. And in the letters of Barillon, to ing counsel for Argyle on the trial alluded to. In which Mr. Rose refers for the justification of his at1678, this learned person, who was then Lord Advo- tack upon Mr. Fox, it is quite manifest that it is in this cate to Charles, published an elaborate treatise on the latter sense that the word établissement is used; and criminal law of Scotland; in which, when treating of that the object in view was, not the substitution of the probation, or evidence, he observes, that missive let- Catholic religion for the Established Church, but mereters, not written, but only signed by the party, should ly its toleration. In the first letter cited by Mr. Rose, not be received in evidence; and immediately adds, James says, that he knew well he should never be in 'And yet the Marquis of Argyle was convict of treason safety unless liberty of conscience for them should be UPON LETTERS WRITTEN BY HIM TO GENERAL MONK; fully established in England.' The letter of the 24th these letters being only subscribed by him, and not of April is quoted by Mr. Rose, as if the French king holograph, and the subscription being proved per com- had written, the establishment of the Catholic religion; parationem literarum, which were very hard in other whereas the real words are, the establishment of the free cases,' &c.-Mackenzie's Criminals, first edit. p. 524, exercise of the Catholic religion. The world are so inPart II. tit. 25, § 3. Now this, we conceive, is neither veterately resolved to believe, that a man who has no more nor less than a solemn professional report of the brilliant talents must be accurate, that Mr. Rose, in case, and leaves just as little room for doubt as to referring to authorities, has a great and decided adthe fact, as if the original record of the trial had been vantage. He is, however, in point of fact, as lax and recovered. incorrect as a poet; and it is absolutely necessary, in Mr. Rose next objects to Mr. Fox's assertion, that spite of every parade of line, and page, and number, the king kept from his cabal ministry the real state of to follow him in the most minute particular. The serhis connection with France-and from some of them jeant like a bloodhound of the old breed, is always the secret of what he was pleased to call his religion;' upon his track; and always looks if there are any such and Mr. Fox doubts whether to attribute this conduct passages in the page quoted, and if the passages are to the habitual treachery of Charles, or to an appre-accurately quoted or accurately translated. Nor will hension that his ministers might demand for them- he by any means be content with official accuracy, nor selves some share of the French money; which he was submit to be treated, in historical questions, as if he unwilling to give them. In answer to this conjecture, were hearing financial statements in the House of Mr. Rose quotes Barillon's Letters to Lewis XIV. to Commons. show that Charles's ministers were fully apprised of his money transactions with France. The letters so quoted were, however, written seven years after the cabal ministry were in power-for Barillon did not come to England as Ambassador till 1677-and these letters were not written till after that period. Poor Sir Patrick-It was for thee and thy defence this book was

written !!!!

Mr. Fox has said, that from some of the ministers of the cabal the secret of Charles's religion was concealed. It was known to Arlington, admitted by Mr. Rose to be a concealed Catholic; it was known to Clifford, an avowed Catholic: Mr. Rose admits it not to have been known to Buckingham, though he explains the reserve, in respect to him, in a different way. He has not, however, attempted to prove that Lauderdale or Ashley were consulted; on the contrary, in Colbert's letter of the 25th August, 1670, cited by Mr. Rose, it is stated that Charles had proposed the traité simulé, which should be a repetition of the former one in all things, except the article relative to the king's declaring himself a Catholic, and that the Protestant ministers, Buckingham, Ashley, Cooper, and Lauderdale, should be brought to be parties to it :Can there be a stronger proof (asks Serjeant Heywood), that they were ignorant of the same treaty made the year before, and remaining then in force? Historical research is certainly not the peculiar talent of Mr. Rose; and as for the official accuracy of which he is so apt to boast, we would have Mr. Rose to remember, that the term official accuracy has of late days become one of very ambiguous import. Mr. Rose, we can see, would imply by it the highest possible accuracy as we see office pens advertised in the window of a shop, by way of excellence. The public reports of those, however, who have been appointed to look into the manner in which public offices are conducted, by no means justify this usage of the term-and we are not without apprehensions, that Dutch politeness, Carthaginian faith, Baotian genius, and official accuracy, may be terms equally current in the world; and that Mr. Rose may, without intending it, have contributed to make this valuable addition to the mass of our ironical phraseology.

Barillon writes, in another letter to Lewis XIV.— 'What your majesty has most besides at heart, that is to say, for the establishment of the free exercise of the Catholic religion.' On the 9th of May, Leurs writes to Barillon, that he is persuaded Charles will employ all his authority to establish the free excercise of the Catholic religion: he mentions also, in the same letter, the Parliament consenting to the free exercise of our religion. On the 15th of June, he writes to Barillon- There now remains only to obtain the repeal of the penal laws in favour of the Catholics, and the free exercise of our religion in all his states.' Immediately after Monmouth's execution, when his views of success must have been as lofty as they ever could have been, Lewis writes- It will be easy to the King of England, and as useful for the security of his reign as for the repose of his conscience, to re-establish the exercise of the Catholic religion.' In a letter of Barillon, July 16th, Sunderland is made to say, that the king would always be exposed to the indiscreet zeal of those who would inflame the people against the Catholic religion, so long as it should not be more fully established. The French expression is, tant qu'elle ne sera pas plus epleinement tablie; and this Mr. Rose has had the modesty to translate, till it shall be completely established, and to mark the passage with italics, as of the greatest importance to his argument. These false quotations and translations being detected, and those passages of early writers, from which Mr. Fox had made up his opinion, brought to light, it is not possible to doubt, but that the object of James, before Monmouth's defeat, was not the destruction of the Protestant, but the toleration of the Catholic religion; and after the execution of Monmouth, Mr. Fox admits, that he became more bold and sanguine upon the subject of religion.

We do not consider those observations of Serjeant Heywood to be the most fortunate in his book, where he attempts to show the republican tendency of Mr. Rose's principles. Of any disposition to principles of this nature, we most heartily acquit that right honourable gentleman. He has too much knowledge of mankind to believe their happiness can be promoted in the stormy and tempestuous regions of republicanism;