he did, he afterwards displayed as much sound judgment, in opposing with all his might the miserable policy of his brother and his ministers, in relaxing their preparations, and even laying up all the large ships, in order that they might divert the supply just granted for carrying on the war, to the payment of the king's debts. Had these remon strances been attended to, we should have been saved the greatest disgrace to which the English navy was ever sub jected, when De Ruyter, after having proudly swept the sea, sailed in triumph up the Medway; threatened the capital itself; and kept the whole kingdom in a state of alarm.

The ruinous counsels of the cabal ministry have been al ready exposed by our historians. Buckingham and Arling ton (a catholic) seem to have been the most determined among, them, to destroy the influence of the Duke with his brother; and when they had failed in producing this effect, by pointing out the danger which might result from his connection with, the exiled minister, his father-in-law, they hit upon the expe-, dient of finding a new wife for Charles, who certainly never was very partial to his queen-from whom they sought to get him divorced, on the ground of her sterility-whilst the Earl of Bristol was secretly sent to the Court of Parma to, find a substitute amongst the duke's daughters. The story of Lord Roos's divorce bill is well known: but though the king did all that lay in his power to get that bill through the Lords, when he understood the construction that was put upon his conduct, we learn from the memoirs, that

"He took an occasion to declare, that, had he a conscience which would, permit him to be divorced, it would not stick at taking a quicker and surer way (not unknown in history) of marrying again without giving the parlia-, ment any trouble about it."" (Vol. I. p. 439.)

One of the principal errors which this valuable work enables us to correct, is that of the period at which the Duke, of York was converted to the Catholic faith. The groundwork of this departure from the established religion of his country, has generally been supposed to have been laid during the earlier years of his residence in France. But this is so far from having been the case, that, in the answer lie gave to some of his friends, who endeavoured to persuade him to return to the church which he had abandoned, he expressly says, that

"On the contrary, he (had been) thoroughly instructed in the tenets of the Church of England, by Dr. Stuard, and so zealous therein, as to be fully as instrumental as any one to have the Duke of Glocester brought away from the queen his mother, for fear of his being influenced by her in that point." (Vol. I. p. 630.)

It was in Flanders that his faith began to waver; and, on his return to England, he tells us that his doubts of being in the right way were confirmed by attentively perusing two Protestant works, "Heylen's History of the Reformation," and, what is still more singular, the preface to "Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity!" But it was not until the year 1669 that he first held a conversation with Symons, the Jesuit, on the subject of his conversion to the Catholic faith, which he was desirous to effect by means of a dispensation from the Pope" for outwardly appearing a Protestant, at least till he "could own himself publicly to be a Catholic, with more "security to his own person and advantage to them." (Vol. i. p. 441.) This indulgence, however, be learnt from the holy father, and afterwards by letter from the sovereign pontiff himself, it was beyond the power of the Pope to grant; and his quitting the communion of the church of England became, therefore, a sine qua non of his reconciliation to that of Rome.

An interesting passage, at page 441 of the first volume, proves incontestibly that Charles expressed great anxiety publicly to profess the Catholic religion, for the ease of his conscience. There is, nevertheless, great reason to doubt whether his zeal in this cause was half so strong as his hypocrisy. At the earlier period of his life, he certainly entertained very different views; for, in Thurloe's State-Papers, (vol. i. p. 661.) we have a letter addressed to his brother James, entreating him not to be persuaded by the Queen to change his religion, or to go to the Jesuits' college, " since," says he, " if you hearken to her, or any body else, in that matter, you must never thinke to see England or me againe; "and whatsoever mischiefe shall fall on me, or my affairs, "from this time, I must lay all upon you, as being the only cause of it."

46

66

The chief object of this unprincipled monarch in afterwards making an avowal of his zeal for the Catholic faith, seems to have been to extract money, first from the court of France, and afterwards from that of Spain; though there is no doubt but that he would have been well pleased to see it produce the effects he led those courts to hope for; not, however, from any real concern for the Catholic religion, on its own account, (for he would, in all probability, have concluded the same bargain with a Turk, or a Jew, if he could have done it upon the same terms;) but because he was aware that the genius of that religion was highly favourable

to his own predisposition to an arbitrary government. To further, therefore, his views in concluding this treaty, which, whatever may have been their origin, certainly had the establishment of such a power for their end, care was taken to put the principal fortresses into the hands of men in whom the King could confide. "Such," to use the language of the Memoirs," as would serve the crown, without grumbling or asking questions." But a still more Machiavelian policy was resorted to.

"The rigourous church of England men were let loose and encouraged under hand, to prosecute, according to the law, the nonconformists, to the end that these might be more sensible of the ease they should have when the Catholicks prevail'd." (Vol. I. pp. 443-4.)

On the Popish plot, no additional light is thrown by this publication. It tends, however, to confirm the generally received opinion, that the miscreants who pretended to discover it, would never have proceeded half the length they did, had not the Lord Treasurer, Danby, been glad to avail himself of its assistance, to divert the storm which threatened to burst upon his own head.

The notice taken of the Rye-House plot, is comparatively slight. Monmouth, we are told, on being introduced to the King, to implore his forgiveness, confirmed the evidence of Lord Howard and the other witnesses in every essential particular, excepting that he solemnly declared his ignorance of the design to kill the King: and the fair inference from this declaration is, that his colleagues in the council of six were equally ignorant of it. No one, however, was present at this confession but the king and his brother; and though Monmouth was required to give a written acknowledgment of his guilt, he was expressly assured that he should not be called upon, in any shape, to give evidence against his accomplices. The affection of an indulgent parent was even strong enough to return this letter to its author, at his earnest solicitation; and it is probable that he was the more easily persuaded to do this, from the fears he might entertain of the use his brother would hereafter make of it, to the ruin of a son, too like Absalom in his character and conduct, not to create an apprehension that he might afterwards meet with Absalom's fate.

The account of the King's death differs little in substance from those we already have; for James was too sincere a Catholic not to glory in what he had done, in procuring for his brother, in the last moments of a life of profligacy, all

the assistance he could derive from that faith to which he had been accustomed to look for consolation. In one point, however, it differs from the accounts given by many of our historians, who assert that, in his last moments, Charles refused to see his queen, whilst he was particularly attentive to his favourite mistress, the Duchess of Portsmouth; as his brother tells us, (for bere his very words seem to be carefully followed,) that

"He spoke most tenderly to the queen too, and, in fine, left nothing unsaid, or undone, that so small a time would allow of, either to reconcile himself to God, or to make satisfaction to those he had injured upon earth, disposing himself to dy with the pietie and unconcernedness becomeing a Christian, and resolution becomeing a King." (Vol. I. p. 749.)

The short character given of this witty, but unprincipled monarch, is marked by that fraternal affection, which has seldom had stronger hold on the mind of any one than on that of James the Second. The irregularities of his life are touched with a very gentle hand; indeed they are merely mentioned as "some disorders and infirmities which sully'd "those shining natural partes, which were otherwise the ad"miration of his neibors, as well as the delight and security

of his subjects." One reason for such a palliation may have been, that, at this period, and indeed till some time after, James himself, notwithstanding the strictness of his religious professions, was guilty of similar infractions of his moral and social duties.

The principal fault with which Charles is charged by his biographer, is that over-leniency, that love of ease, and want of determination, which enfeebled all his resolutions and "perplexed his measures, till, awaked by the daily admoni❝tions of his brother, he shook off his fetters at last, and "made the royal power appear in its natural vigour and "lustre again, in which it continued till his death.” (Vol. i. p. 750.)

To preserve it, at the least, in that vigour, was the intention of James when he ascended the throne; and, from bis former declarations and subsequent conduct, there is every reason to suppose that, from the first, he proposed to avail himself of every opportunity of extending it. But the first speech he delivered to the council manifested no such intention; for whilst he candidly told them that he would never "depart from the just rights and prerogatives of the crown," he assured them that he would make it his endeavour

66

to

preserve the government, in church and state, as it is by

law established, and take care to defend and support the "church of England." (Vol. ii. p. 3.) Of the introduction of the latter expression into the speech, a very curious explanation is given. The declaration of the king, whatever may have been the form of words in which it was conveyed, was, in substance, such as to give great satisfaction to the council; and many of the members requested that they might take copies of it. But the king assuring them that he had spoken" from the abundance of his heart, without much "premeditation, and that he had it not in writing at all," Mr. Finch said, that the words had made so deep an impression upon his mind, that, with his majesty's permission, he would write them down.

"He went to the clarke's seat, and did it accordingly; which being shewn to the king, he aproued of it, and it was immediately published, to the unspeakable satisfaction of the nation. No one can wonder that M. Finch should word the speech as strong as he could in fauour of the established religion, nor that the king, in such a hurry, should pass it over without reflection; for tho' his majesty intended to promis both security to their religion and protection to their persons, he was afterwards conuinced it had been better express'd by assureing them, he never would endeavour to alter the established religion, rather than that he would endeavour to preserue it, and that he would rather support and defend the professors of it, rather than the religion itself; they could not expect be should make a conscience of supporting what in his conscience he thought erroneous; his engageing not to molest the professors of it, nor to depriue them or their successors of any spiritual dignity, revenue, or employment, but to suffer the ecclesiastical affaires to go on in the track they were in, was all they could wish or desire from a prince of a different perswasion; but hauing once approued that way of expressing it which Mr. Finch had made choice of, he thought it necessary not to vary from it in the declarations or speeches he made afterwards, not doubting but the world would understand it in the meaning he intended, and which alone was agreable to the circumstances he was in." (Vol. II. p. 4.)

The nation, however, took it in a very different sense; and too many of the king's subsequent actions were of a complexion to warrant their accusing him with having openly departed from his word. In the very face of the construction which they put upon it, he went to mass, not only publicly, but in state, though his doing so immediately after he had made it, is a confirmation of the sense in which he intended it to be taken.

The narrative of Monmouth's rebellion is such as to require little or no comment. In its facts it is accurate, but in its reflections on the character of the unfortunate victim of that ill-concerted adventure, it is far from candid. It affords, however, an additional proof of the accuracy of Macpher