and

been most irritable. A certain description | quotation from a private letter, made of friends (the words describing them are by the editor, to be the same as if inomitted) were all of them, without excep- cluded in a work intended for publition, his greatest enemies, both to betray cation by the author; - then he reand destroy him ;and (the names again omitted) were the greatest members that he is the sole executor cause of his rout, and his being taken, of Sir Patrick's grandson, whose blank though not designedly, he acknowledges, is so filled up ;- and goes on blunderbut by ignorance, cowardice, and faction. ing and blubbering - grateful and inThis sentence had scarce escaped him, when, accurate teeming with false quotanotwithstanding the qualifying words with tions and friendly recollections to the which his candour had acquitted the last- conclusion of his book. Multa gemens mentioned persons of intentional treachery, ignominiam. it appeared too harsh to his gentle nature; and, declaring himself displeased with the hard epithets he had used, he desires that they may be put out of any account that is to be given of these transactions."- Heywood, pp. 365, 366.

Mr. Rose came into possession of the Earl of Marchmont's papers, containing, among other things, the narrative of Sir Patrick Hume. He is very severe upon Mr. Fox, for not having been more diligent in searching for original papers; and observes that if any application had been made to him (Mr. Rose), this narrative should have been at Mr. Fox's service. We should be glad to know, if Mr. Rose saw a person tumbled into a ditch, whether he would wait for a regular application till he pulled him out? Or, if he happened to espy the lost piece of silver for which the good woman was diligently sweeping the house, would he wait for

Argyle names neither the description of friends who were his greatest enemies, nor the two individuals who were the principal cause of the failure of his scheme. Mr. Fox leaves the blanks as he finds them. But two notes are added by the editor, which Mr. Rose might have observed are marked with an E. In the latter of them we are told, that Mr. Fox observes, in a private letter, "Cochrane and Hume certainly filled up the two principal blanks." But is this communication of a private formal interrogation before he imletter any part of Mr. Fox's history? And would it not have been equally fair in Mr. Rose to have commented upon any private conversation of Mr. Fox, and then to have called it his history? Or, if Mr. Fox had filled up the blanks in the body of his history, does it follow that he adopts Argyle's censure, because he shows against whom it is levelled? Mr. Rose has described the charge against Sir Patrick Hume to be, of faction, cowardice, and treachery, Mr. Rose has more than once altered the terms of a proposition before he has proceeded to answer it; and, in this instance, the charge of treachery against Sir Patrick Hume is not made either in Argyle's letter, Mr. Fox's text, or the editor's note, or anywhere but in the imagination of Mr. Rose. The sum of it all is, that Mr. Rose first supposes the relation of Argyle's opinion to be the expression of the relator's opinion, that Mr. Fox adopts Argyle's insinuations because he explains them; - then he looks upon a

parted his discovery, and suffer the lady to sweep on till the question had been put to him in the most solemn forms of politeness? The established practice, we admit, is to apply, and to apply vigorously and incessantly, for sinecure places and pensions—or they cannot be had. This is true enough. But did any human being ever think of carrying this practice into literature, and compelling another to make interest for papers essential to the good conduct of his undertaking? We are perfectly astonished at Mr. Rose's conduct in this particular; and should have thought that the ordinary exercise of his good-nature would have led him to a very different way of acting.

"On the whole, and upon the most attentive consideration of every thing which has been written upon the subject, there does not appear to have been any intention of applying torture in the case of the Earl of Argyle." (Rose, p. 182) If this every thing had included

the following extract from Barillon,
the above cited, and very disgraceful,
inaccuracy of Mr. Rose would have
been spared. "The Earl of Argyle
has been executed at Edinburgh, and
has left a full confession in writing, in
which he discovers all those who have
assisted him with money, and have
aided his designs. This has saved him
from the torture." And Argyle, in his
letter to Mrs. Smith, confesses he has
made discoveries. In his
very inaccu-
rate history of torture in the southern
part of this island, Mr. Rose says, that
except in the case of Felton, in the
attempt to introduce the civil law in
Henry VI.'s reign,-and in some cases
of treason in Mary's reign, torture was
never attempted in this country. The
fact, however, is, that in the reign of
Henry VIII. Anne Askew was tortured
by the Chancellor himself. Simson
was tortured in 1558; Francis Throg
morton in 1571; Charles Baillie, and
Banastie, the Duke of Norfolk's servant,
were tortured in 1581; Campier, the
Jesuit, was put upon the rack; and
Dr. Astlow is supposed to have been
racked in 1558. So much for Mr.
Rose as the historian of punishments.
We have seen him, a few pages before,
at the stake, where he makes quite as
bad a figure as he does now upon the
rack. Precipitation and error are his
foibles. If he were to write the history,
of sieges, he would forget the siege of
Troy; if he were making a list of poets,
he would leave out Virgil:-Cæsar
would not appear in his catalogue of
generals;-and Newton would be over-
looked in his collection of eminent
mathematicians.

"Mr. Rose, in his concluding paragraph, boasts of his speaking 'impersonally,' and he hopes it will be allowed justly, when he makes a general observation respecting the proper province of history. But the last might be speaking justly, he was not speaksentence evidently shows that, though he ing impersonally, if by that word is meant, without reference to any person. words are 'But history cannot connect itself with party, without forfeiting its name; without departing from the truth, the dignity, and the usefulness of its functions.' After the remarks he has made in

His

some of his preceding pages, and the apology he has offered for Mr. Fox, in his last preceding paragraph, for having been mistaken in his view of some leading points, there can be no difficulty in concluding, that this general observation is meant to be applied to the historical work. The charge intended to be insinuated must be, that, in Mr. Fox's hands, history has forfeited the name by being connected with party; and has departed from the truth, the dignity, and the usefulness of its functions. It were to be wished that Mr. Rose had explained himself more fully; for, after assuming that the application of this observation is too obvious to be mistaken, there still remains some difficulty with respect to its meaning. If it be confined to such publications as are written under the title of histories, but are intended to serve the purposes of a party; and truth is sacrificed, and facts perverted, to defend and give currency to their tenets, we do not dispute its propriety; but, if that be to Mr. Fox's labours, he has not treated the character which Mr. Rose would give him with candour, or even common justice. Mr. Rose has never, in any one instance, intimated that Mr. Fox has wilfully departed from truth, or strayed from the proper province of history, for the purpose of indulging his private or party feelings. But, if Mr. Rose intends that the observaIn some cases Mr. Rose is to be met tion should be applied to all histories, the authors of which have felt strongly the only with flat denial. Mr. Fox does influence of political connections and prinnot call the soldiers who were defend- ciples, what must become of most of the ing James against Argyle authorised histories of England? Is the title of assassins; but he uses that expression historian to be denied to Mr. Hume? and against the soldiers who were murder-in what class are to be placed Echard, ing the peasants, and committing every Kennet, Rapin, Dalrymple, or Macpherson? sort of licentious cruelty in the twelve In this point of view the principle laid down is too broad. A person, though concounties given up to military execu tion; and this Mr. Rose must have history of events which occurred a century nected with party, may write an impartial known, by using the most ordinary before; and, till this last sentence, Mr. Rose diligence in the perusal of the text and would have known it in any other history than that of Mr. Fox.

has not ventured to intimate that Mr. Fox has not done so. On the contrary, he has declared his approbation of a great portion

Mr. Rose himself has acknowledged and applauded many of them."-(pp. 422-424.)

He has not done

of the work; and his attempts to discover | He rests his credit with the world as a material errors in the remainder have man of labour-and he turns out to be uniformly failed in every particular. If it a careless inspector of proofs, and an might be assumed that there existed in the historical sloven. The species of talent book no faults, besides those which the scrutinising eye of Mr. Rose has discovered, which he pretends to is humble—and it might be justly deemed the most perfect he possesses it not. work that ever came from the press; for not that which all men may do, and which a single deviation from the strictest duty of every man ought to do, who rebukes an historian has been pointed out; while his superiors for not doing it. His instances of candour and impartiality pre- claims, too, it should be remembered, sent themselves in almost every page; and to these every-day qualities are by no means enforced with gentleness and humility. He is a braggadocio of miThese extracts from both books are nuteness-a swaggering chronologer; sufficient to show the nature of Serjeant a man bristling up with small factsHeywood's examination of Mr. Rose-prurient with dates-wantoning in the boldness of this latter gentleman's obsolete evidence-loftily dull, and assertions and the extreme inaccuracy haughty in his drudgery;— and yet of the researches upon which these assertions are founded. If any credit could be gained from such a book as Mr. Rose has published, it could be gained from accuracy alone. Whatever the execution of his book had been, the world would have remembered the infinite disparity of the two authors, and the long political opposition in which they lived-if that, indeed, can be called opposition, where the thunderbolt strikes, and the clay yields. They would have remembered also that Hector was dead; and that every cowardly Grecian could now thrust his spear into the hero's body. But still, if Mr. Rose had really succeeded in exposing the inaccuracy of Mr. Fox-if he could have fairly shown that authorities were overlooked, or slightly examined, or wilfully perverted-the incipient feel ings to which such a controversy had given birth must have yielded to the evidence of facts; and Mr. Fox, however qualified in other particulars, must have appeared totally defective in that laborious industry and scrupulous good faith so indispensable to every historian. But he absolutely comes out of the contest not worse even in a single tooth or nail-unvilified even by a wrong datewithout one misnomer proved upon him -immaculate in his years and days of the month blameless to the most musty and limited pedant that ever yellowed himself amidst rolls and records.

But how fares it with his critic?

all this is pretence. Drawing is no
very unusual power in animals; but he
cannot draw:- he is not even the ox
which he is so fond of being. In at-
tempting to vilify Mr. Fox, he has only
shown us that there was no labour
from which that great man shrunk, and
that no object connected with his his-
tory was too minute for his investiga-
tion. He has thoroughly convinced us
that Mr. Fox was as industrious, and
as accurate, as if these were the only
qualities upon which he had ever rested
his hope of fortune or of fame. Such,
indeed, are the customary results when
little people sit down to debase the
characters of great men, and to exalt
themselves upon the ruins of what they
have pulled down. They only provoke
a spirit of inquiry, which places every
thing in its true light and magnitude-
shows those who appear little to be still
less, and displays new and unexpected
excellence in others who were before
known to excel. These are the usual
consequences of such attacks. The fame
of Mr. Fox has stood this, and will
stand much ruder shocks.

Non hiemes illam, non flabra neque imbres
Convellunt; immota manet, multosque per

annos

Multa virúm volvens durando sæcula

vincit.

Ir is a melancholy thing to see a man, clothed in soft raiment, lodged in a public palace, endowed with a rich portion of the product of other men's industry, using all the influence of his splendid

England. No man can be fairly said to be permitted to enjoy his own worship who is punished for exercising that worship. His Lordship seems to have no other idea of punishment than lodging a man in the Poultry Compter, or flogging him at the cart's tail, or fining him a sum of money; - just as if incapacitating a man from enjoying the dignities and emoluments to which men of similar condition, and other

faith, may fairly aspire, was not freall punishments. This limited idea of quently the most severe and galling of the nature of punishment is the more extraordinary, as incapacitation is actually one of the most common punish

ments in some branches of our law.

The sentence of a court-martial fre

situation, however conscientiously, to deepen the ignorance, and inflame the fury of his fellow creatures. These are the miserable results of that policy which has been so frequently pursued for thesequently purports that a man is rendered for ever incapable of serving his fifty years past, of placing men of mean or middling abilities in high ecclesias-Majesty, &c. &c.; and a person not in tical stations. In ordinary times, it is holy orders, who performs the functions of a clergyman, is rendered for of less importance who fills them; but ever incapable of holding any preferwhen the bitter period arrives, in which the people must give up some of their ment in the Church. There are indeed darling absurdities;-when the senseless many species of offence for which no clamour, which has been carefully handed cious could be devised. It would be punishment more apposite and judidown from father fool to son fool, can be rather extraordinary, however, if the no longer indulged;-when it is of incalCourt, in passing such a sentence, culable importance to turn the people to were to assure the culprit, "that such a better way of thinking; the greatest incapacitation was not by them consiimpediments to all amelioration are too dered as a punishment; that it was often found among those to whose councils, at such periods, the country ought to all governments, of determining who only exercising a right inherent in look for wisdom and peuce. We will should be eligible for office and who suppress, however, the feelings of indignation which such productions, from ineligible." His Lordship thinks the toleration complete, because he sees a such men, naturally occasion. We will permission in the statutes for the exgive the Bishop of Lincoln credit for ercise of the Roman Catholic worship. being perfectly sincere ;—we will sup- He sees the permission - but he does pose, that every argument he uses has not choose to see the consequences to not been used and refuted ten thou-which they are exposed who avail sand times before; and we will sit themselves of this permission. It is down as patiently to defend the re- the liberality of a father who says to a ligious liberties of mankind, as the son, "Do as you please, my dear boy; Reverend Prelate has done to abridge follow your own inclination. Judge remember, if you marry that lady, I for yourself, you are free as air. But will cut you off with a shilling." We have scarcely ever read a more solemn and frivolous statement, than the Bishop of Lincoln's antithetical distinction between persecution and the denial of political power.

them.

We must begin with denying the main position upon which the Bishop

of Lincoln has built his reasoning The Catholic religion is not tolerated in

* It is impossible to conceive the mischief which this mean and cunning prelate did at this period.

"It is sometimes said, that Papists, tion, is more a controversy of words being excluded from power, are conse- than things. That they are subject to quently persecuted; as if exclusion from some restraints, the Bishop will admit: power and religious persecution were con- the important question is, whether_or vertible terms. But surely this is to confound things totally distinct in their not these restraints are necessary? For nature. Persecution inflicts positive puhis Lordship will of course allow, that nishment upon persons who hold certain every restraint upon human liberty is religious tenets, and endeavours to accom- an evil in itself; and can only be jusplish the renunciation and extinction of tified by the superior good which it those tenets by forcible means: exclusion can be shown to produce. My Lord's from power is entirely negative in its ope- fears upon the subject of Catholic ration it only declares that those who hold certain opinions shall not fill certain emancipation are conveyed in the folsituations; but it acknowledges men to be lowing paragraph : — perfectly free to hold those opinions. Persecution compels men to adopt a prescribed faith, or to suffer the loss of liberty, property, or even life: exclusion from power prescribes no faith; it allows men to think and believe as they please, without molest-cause of Protestantism? A similar observaation or interference. Persecution requires men to worship God in one and in no other way: exclusion from power neither commands nor forbids any mode of Divine worship-it leaves the business of religion where it ought to be left, to every man's judgment and conscience. Persecution proceeds from a bigoted and sanguinary spirit of Intolerance; exclusion from power

is founded in the natural and rational

principle of self-protection and self-preservation, equally applicable to nations and to individuals. History informs us of the mischievous and fatal effects of the one, and proves the expediency and necessity of the other."-(pp. 16, 17.)

We will venture to say, there is no one sentence in this extract which does not contain either a contradiction, or a mis-statement. For how can that law acknowledge men to be perfectly free to hold an opinion, which excludes from desirable situations all who do hold that opinion? How can that law be said neither to molest nor interfere, which meets a man in every branch of industry and occupation, to institute an inquisition into his religious opinions? And how is the business of religion left to every man's judgment and conscience, where so powerful a bonus is given to one set of religious opinions, and such a mark of infamy and degradation fixed upon all other modes of belief? But this is comparatively a very idle part of the question. Whether the present condition of the Catholics is or is not to be denominated a perfect state of tolera

"It is a principle of our constitution that the King should have advisers in the discharge of every part of his royal functions; and is it to be imagined, that Papists would advise measures in support of the

tion may be applied to the two Houses of Parliament: would Popish peers, or Popish members of the House of Commons, enact laws for the security of the Protestant government? Would they not rather repeal the whole Protestant code, and make Popery again the established religion of the country?"-(p. 14.)

And these are the apprehensions which the clergy of the diocese have prayed my Lord to make public.

Kind Providence never sends an evil without a remedy:-and arithmetic is the natural cure for the passion of fear. If a coward can be made to count his enemies, his terrors may be reasoned with, and he may think of ways and means of counteraction. Now, might it not have been expedient that the Reverend Prelate, before he had alarmed his Country Clergy with the idea of so large a measure as the repeal of Protestantism, should have counted up the probable number of Catholics who would be seated in both Houses of Parliament ? Does he believe that there would be ten Catholic Peers, and thirty Catholic Commoners? But, admit double that number (and more, Dr. Duigenan himself would not ask,)

will the Bishop of Lincoln seriously assert, that he thinks the whole Protestant code in danger of repeal from such an admixture of Catholic legislators as this? Does he forget, amid the innumerable answers which may be made to such sort of apprehensions, what a picture he is drawing of the