^ %. ; 
 
 
 \>«f' 
 
 ■ %> ■$ 
 
 N, u °*. 
 
 o5 "A 
 
 V' «.''*<» 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 .•\ 
 
 
 
 ' <<y 
 
 
 
 ■v>^ 
 
 
 AV V "tp 
 
 
 tf 
 
 £ **. 
 
 
 
 <** .o 
 
 
 %>. ** 
 
> ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "oo X 
 
 'a 
 
 
 A * 3 H ' \^ , „ - *>- 
 
 v 
 
 ,v 
 
 
 
 **. 
 
 ";> 
 
 
 
 CI 
 
 P ^ 
 
 
 \ v 
 
 Pq, 
 
 cf*^ 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 , ( 
 
 
 'oo 
 
 A 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 *** % V ^ ^ 'v 
 
 \ v 
 
 ,0 °<. 
 
 
 - >;% 
 
 
 
 
 - '^0 X 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 ^- C x 
 
 C ' 
 
 a" x ^ 
 
 "oo X 
 
 
VINDICATION 
 
 OF 
 
 MR. FOX'S HISTORY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 EARLY PART OF THE REIGN 
 
 OF 
 
 JAMES THE SECOND. 
 
 BY SAMUEL HEYWOOD, 
 
 SERJEANT AT LAW. 
 
 LONDON: 
 PRINTED FOR J. JOHNSON AND CO, 
 
 N° 72, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH- YARD ; 
 AND J. RIDGE WAY, PICCADILLY. 
 
 1811. 
 
THE LIBRARY! 
 OF CONGRESS [ 
 
 WASHINGTON K 
 
 33 A l 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The publication of Mr. Fox's Historical Work, though 
 only an unfinished fragment, naturally excited a considerable 
 degree of interest in the public mind ; however imperfect 
 it might be, it was the production of a man, universally- 
 acknowledged to have been blessed with talents of the 
 highest class, whose long political life had rendered him 
 peculiarly conversant with the subjects upon which he 
 professed to write. To discover legitimate objects for 
 criticism in almost any posthumous publication cannot be 
 very difficult, but such works have usually been treated with 
 much indulgence, and Mr. Fox's book has more than com- 
 mon claims upon the candour of the public. It is only a 
 small portion of his intended work: we are not assured 
 that, if he had lived, he would have allowed any part of 
 it to have been laid before the public in its present state. 
 On the contrary, it may be proved from the work itself, 
 
 a 
 

 II PREFACE. 
 
 that in the author's consideration it was not so far ad- 
 vanced as to be in a state fit for the press ; for one pas- 
 sage, which was meant to be substituted for another, is 
 inserted in the manuscript, and yet the original one con- 
 tinues unobliterated, and both now make part of the printed 
 text* from a praise-worthy delicacy of the noble editor, 
 that there may not be a possibility of doubt, as to the 
 authenticity of the publication. 
 
 When Mr. Rose announced his intention to make 
 some observations on this publication, his situation in 
 life was a pledge to the public, that they would be 
 written in the spirit of liberality, and his former publi- 
 cations concerning finance and records, of which the value 
 must depend almost entirely upon their accuracy, induced a 
 hope that errors might be rectified, and obscurities cleared up, 
 if any there were, by his assistance : Mr. Rose himself seems to 
 have been aware of the expectations of the public, and in his 
 Introduction, as well as in different parts of the body of his 
 work, makes .the strongest professions of candour and 
 impartiality, and censures the want of that accuracy, in 
 which from the offices he has filled, he supposes himself 
 particularly to excel. He was aware of the delicacy 
 
 * Mr. Fox's Historical Work, p. 181. 
 
PREFACE. ill 
 
 of the situation in which he placed himself, when 
 he undertook to comment on Mr. Fox's Work, from 
 his having been " very long honoured with the cOn- 
 " fidence, and enjoyed the affectionate friendship of 
 " his principal political opposer*." But to obviate this 
 objection, he assures us, " that the opposition of every 
 "liberal man has died with its object;" which is a 
 pretty strong admission that his opposition was not 
 to the principles, but to the person of Mr. Fox, for 
 the principles remain though the person is gone; and 
 yet he adds, that 15 his opposition was altogether on public 
 " grounds." He says, there was a time when he hoped to 
 have seen a junction of Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt, but in 
 reading Mr. Fox's History he had conceived a doubt, 
 how far their co-operation could have been permanent, 
 because " the political principles of Mr. Pitt certainly 
 " would not have accorded with those of Mr. Fox, in the 
 " manner in which he has developed them." He however 
 intimates that in power, he might not have acted ac- 
 cording to the demonstration of his principles in his book. 
 Mr. Rose, then, by his own acknowledgment, had been very 
 long in the habit of opposing the political measures of Mr. 
 Fox, and had been honoured with the confidence and 
 affectionate friendship of his principal political opponent.. 
 
 * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p. xxxiv. 
 
 a2 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 He might have added, that Miv Pitt to him had been a 
 patron, as well as a friend, and that under his auspices, he 
 ha<i acquired nearly the summit of wealth and honour. 
 Mr. Pitt was; not so implacable in his enmity as Mr. Rose, 
 and at the; close of, his life was become sincerely desirous 
 that Mr. Fox, should assist in, the government of the 
 country, and even Mr. Rose had hoped for it. But from 
 some dreadful principles disclosed in Mr. Fox's book, which 
 -during ffye greater part of a life spent in political contest, he 
 had; carefully concealed, or Mr. Rose had not had the sagacity 
 to -discover, he now doubts whether the co-operation of these 
 celebrated rivals could have lasted, because the political 
 principles of Mr. Pitt could not have accorded with those 
 which the tardy penetration of Mr. Rose has discovered in 
 the posthumous work of [Mr.: Fox! 
 
 , ■ . ■ I -: :ili 'lo t I , : a . 
 
 An appeal may safely be made to the opponents as well as 
 the supporters of the latter, whether he was ever in the habit 
 of concealing his principles,* and to any person, except Mr. 
 Rose, who has read his work> whether there are any prin- 
 ciples developed in it inconsistent with those, which he had 
 uniformly avowed and acted upon;. We shall examine 
 hereafter .whether Ma". Rose has fairly represented the 
 passages, from which he has drawn his conclusion, and 
 whether, if fairly represented they would justify it. But we 
 ate inclined to think more highly of Mr. Pitt; he, (whatever 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 Mr. Rose might be) could not but be perfectly well 
 acquainted with the principles of Mr, Fox when he made 
 overtures to introduce him into power ; and we may safely 
 conclude that he felt none of those apprehensions, which 
 have so recently found their way to the bosom of Mr. Rose. 
 It will be found in the progress of this work that no opinion, 
 supported by Mr. Fox, is calculated to alarm the most 
 zealous friends of the monarchical part of our constitution. 
 But that his principles are such, as Mr. Pitt or any Minister 
 of the Crown might have avowed in the presence of his 
 Sovereign without a blush, and, what is not unworthy of 
 notice, are conveyed in expressions less offensive to 
 monarchy than some of those, in which Mr. Rose has 
 unnecessarily indulged himself. 
 
 Mr. Rose certainly must have been unacquainted with the 
 honorable mind, and manly feelings of Mr. Fox, when he 
 insinuates, that if he had come into power he might not have 
 acted " according to the demonstration of the principles in 
 his book," and must have forgotten that the experiment 
 had been tried before the Observations were written. Mr. 
 Fox had been in power for a few months, and during that 
 short period had proved that in him, change of situation 
 induced no alteration of sentiment. For through the 
 exertions of that administration of which he was a distin- 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 guished member, the friends of humanity may now exult in 
 the abolition of the slave trade, and his ardent wishes for the 
 success of the catholic claims remained unchanged to his 
 last moments. The hostile bias of Mr. Rose towards Mr. 
 Fox's politics is not only visible in the passages just com- 
 mented upon, but will be apparent in many others noticed 
 hereafter. But after Mr. Rose's excuses " for suspecting 
 " the accuracy of Mr. Fox's statement, and the justness of 
 " his reflections," and the observation that " with perfect 
 " rectitude and impartiality of intention a man in a particu- 
 " lar political situation, can hardly form impartial opinions," 
 because " he breathes an atmosphere of party, with which 
 " the constitution and temperament of his own mind can 
 " hardly fail to be affected ;"* we may justly doubt, whether 
 Mr. Rose himself, having long breathed this atmosphere, 
 is entitled to be ranked among the fortunate few, who 
 have escaped the contagion. If the political influence, he 
 alludes to, were confined merely to the leaders of parties, 
 he might perhaps have been free from it. But he does not 
 confine it to them, and there is no good reason why it should 
 not extend to those who have filled inferior situations ; on 
 the contrary, they, surely must be in greater danger, who are 
 attached not only to the party by common principle but 
 
 * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p. ix. 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 o its leader by the still stronger ties of personal interest, 
 gratitude, and affection. We, therefore, should be justified 
 upon his own principle, in suspecting the accuracy of Mr. 
 Rose's statements and the justness of his reflections, and in 
 questioning his capacity, though not his intentions of 
 forming impartial opinions. Mr. Rose is perfectly sensible 
 of the justness of this remark, and therefore obviates it by 
 'assuring us, that, on this account, he is particularly jealous 
 " of his own judgment" and had been more scrupulous of 
 his authorities and his own opinions than he might have 
 been in commenting upon the work of any other au- 
 thor*." He therefore cannot be displeased at his readers 
 being doubtful of his judgment, and investigating with some 
 degree of minuteness, the weight of his authorities, and the 
 propriety of his opinions. If professions of impartiality and 
 candour, would make a man candid and impartial, Mr. 
 Rose would certainly be entitled to that character. And 
 we will not deprive him of the credit of intending to fulfil, 
 and even thinking he has fulfilled those professions ; but we 
 lament that his good intentions have not been proof against 
 the contagious atmosphere of politics, in which .he has so 
 long breathed. He cannot be impartial, the spirit of oppo- 
 sition to Mr. Fox, which actuated the Secretary to the 
 Treasury under his political opponent, still reigns in the 
 
 * 
 
 * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p. xxxiii. 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 bosom of the Treasurer of the Navy, and is everywhere 
 visible, notwithstanding his good resolutions. It may be 
 traced in the numerous incorrect quotations, and groundless 
 objections found in every part of Mr. Rose's publication, 
 in his attacking without cause Mr. Fox's arguments 
 and conduct, and charging him with dangerous political 
 principles, neither advanced in his work, nor to be deduced 
 from it. Mr. Rose observes that particular circumstances 
 in the private situation of an author rarely afford a satis- 
 factory apology for a failure in argument*, and yet alledges 
 with some confidence, as an excuse for his own deficiencies, 
 that he had not been many more weeks in composing 
 his Observations, than Mr. Fox had been years in writing 
 his Historical Work. That work was the produce of his 
 occasional labours for about four years, and Mr. Rose 
 therefore must have completed his Observations in the short 
 period of not many more than four weeks, in the midst too, 
 of almost unremitting attention to official duties. But the 
 truth of the assertion is not meant to be disputed here ; 
 almost every page of the Observations corroborates the 
 statement. 
 
 To the baneful effects of the political atmosphere before 
 alluded to, and the hurry in which Mr. Rose has written the 
 
 * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p^ xxxv. 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 Observations may be owing his unfortunate failure in 
 accuracy. For allowing, most willingly, that he felt an 
 honest anxiety upon the subject, his authorities are very 
 frequently not correctly quoted, and generally either fail to 
 prove, or directly contradict the propositions they are 
 intended to support. These charges are not light ones, but 
 the ensuing pages will exhibit abundant proofs of their 
 being well founded. In the mean time it may be proper, 
 in illustration of these remarks, to call the attention of the 
 reader to some particular passages in Mr. Rose's Intro- 
 duction. 
 
 To prove that Mr. Fox was misled by a propensity t® 
 apply every historical incident to the defence of those politi- 
 cal principles, on which he had himself acted, Mr. Rose 
 charges him w 7 ith having translated incorrectly a passage in 
 a letter of Mr. Barillon. The alledged mistranslation is 
 admitted to have been made without intention, and therefore 
 the propensity is to be inferred merely from the mistake 
 itself. This would be a rather harsh rule to lay down for 
 Authors, and Mr. Rose might find some difficulty to vin- 
 dicate either himself) or Sir John Dalrymple from the charge 
 of an improper bias having operated upon their minds, 
 inferred from the numerous errors of this description, into 
 
 b 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 which they have both fallen, and some of which will be- 
 noticed hereafter. 
 
 Upon the disputed meaning of the original it might be 
 dangerous for an Englishman, and one not confident in his 
 critical knowledge of the French language to offer an 
 opinion. And such is the complicated construction of the 
 passage that its satisfactory discussion must necessarily run 
 into considerable length. I shall therefore leave the gram- 
 matical merits, and the real meaning of it, due regard being 
 had to the general style of epistolary correspondence, and 
 of Barillon's letters in particular, to Mr. Rose and the 
 Critics. In which ever way they may decide, the fact related 
 is equally favourable to the political principles of Mr. Fox, 
 and consequently the construction, which he put upon the 
 Words, could not have arisen from any propensity influ- 
 encing him to distort historical incident to the purpose of 
 defending his political principles and conduct. To make 
 out the charge alledged by Mr. Rose it would not be sufficient 
 to prove that Mr. Fox had mistaken the meaning of the 
 words, it must be shewn either that he had given, them a 
 meaning more favourable to his general view of politics, 
 or was so deficient in mental powers as v ,c to perceive that 
 their real meaning was as well, or oetter, suited to his 
 
PREFACE. XI 
 
 purpose and would equally serve to introduce the observa- 
 tions he makes upon them. 
 
 The quotation in question is from Barillon's letter of 
 the 7th of December 1684*, and Mr. Fox says, all the 
 other Ministers " maintained, that his Majesty could, and 
 " ought to govern countries so distant, in the manner that 
 *' should appear to him most suitable for preserving or 
 " augmenting the strength and riches of the mother coun- 
 " try-f-." Mr. Rose would strike out the words " mother 
 " country," and substitute the word " colony," we will 
 therefore suppose the correction to be made, and consider 
 the effect of it. The proceeding, of which Barillon is 
 giving an account to his master, took place in Council, 
 where the Marquis of Halifax argued strongly for model- 
 ing the Charters of the British Colonies of America upon 
 principles analogous to those of the British Constitution, 
 and the passage in dispute contains Jthe substance of the 
 answers made to his arguments by the other Ministers. 
 This opinion of Halifax was made use of to the King, as 
 a proof of his dangerous principles, by the Duke of York 
 and the French interest, in order to accomplish his removal 
 
 * Fox, App. p. viii. f Fox, p. 59. 
 
 b .2 
 
Xll PREFACE. 
 
 from power. And Mr. Fox remarks " there is something^ 
 " curious in discovering that, even at this early period, a 
 " question relative to North American liberty, and even to 
 " North American taxation, was considered as the test of 
 " principles friendly, or adverse to arbitrary power at 
 ** home*." Now, whether Mr. Rose's correction is made- 
 or not, this observation of Mr. Fox's and the one which 
 follows, founded upon it, are not in the smallest degree 
 affected. Both these observations are equally well applied, 
 whether we read " mother country," or " colony;" and 
 Mr. Fox, if we stopped here, must, according to this system 
 of reasoning, have acted under an improper influence when 
 he fell into the mistake, because it makes no difference what- 
 ever in his argument. But if Mr. Fox can be supposed 
 to have had a further view, which he did not choose to avow, 
 in presenting this page to the notice of his reader, it must 
 be an extraordinary sort of propensity, which blinded him 
 so far as to induce him unintentionally to translate incor- 
 rectly that, which truly translated, would have been more 
 to his purpose. For by adopting Mr. Rose's correction, 
 this passage becomes to a certain extent a direct and strong 
 authority for those principles^ which Mr. Fox so strenuously, 
 and: at last successfully maintained in the House of Commons. 
 
 + Fox, p.,€Ov 
 
PREFACE. XM1 
 
 We learn, adopting the amendnient of Mr. Rose, that 
 Halifax argued that the colonies ought not to be taxed at 
 the pleasure of the government at home, even for their own 
 benefit, and that the Ministers of Charles the Second 
 did not venture to urge a right in the mother country 
 to derive a revenue to itself from its colonies, but contented 
 themselves with asserting its right to tax them only for the 
 promotion of their own internal prosperity. The claims of 
 the mother country were not in Lord Halifax's time so 
 extravagant as those Mr. Fox had to contend with, for the 
 folly of attempting to; impose taxes upon colonies for the 
 benefit of the mother country was reserved for later times. 
 And, if the principles of the tory advisers of Charles the 
 Second had not been departed from, we might not have 
 had to lament in our own davs the horrors of a civil war, 
 ot seen a large portion of British subjects forcibly separated 
 from the parent state. The Earl of Halifax and Mr. Fox not 
 only professed principles nearly similar upon the subject 
 of American taxation, but they were both unjustly calum- 
 niated for it by their opponents/ as entertaining sentiments 
 hostile to the monarchical form of government under which 
 they lived. 
 
 Mr. Rose apologizes for entering into a free examina- 
 
XIV PREFACE. 
 
 tion of the Historical Work, because the object of that 
 work, " is to examine severely and minutely the authorities, 
 " on which former historians have asserted facts, or from 
 " which they have deduced opinions, and he must be," says 
 he, " a very partial reader, who can complain of a free 
 "examination of a work, in Which such a man as Hume, 
 " is characterised in the following words. '■ He was an 
 " excellent man, and of great power of mind, but his parti- 
 '■' ality to Kings and Princes is intolerable ; nay, it is in my 
 *' opinion quite ridiculous, and is more like the foolish 
 " admiration, which women and children sometimes have 
 " for Kings, than the opinion, right or wrong, of a philoso- 
 " pher*."' 
 
 Mr. Rose is somewhat unfortunate in this apology, for this 
 character of Mr. Hume is found, not in Mr. Fox's Histori- 
 cal Work, but a private letter cited by his nephew in the In- 
 troduction : where then was the boasted official accuracy of 
 Mr. Rose ? twice at least by his own statement, has he per- 
 used Mr. Fox's work, and onee attentively ; is it then unchari- 
 table to suppose that he must have known that this passage 
 was not where he states it to be, or been blinded by some 
 
 * Rose's Introduction, p. xi. 
 
PREFACE. XY 
 
 Sort of propensity which deluded his imagination into a 
 belief that it was there? The object of Mr. Fox's book, 
 it may be admitted, was to give an accurate history of the 
 principal facts, which led to the revolution, and of the revolu- 
 tion itself. To do this, it was necessary for him to ex- 
 amine the authorities of former writers, and the turn of his 
 mind led him to be very minute in his enquiries, but the 
 word " severely," if meant to convey the idea of those enqui- 
 ries having been conducted with a view to find fault with 
 others, is certainly misapplied. No friend of Mr. Fox 
 would complain of, and no friend to literature or political 
 liberty but must wish for a full and free examination of it. 
 But such examination should be conducted with candour, 
 and not taken advantage of to depreciate the political tenets 
 of the author, under the mask of examining his errors in 
 history. 
 
 The defence, which Mr. Rose goes out of his way to 
 «et up for Mr. Hume, against the charge of partiality to 
 Kings and Princes is curious. He admits the existence of 
 this partiality, but excuses it by saying that his prejudices 
 were " those of a system not of a party," and that his theory, 
 founded upon them, influenced his opinion and even co- 
 loured his narrative. He further says, that in giving the 
 
XVI PREFACE. 
 
 character of James " on his abdication, he shewed him 
 " more favour than he probably would have done, if he 
 " had known all that has since transpired*." If then Mr. 
 Fox's private letter has adopted Mr. Rose's own senti- 
 ments, and characterised Mr. Hume, as Mr. Rose himself 
 would have done, how can his having drawn so true a 
 character be a special reason for subjecting his Historical 
 Work to a free examination ? however, Mr. Rose, breathing 
 the atmosphere of party, continues to retain his suspicions, and 
 has carefully selected every passage in Mr. Fox's work, with 
 the addition of others not to be found in it, which could by any 
 possibility tend to shew that he thought hostilely or even lightly 
 of monarchy. But it cannot be supposed for a moment that 
 Mr. Rose could have in view, by dwelling upon the expressions 
 used by Mr. Fox to enforce his opinion of an individual 
 writer, to induce a belief in careless readers that they were 
 meant to be applied to monarchy itself. 
 
 The same private letter has given rise to a paragraph 
 tending to illustrate the spirit, in which Mr. Rose's Obser- 
 vations were penned. Mr. Fox, after complimenting Mr. 
 Laing upon his History of Scotland, which had been recent- 
 
 * Rose's Introduction, p. xii, 
 
PREFACE. XVli 
 
 ly published, says, " it is a most valuable acquisition, and will 
 " serve to counteract the mischief which Hume, Dalrymple, 
 " Macpherson, Somerville, and some others of your country- 
 " men have done. You will easily believe that I do not 
 " class Hume with the others, except as to the bad tendency 
 " of their representations*." The attack is commenced by an 
 insinuation, that Mr. Fox had started with a prejudice against 
 some other historians, besides Mr. Hume, (who is admitted 
 to be a prerogative writer) from a general idea of their 
 " toryism but without giving any reasons for his censure of 
 " them. Some of them," Mr. Rose says, " he appears not to 
 " have read, characterising them without distinction under 
 
 * one general description, whose principles of historical dis- 
 " cussion seem to be entirely opposite. And in particular, if 
 " Mr. Fox had ever read Somerville's History, he must have 
 
 * strangely forgotten what he met with in it, to have classed 
 " him with Hume and other prerogative writers." 
 
 Here we must repeat the remark that the passage, now 
 criticized as part of Mr. Fox's work, is a paragraph in a 
 private letter* written when his work was but just begun, 
 and therefore, if he had been too indiscriminate in his censure, 
 
 * Fox, Pref. p. xxi. 
 C 
 
XV111 PREFACE. 
 
 or had not even read the works of the authors named, it does 
 not follow that he did not afterwards read them, and acquire 
 a more accurate knowledge of their respective merits. 
 Mr. Rose's observation might be true, when the letter was 
 written, and yet unfounded when the further progress of the 
 Historical Work was interrupted by the duties of office, 
 and subsequent sickness and death of the author. 
 
 Mr. Rose proceeds on the assumption that Mr. Fox had 
 not read these writers, because he gives no reason for his 
 censure. Upon referring to the passage, the reader will 
 find two reasons expressly given, namely that they had 
 " done mischief)" and that their representations had a bad 
 tendency. Hume and Macpherson, Mr. Rose himself 
 acknowledges, may be reckoned amongst the tory writers, 
 and he gives a reason why Dalrymple has been suspected 
 to belong to them ; but he struggles hard to preserve the 
 zealous whig historian, Somerville, from so odious an im- 
 putation, and charges Mr. Fox, if he had ever read 
 his history, with having " strangely forgotten what he 
 " had met with in it, to have classed him^ith Hume, 
 V and other prerogative writers*." It turns out then at 
 
 * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p. xiii. 
 
 •- « 
 
 

 ' « PfeEFACE. „ * XIX 
 
 last, that Mr. ''Fox's observation is admitted to* be well 
 founded, as to all the authors he mentions except one, and 
 supposing it is acknowledged in return that He was mistaken 
 respecting him, it does not prove that Mr. Fox had a prejudice 
 against writers, merely because they were suspected of toryism. 
 The amount of the charge is that, in writing to a private friend, 
 he inadvertently inserted a name, which if he had thought for 
 a moment, (as he would have done if he had been writing his 
 history) he might have omitted. Against such an error I am 
 not solicitous to defend the memory of Mr. Fox. It might 
 have happened to any man, and fortunate indeed would 
 Mr. Rose have been even with his shield of official accuracy 
 if he could defend himself as well from charges of more 
 serious aspect. But we are not called upon to admit that there 
 has been any mistake, for, notwithstanding Somerville was a 
 whig, Mr. Fox may have disapproved of his history, and been 
 deliberately of opinion that he ought to be placed in the 
 class, from which Mr. Rose is so anxious to rescue him. 
 
 Another instance tending to shew the careless manner in 
 which the Observations have been written, occurs respecting 
 a quotation*, supposed to be made from Mr. Fox's work,' 
 
 * Fox, p. vi. 
 
 c 2 
 

 
 
 - ' k ■ . * I . 
 
 XX " PEETACE. * * . 
 
 respecting Lord Bolingbroke. It is stated to begin thus, 
 " Mr. Fox says * Bolingbroke in particular had confound- 
 *" ed,"' &c*. Here Mr. Rose has made two mistakes, 
 for neither in the Historical Work nor in any published 
 letter of Mr. Fox. is this paragraph found, and the passage 
 to which it is -presumed allusion is made, for he has omitted 
 to refer to it, contains no assertion, but an inference only, f 
 By turning to the sixth page of Lord Holland's preface, the '. 
 reader will find that the words quoted were written by 
 him, and contain only an inference which he, and not Mr. 
 Fox, had drawn from his own observation. The sentence 
 begins, " it could not escape the observation of Mr. Fox, c ■ 
 " that" &c. " and that Lord Bolingbroke in particular v had 
 " confounded" &c. For the justness of the remark Lord 
 Holland only is responsible, but the terms, in which it is 
 expressed, preclude the idea of his intending to state 
 positively that Mr. Fox entertained the opinion, he 
 only infers that such must have been his opinion from 
 the conviction impressed upon his own mind. This quota- 
 tion serves as the Introduction to five pages of extraneous 
 matter, consisting chiefly of what Mr. Rose had heard the 
 late Lord Marchmont say, he had heard the late Lord 
 
 * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p. xxvi. 
 
 
 *, " 
 
I 
 
 - » 
 
 V 
 
 PREFACE. XXI 
 
 Bolingbroke say. Under what influence or bias these 
 mistakes were made it is not very material to inquire, 
 hut they do not exhibit a favourable view of the 
 official accuracy, to be expected in the ensuing pages of 
 the Work in question. 
 
 To Mr. Rose the acknowledgments of the public are due 
 for the communication of Sir Patrick Hume's Narrative, 
 but the friends of Mr. Fox have peculiar reason to rejoice at 
 it, for that Narrative confirms in every particular the observa- 
 tions he has made upon Sir Patrick Hume's conduct. If Mr. 
 Rose had been aware of this, he probably would not 
 have published it, or at all events would not have declared 
 the object of its publication to have been the vindication 
 of the memory of Sir Patrick from charges, which it 
 does not contradict, but support. Mr. Rose must possess 
 a most delicate sensibility of nerves to have been affected, 
 as he describes himself * to have been, at the perusal of 
 the Historical Work ; but whether he was actuated by 
 the impulse of personal respect to Lord Marchmont's me- 
 mory, or by the particular interest he felt in the story 
 and character of his illustrious ancestor is not quite clear. 
 
 * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p. iii. 
 
,1 
 
 ».<f- 
 
 xxii • PREFACE. 
 
 • * «< 
 
 The object of this tender interest died in the year 1724. 
 But because he had been the " ancestor of a man", who 
 had treated Mr. Rose as a parent, and he conceived he 
 had the means of justifying him in his possession, he 
 could not bear that severe and unmerited reflections should 
 be adopted in his day without being noticed ; he could 
 not remain silent. This Mr. Rose avows to be " his sole 
 " motive at first for deciding to publish on the subject." 
 It has been observed already that Sir Patrick Hume's 
 Narrative, thus published for his justification, proves that 
 the reflections, which occasioned it, were well founded, as 
 we shall shew in the subsequent pages. Mr. Rose's 
 respect for the memory of one, who had been 85 years J 
 numbered with the dead, is the more striking, as it shews 
 that he was more feelingly alive to the reputation of this 
 ancestor of his friend, than that ancestor himself had been. 
 Mr. Rose says, that " Sir Patrick Hume, from anticipation 
 " as it would appear, of the obloquy which is apt to be 
 " fastened on men concerned in unfortunate enterprizes, 
 " drew up during his residence in Holland, before he was * 
 " joined there by his family, a narrative of the rise, pro- 
 " gress, and issue of the expedition of the Earl of Argyle 
 " in as far as he was himself concerned, which is the 
 

 * • "• * . PREFACE. Xxiii 
 
 ■* 
 
 ' paper I am anxious to publish*." If the obloquy, here 
 alluded to, was to be anticipated, the narrative could not be 
 intended as an answer to those reflections which have given 
 Mr. Rose so much pain, for Argyle had given currency to 
 them beTore the Narrative was drawn up, as appears 
 from the Narrative itself. He was executed on the 30th 
 of June, l685f, but the time when Sir Patrick fled into 
 Holland, is not exactly ascertained by the documents pub- 
 lished by Mr. Rose. It is probable however, that the 
 
 x Narrative was not composed till some time after Argyle's 
 death, it is almost impossible that it could have been 
 
 * written till that event had taken place, and Sir Patrick 
 Hume acquainted with the charge made upon him. 
 The passage alluded to was written by the Earl of 
 Argyle 38 years before the decease of Sir Patrick Hume, 
 and we may reasonably give him credit for feeling 
 the circulation of the supposed calumny with at least as 
 much keenness, as Mr. Rose can do now. Yet for that 
 length of time did he submit in silence to the charge, 
 
 which it is manifest he felt most sorely ; but he did not 
 
 I 
 
 * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p. v. 
 
 t Rapin says, Argyle was taken on the J 7th of June, 1685, 28 days 
 after he landed in Scotland, and he was executed 13 days after, viz on the 
 iOthof Jm.e. 
 
•4 ■■•*'* 
 
 XXIV PREFACE. % « * 
 
 publish his Narrative, though it was written expressly* 
 " for the nation, his friends, and his family." The question 
 naturally occurs why then did -he not publish it, as it 
 was clearly his intention to do when he wrote it ? For though 
 it might have been unsafe to publish it before the revolu- 
 tion, it might have been circulated without danger after- 
 wards. Probably he was aware that it would be no answer 
 to what Argyle had written of his conduct. 
 
 In his Introduction Mr. Rose takes for granted, that Mr. £ 
 Fox had a wish to favour Argyle and acquit him of misconduct 
 in his enterprize, at the expence of the character of Sir Patrick 
 Hume. But if Mr. Rose is right in the supposition that 
 Mr. Fox was also strongly prejudiced in favour of every 
 body who felt indignation at the abuses of monarchy, upon 
 what principle are we to account for his willingly sacrificing 
 the reputation of Sir Patrick Hume, who was unequivocally 
 engaged in an attempt to correct those abuses, or feel 
 pleasure in the giving currency to reports derogatory to his 
 honour and his courage ? Mr. Fox must either not have 
 felt the general prejudice above mentioned, or it did not 
 pervert his judgment, or deprive him of the power of dis- 
 criminating between the merits of individuals entitled to 
 the benefit of it, or appreciating truly their respective 
 
 -V*" 
 
PREFACE. XXV 
 
 characters. The charges made by Mr. Rose are not con- 
 sistent with each other, for if Mr. Fox had been the slave 
 of prejudice, and favoured all those who felt indignation at 
 the abuses of monarchy, he could not have wilfully detracted 
 from the character of one of the most zealous champions 
 against them. 
 
 It may be proper to notice here a remarkable instance 
 of carelessness in an author, who boasts of superior accuracy, 
 for he describes the notes of Lord Dartmouth, on which much 
 reliance is placed afterwards, to have been written by the second 
 Earl of that name*. The fact is that the writer was the Jirst 
 Earl. No improper propensity or motive is imputed as 
 the cause of this mistake, though it materially affects the 
 authority of the notes themselves. 
 
 Before we proceed to explain the object of the present pub- 
 lication, it may be proper to notice some observations of a ge- 
 neral nature which are found in Mr. Rose's Introduction. 
 In some respects, he seems to think himself peculiarly 
 qualified to write a history, or to make observations upon the 
 histories of others. He was the intimate friend of Lord March- 
 mont, and had seen Hume the historian very frequently ; he 
 
 Mr. Rose's Introduction, p. xxxiii. 
 D 
 
XXVI PREFACE. 
 
 was accustomed to official accuracy, had read much and 
 thought more upon the history of his country, and agreed with 
 Mr. Fox that there are certain periods, at which the mind 
 naturally pauses to meditate upon. Fortunately too he had 
 had the custody of some records, and had expressed an 
 opinion of our constitution in a report made several years 
 ago on their state, to support which he enters into an 
 elaborate discussion. He quotes Lord Coke, Plowden, Lord 
 Ellesmere, Whitelocke, Doomsday Book, the Rolls of Parlia- 
 ment, Abbot's Records, Rymer's Foedera, and Dugdale's 
 Origines. Strongly attached to the species of history ap- 
 proved of by Mr. Fox, he has long lamented the want of 
 such a work, and thinks it even culpable in the latter to 
 have confined himself to one period only, including the re- 
 establishment, as he is pleased to term it, of our liberties in 
 1688. He seems also to feel disappointment, that Mr. 
 Fox should have left only so small a fragment behind him, 
 but is not satisfied with the manner in which it is written. 
 To prove that he is a competent judge upon the subject, 
 he ec ommends Vertot's * Revolutions of Rome, and tanta- 
 
 * This recommendation of Mr. Vertot by a person accustomed to official 
 accuracy is rather extraordinary ; for it is a well-known anecdote, that when 
 his history of Malta was preparing for the press, notes of the transactions at 
 the siege, taken by an eye-witness, being sent to him, he declined to use 
 them, saying, Mon siege est fait. 
 
PREFACE. XXV U 
 
 lizes his readers with the mention of a short Historv of 
 Poland, of which he thought so highly as more than forty 
 years ago to translate and present it to his Majesty. He 
 does not give us the title of this model of perfection, but con- 
 soles us with the information that the MS. is probably still 
 remaining in the royal library. He was so well pleased with 
 this performance, that he had even then in contemplation to 
 write the History of his own country upon the same plan, but 
 modestly gave it up from a sense of his own incompetency. 
 In short we might be led to beiieve that, thinking and having 
 always thought as Mr. Fox did upon the subject of history, 
 he is better qualified than others to examine the facts, 
 arguments, and opinions of a person, who entertained senti- 
 ments so nearly similar to his own. In imposing upon 
 himself this task, Mr. Rose seems fully aware of its difficulty, 
 for he says in one place, Mr. Fox was a man of " splendid," 
 in another, of " transcendant," in a third, of " eminent'* 
 talents. He speaks of his most excellent natural memory, 
 and of his possessing a powerful mind bent to political, and 
 historical subjects. He acknowledges that he is not equal 
 to Mr. Fox in argument, and, when they differ, wishes the 
 point in dispute may be decided by the authorities produced. 
 In the ensuing pages however, it cannot escape observation 
 that he is not more successful in his appeal to authorities, 
 than he must have been in argument with Mr. Fox. 
 
 D 2 
 
XXVI11 PREFACE. 
 
 After having mentioned his having long lamented the 
 want of a work, which would illustrate the most interesting 
 periods of our history, he states in the style of complaint 
 against Mr. Fox, that this desideratum he had it not even 
 in contemplation to supply, but confined himself to what 
 is however stiled, " undoubtedly the most interesting event 
 " in our history." It seems here to be forgotten that Mr. Fox, 
 out of the most important events of our history, had select- 
 ed for the object of his literary labours that, which Mr. Rose 
 himself admits to be undoubtedly the most interesting. And, 
 as it would have been impossible to select and write upon them 
 all at once, we might have expected Mr. Fox's conduct, in 
 this particular, would have met with the most unqualified 
 approbation. But the next objection is to the manner in 
 which the design has been executed, and here no mercy 
 is shewn : it is stated that Mr. Fox had employed some years 
 of his valuable time in writing the history of a short period 
 only, concerning which, though eventful in itself, former 
 writers had produced every thing essential, and then Mr. 
 Rose undertakes to demonstrate that the transcendant talents 
 " of the one now under consideration, assisted by the 
 " industry of himself and his friends, did not enable him 
 " to bring into view one new historical fact of any impor- 
 " tance, or to throw an additional gleam of light on any 
 
PREFACE. XXIX 
 
 * constitutional point whatever." But the remainder of 
 the sentence shews that the writer felt the position he was 
 laying down was not tenable in its full extent, for it is added 
 not very consistent^, « but that on the contrary he has 
 " stated with confidence some facts which are at least 
 " extremely doubtful, on which some of his reasoning is 
 " founded." Mr. Fox then has brought into view, and has 
 stated some facts, which, being extremely doubtful, had not 
 before probably, as applied to the subjects alluded to, been 
 under the consideration of Mr. Rose. But never was an 
 assertion more rashly hazarded ; first of all it must be 
 remarked that Mr. Fox himself in a private letter says, as 
 to the introductory chapter to his work, " that it was rather 
 " a discussion alluding to known facts, than a minute 
 " enquiry into disputed points." The design of his work, 
 therefore, did not make it necessary for him to bring into 
 public notice any new facts previous to the reign of James 
 the Second, when his history, in truth, commences. Even 
 in that reign, the period, comprehended within the small 
 fragment which has been published, is so short, and the topics 
 treated of so fev/, that it would not be reasonable to expect 
 that he should have made any very important additions 
 to the facts, which had been already communicated to the 
 public. But in Mr. Rose's Introduction, we have already 
 
XXX PREFACE. 
 
 pointed out an instance of Mr. Fox having brought into 
 notice one historical fact of considerable importance*. For 
 in Barillon's letter of the 7th December, 1684, an interesting 
 and novel view is exhibited of the principles, on which our 
 American colonies were then governed, especially if Mr. 
 Rose's emendation of the translation be adopted. 
 
 The imputations, cast upon Mr. Fox in the Introduction 
 to the Observations, are certainly of a very serious nature, 
 deeply affecting his fidelity and accuracy, as a historian. 
 Mr. Rose, it seems, had a sort of general indeterminate 
 feeling impressed upon his mind that facts were sometimes 
 mistaken or misstated, and deductions formed on very 
 insufficient grounds, before he had a stronger and more 
 painful conviction of Mr. Fox's failure in point of accu- 
 racy of representation in his account of the conduct of 
 Sir Patrick Hume. His injustice in this respect forcibly 
 "struck Mr. Rose, nay, so strongly did it affect him, that it 
 was his sole motive at first for deciding to publish on the 
 subject. This was his first inducement to examine attentively 
 the Narrative of Mr. Fox. That Mr. Rose really expe- 
 rienced the general indeterminate feeling, which he describes, 
 there is no reason to doubt. But it arose before he had 
 
 * Fox, App. p. viii. 
 
PREFACE, XXX J 
 
 perused that part of Mr. Fox's Narrative which relates to Sir 
 Patrick Hume, aud even before he had perused attentively any 
 part of it*. We may, therefore, fairly doubt, whether that 
 feeling was to be attributed to the perusal of the work itself, or 
 to a predisposition to find fault, arising-, unknown to himself, 
 from his still breathing that pestilential atmosphere of 
 politics, which he supposes to have clouded the understand- 
 ing and perverted the mind of Mr. Fox. Viewing the 
 Historical Work through this medium, nothing could be 
 right, nothing could be seen in proper order, and thus may 
 we account not only for the unfounded complaint of in- 
 justice having been done to Sir Patrick Hume's character, 
 but for the avowal of its being, at first, " the sole " motive" 
 for his publication. ^^ 
 
 Upon Mr. Rose's attentive perusal, which must have 
 been his second, he made that discovery, which, while he 
 supposes it accounts for the defects in Mr. Fox's work, most 
 clearly gives the clue to his own conduct. A certain political 
 bias seemed to pervade the whole, and to be an uniform 
 leading cause of partiality both in the Narrative, and the re- 
 flections, which made him doubt, whether the history was not 
 
 * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p. iii and vii. 
 
XXX11 PREFACE. 
 
 written to support the system, rather than the system adopted 
 from the consideration of the history*. Mr. Rose could not 
 suppose that this part of the history of his country had been 
 then, for the first time, brought forward to the consideration 
 of Mr. Fox. No man was more familiarly acquainted with it, 
 and no man certainly had been more happy in the selection 
 of quotations from it in debate. Great political measures 
 and events had recently called the attention of the public, 
 in a particular manner, to what had happened previous 
 to and at the time of the Revolution. Mr. Fox may 
 have formed his political creed upon the principles of those 
 great characters by whom that happy event was accomplished, 
 to whom every man in this country is indebted for the pro- 
 perty and security he enjoys, and whose memory cannot be 
 less honoured by the monarch upon the throne, than the pea- 
 sant in his cottage. Should this have been the case, and 
 should Mr. Fox have conceived those principles to have been 
 unjustly aspersed, and his own character misunderstood and 
 misrepresented for having supported them, no apology 
 would be necessary for his having selected that portion of 
 our history, and entered into an explanation and defence 
 of those principles, though at the same time he should 
 have identified, and defended his own with them. It 
 
 * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p. viii. 
 
preface. xxxiii 
 
 is almost impossible for any person to write a perfectly im- 
 partial history, even if he were to make an indiscriminate 
 collection of facts first, and from them form an arrangement 
 and deduce a system. That arrangement and that system 
 must necessarily partake of the general principles of the writer. 
 His habits of thinking, his prejudices, and his feelings, which 
 he cannot have in common with any other individual, must 
 direct his understanding, and colour his narrative. The material 
 points to be attended to (which Mr. Rose says in the present in- 
 stance he was particularly careful to examine) are that his facts 
 shall be true, and his deductions and observations, naturally, 
 or at least fairly, arise from them. Here it is that Mr. 
 Rose thinks he has discovered many failures in the Historical 
 Work, but arduous as the task may appear, we do not 
 despair of shewing in detail that he is more frequently 
 mistaken in the corrections he would suggest, than Mr. Fox 
 in the passages objected to. Mr. Rose candidly makes the 
 admission that notwithstanding all his failures in accuracy, 
 Mr. Fox did not " intentionally $*ate a false fact? but the 
 charge in this respect is, that he has not examined, with the 
 utmost care and assiduity, the accuracy of what lie asserts*. 
 This further reason is given for noticing those parts of the 
 book which do not concern Sir Patrick Hume, that the mis- 
 
 * Mr. Rose'a Introduction, p. xiii. 
 e 
 
XXXIV PREFACE. 
 
 takes which have been made and then reasoned upon, may 
 be prevented from misleading the judgment of others. But 
 though Mr. Rose in this place describes the object of his ob- 
 servations to be confined to Mr. Fox's mistakes in facts only, 
 we shall find him venturing into the field of argument, and 
 disputing some of his deductions from the facts he has related. 
 Probably Mr. Rose may not have been aware of his having 
 transgressed his own rule, or possibly his fears may have va- 
 nished at the moment, when he thought he had the political 
 opponent of his patron and friend at an advantage. 
 
 The Historical Work of Mr. Fox has been treated 
 with greater severity than posthumous publications have 
 usually met with. This may be owing, in some degree, 
 to a misapprehension of part of the Preface, which 
 does so much honour to the head and heart of his noble 
 relation, who undertook to perform the duty of an 
 editor. In that Preface, care is most sedulously taken to 
 guard against the expectation that the work itself was 
 perfect, or left by the author as in a perfect state. In 
 the first paragraph it is stated to be only a fragment and 
 incomplete, and afterwards, when a reason is given for 
 a peculiar desire to preserve the precise words and phrases 
 of the author, it is again stiled " incomplete and unfinished." 
 
PREFACE. XXXV 
 
 But the scrupulous attention, which Mr. Fox is stated to 
 have bestowed in ascertaining the truth of his facts, and 
 the delicacy of his noble editor not to permit any altera- 
 tion in the composition of the work, however imperfect the 
 state in which it was left, have been mistaken for assurances 
 that, both in substance and in stile, the author had 
 perfected his design, and himself completed the copy 
 for the press. Mr. Fox, having conceived that the most 
 profitable mode of reading or writing history was to 
 select certain of the most interesting periods, and enter 
 into a separate investigation of the causes and effects of 
 the events happening within each, formed the design of 
 writing a separate history of the revolution. Unfortunately 
 • his death prevented the completion of his plan, and he 
 has, besides his Introductory Chapter, left in an unfinished 
 state, the history of little more than the first five months 
 of the reign of James the Second. During that short 
 period he has confined himself to the political occurrences, 
 and dismissed from his consideration every thing, which 
 might distract the attention of himself or his readers, from 
 the main object he had in view. This part of his work 
 is comprized in about 200 quarto pages, in which the 
 reader is presented with a narrative of events, detailed 
 with an accuracy and perspicuity, which will be found 
 
 e 2 
 
XXXVI PREFACE. 
 
 in few historians, accompanied with observations and 
 deductions, which may be considered almost as so man}?- 
 political aphorisms. His stile is simple but nervous, and 
 in many places eloquent; that it is not always equally 
 so may be owing in a great degree to the unfinished 
 state, in which this fragment has seen the light. The 
 superior powers of his mind may be traced in almost 
 every page, and the principles he has developed and 
 supported are those, by which that great event must 
 be defended, which gave liberty and prosperity to a great 
 people, and placed the illustrious House of Brunswick 
 upon the British throne. 
 
 Perhaps the partiality of friendship may have made me 
 less observant than others of the defects in this work, but 
 it has always appeared to me to be a permanent monument 
 to the fame of Mr. Fox as a historian, and to furnish 
 additional cause for deep regret, that he was taken from his 
 country and his friends, before he had completed his plan. 
 Short as the fragment is, " with all its imperfections on its 
 " head," it is a most interesting exhibition of the principles 
 of a great political character, not as advanced or supported 
 in debate, but as deliberately written in his closet. He 
 has himself given the true standard, by which the honesty 
 
PREFACE. XXXV11 
 
 of his political conduct may to a certain extent be measured. 
 Everyone may now form a judgment how far he has swerved 
 from his principles, and whether truly or not, he is entitled to 
 the high distinction of being ranked among those few states- 
 men, who have honestly made the good of their country the 
 object of their best exertions. In the course of our examina- 
 tion of the Observations we shall have occasion to draw the 
 attention of the reader to some of the political principles of 
 Mr. Fox, and he may have an opportunity to judge whether 
 they are deserving of Mr. Rose's animadversions. It may 
 suffice to say here, that Mr. Fox appears uniformly through- 
 out his work to have been a friend to a limited monarchy ; 
 to the existing form of government under which he lived, 
 vested in a King, Lords, and Commons. 
 
 I could have wished that the defence of Mr. Fox had 
 been undertaken bv some person better qualified to do 
 justice to his memory, but having waited thus long without 
 success, I venture to obtrude myself upon the public. For 
 many of the latter years of Mr. Fox's life, he honoured 
 me with a considerable portion of his confidence ; ever 
 affable, kind, and obliging, it was impossible to associate 
 wuh and not love him. The candour, openness, and sim- 
 plicity of his heart left no room for suspicion or doubt, and 
 
XXXV111 PREFACE. 
 
 no man ever enjoyed more, the full, the warmest confidenc 
 and affection of those, who had the good fortune to be 
 ranked in the number of his friends. The storms of party 
 could not ruffle the gentle current of his benevolence, no 
 political disappointments soured his temper, and he died, as he 
 had lived, an amiable example of a great statesman, beloved, 
 as well as revered by all around him. 
 
 With the feelings described in the last paragraph, I cer- 
 tainly perused Mr. Rose's work with a considerable degree 
 of indignation. I found there, quotations not correct, argu- 
 ments not logical, deductions not justified by the premises, 
 observations not founded, and in short, as I then thought, 
 such unfair advantage taken of the unfinished state of Mr. 
 Fox's fragment, as to justify the imputation of an unworthy 
 attempt to detract unjustly- from the reputation of its 
 author. Upon further investigation, however, I have been 
 induced to alter my opinion, for discovering that the same 
 want of accuracy, both in fact and argument, and the same 
 culpable carelessness attend those parts of the work, which 
 have no reference whatever to Mr. Fox, I no longer impute 
 to its author any improper motives. In the ensuing pages, 
 therefore, it will be taken for granted upon every occasion, 
 that he has done his best to be correct, and even candid 
 
PREFACE. XXXIX 
 
 and impartial ; and that whatever errors may be detected 
 have arisen from any other source than a wilful perversion 
 of the heart. Personally I have no acquaintance with Mr. 
 Rose, and profess to know nothing further of his private 
 character or pursuits, than he has been pleased to disclose 
 concerning himself in his Observations. Against him I 
 have no feeling of personal hostility, no wish to depreciate 
 his literary labours. In the following sheets all the objec- 
 tions, in any degree material, which have been made 
 to Mr. Fox's work, will be noticed in their order, and 
 if some of the mistakes pointed out should appear to be 
 very minute, the reader will have the goodness to recollect, 
 that, though trifling in themselves, they are important to 
 prove the systematic carelessness, with which the Observa- 
 tions have been written. If any of Mr. Rose's arguments 
 shall have been misapprehended, or any of his facts incor- 
 rectly stated, I shall be happy in an opportunity to 
 acknowledge my errors. 
 
 In this preface some observatious have been made upon 
 Mr. Rose's Introduction. The subsequent work will be 
 divided into sections, the four first of which will be made 
 to correspond with the Chapters of his book. The fifth 
 Section will be appropriated to a more extended view of 
 the great question, in contest between Mr. Fox and Mr. 
 Rose, viz, whether the love of arbitrary power or bigotry in 
 
Xl PREFACE. 
 
 religion was the ruling passion of James the Second at the 
 beginning of his reign, than could be conveniently entered into 
 in the two preceding Sections, which are appropriated to 
 the examination of Mr. Rose's authorities and arguments. 
 The sixth Section will contain an answer to the last chapter 
 of the Observations. 
 
 A few months only have elapsed since I formed the 
 design of answering Mr. Rose's book, but being in the 
 habit of occasionally inserting loose facts, and disjointed 
 arguments in its margin, almost every part of it appear- 
 ed at last to be explained or answered. These marginal 
 notes have now been reduced into regular form, but 
 this could be done only in the times of vacation, and at 
 irregular intervals. Of course there may be some repetiti- 
 ons, and not only defects in composition, but it is to be 
 feared in statement and argument also, though considerable 
 pains have been taken to guard against them. But whatever 
 errors may be found, it is hoped that there will be none 
 to affect the general reasoning of any part of the Work. 
 
 It may be proper to mention that the Octavo Edition 
 of Sir John Dalrymple's Memoirs, to which reference is 
 made in the following sheets, is not paged conformably to 
 the Quarto. 
 
SECTION THE FIRST. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Mr. Fox's Periods of English History.— Comparison between the Pro- 
 ceedings of Charles the First and the Earl of Strafford. — Observation* 
 on the Trial of Charles the First. — Sentiments on that of Lewis the 
 Sixteenth. — Second Period of English History. — Character of General 
 Monk. — Comparison between Cromwell and Monk. — Charge against 
 Monk for Preventing the Imposing of Limitations on the Crown. — 
 Observation that Restorations are usually the worst of Revolutions. — 
 Insult offered to the Corpse of Blake. — Monk's Connection with, and 
 base Conduct to, the Marquis of Argyle. — Extract from Skinner's 
 Life of Monk. — JEra of Constitutional Perfection in 1679.— Abolition 
 of the Court of Wards. — Writ de Heretico Comburendo. — Bill for 
 Triennial Parliaments.— Mr. Rose less a Friend to the Rights of the 
 Crown than Mr. Fox. — Pleading a Pardon in Bar of an Impeachment. 
 — Expiration of the Licensing Act. — Habeas Corpus Act. — Import- 
 ance of Judges being Independent. — Oppression under good Laws 
 and bad Ministers. — Charges against Mr. Fox not founded. 
 
 B 2 
 
A VINDICATION, &c. 
 
 SECTION THE FIRST. 
 
 Mr. Rose feels so strong an attachment to the early section 
 periods of our history, that he begins his observations in 
 
 apparent displeasure at Mr. Fox, for having passed them ^0^0 Mr" 
 by without notice, and commenced his historical labours EngiLhHisto- 
 only at the latter end of the fifteenth century. He then ry * 
 states, that Mr. Fox distributes the periods, into which 
 his work is divided, after the latter end of the fifteenth 
 century, in a manner not quite intelligible. This charge 
 comes upon us rather by surprise ; for though Mr. Rose 
 had thought he perceived a constant bias, operating power- 
 fully on Mr. Fox's mind, he had given us no reason to 
 suppose that it would make him write unintelligibly. 
 That he divides his periods in a different manner from 
 what Mr. [Jose would do may be admitted ; but the text 
 is not obscure. 
 
A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section The commencement of the first period objected to, 
 
 ' is fixed at the year 1588, and ends at the year 1640. 
 
 To this arrangement Mr. Fox was naturally led by 
 the consideration, that the preceding period, from the 
 accession of Henry the Seventh to 1588, was one, in 
 which the political state of the country was materially 
 changed by regulations, of which tyranny was the imme- 
 diate, and liberty the remote consequence. The next suc- 
 ceeding period he describes as one, in which, by the 
 cultivation of science, and the arts of civil life, during a 
 season of almost uninterrupted tranquillity and peace, 
 there was a great general improvement in the people, but 
 particularly in their manners and style of thinking. The 
 distinction between the two periods cannot be mistaken 
 by an attentive reader. Mr. Rose makes no objection to 
 the commencement of this period, but would extend it 
 so far as to include the whole of Elizabeth's reign, 
 and gives four reasons for objecting to its concluding 
 earlier. The first is, because there was no change of 
 system in the government of Queen Elizabeth during her 
 whole reign. To this it may" be answered, that the se- 
 cond period is selected, not on account of its political 
 features, but the general improvement of the people, 
 which advanced more rapidly, because there was no 
 change. And we may ask, how the steadiness of her 
 government can be used as an argument on either side, 
 or render her reign more fit to be placed in one period or 
 the other ? — The next reason is, that the authors, to whom 
 
MR. FOX 3 HISTORICAL, WORK. ; 
 
 Mr. Fox justly attributes the astonishing progress of liter- section 
 
 ature, wrote in her reign. They certainly did, and for that 
 
 reason, the part of her reign, in which the effect of their 
 writings began to be felt, is included in the same period 
 with the reign of James the First, and part of that of 
 Charles the First, under whom the improvement she had 
 introduced was still making regular progression. — The 
 third is a remarkable instance of that sort of incoherent 
 reasoning, to which ,Mr. Rose has frequently recourse. 
 He says, it does not appear why our tranquillity having 
 been uninterrupted should have influenced Mr. Fox's de- 
 cision in this respect, " because our being at peace or 
 " war could have no effect on our constitution." Can this 
 have been seriously thought, and: deliberately written by 
 Mr. Rose* who has taken a most active part in the poli- 
 tics of this country for the last thirty years ? Without 
 entering into the discussion of disputable and temporary 
 questions, can it be denied that the burdens necessarily 
 laid upon the people to maintain wars, and the tyrannical 
 pressure of the feudal system in periods of public hostilities, 
 did not add to the influence of the crown, and operate to 
 the depression of the other branches of the legislature ? 
 And has our constitution, in modern times, undergone 
 no changes, owing to those burdens ? Has the funding 
 system introduced no alterations? Desperate indeed must be 
 the cases, in which the House of Commons could now be 
 justified in disregarding the claims of the public creditors, 
 ^nd withholding the supplies ; or the crown advised to 
 
S A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section give its negative to a bill which should have passed both 
 - houses of Parliament. But, farther : does Mr. Rose doubt 
 
 that a series of years, passed in uninterrupted tranquillity, 
 must be favourable, in any reign, to the pursuits of liter- 
 ature? And, if so, might not this circumstance power- 
 fully influence the mind of Mr. Fox in fixing the limit of 
 the period in question ? And may we not suspect that 
 Mr. Rose here is arguing, more for victory than convic- 
 tion, and looking more to the fame of defeating his ad- 
 versary, than the justice of the cause, for which he com- 
 bats ? — The fourth objection is, that " as little should the 
 " observation of Mr. Fox respecting the additional value 
 'i that came to be set on a seat in the House of Commons 
 " have been a guide to him." Mr. Fox had not in con- 
 templation, as Mr. Rose seems to have had, the pecuni- 
 ary price paid for a seat in the House of Commons ; he 
 meant that, in the general estimation of mankind, its 
 members were become more honourable and respected, 
 and a seat more the object of ambition than it had been 
 before. He did not allude, as to a market price, for a 
 commodity, which cannot legally be sold at all. But 
 what is the amount of Mr. Rose's argument ? That in the 
 year 1571, a seat having been purchased for five pounds, 
 Mr. Fox's observation, that, at a subsequent period, an 
 additional value was set upon one, is not well founded. 
 This is certainly not very conclusive reasoning ; for a seat 
 might be sought after in 1571, and yet be more an obr 
 ject of anxiety in 1588, or 1640. But here we have a 
 
SECTION 
 I. 
 
 10. 
 
 MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 
 
 striking instance of carelessness in this most accurate 
 
 writer, for the sum given for the seat, in the case alluded 
 
 to, was not five pounds, but four pounds, and the story is 
 told not in the fifth volume of the Journals, which he 
 refers to, but the first. 
 
 Mr. Rose next objects to the observation, that " the Proceedingi 
 " execution of the King was a far less violent measure the'iFimand" 
 " than that of Lord Strafford," but in thus selecting a Kcomp^d. 
 single sentence, without stating the whole context, he Rose »p- & 
 has not done justice to Mr. Fox, who had before said, 
 " the prosecution of Lord Strafford, or rather, the manner fox,p. ; 
 " in which it was carried on, was less justifiable" than 
 the proposed regulation with regard to the militia ; and 
 afterwards added, as the reason, that " nothing short of 
 " a clearly proved case of self-defence can justify or ex- 
 " cuse a departure from the sacred rules of criminal jus- 
 " tice." The passage in a subsequent page, to which Mr. 
 Rose objects, must therefore be taken to refer to the man- 
 ner in which the trial of Lord Strafford had been con- 
 ducted, and not to the prosecution itself; and the extent 
 of Mr. Fox's observation to be, that the execution of the 
 King was, in that respect only, a far less violent measure 
 than that of Lord Strafford. Mr. Rose says, that Mr. Fox 
 has given no reason, or statement, on which he founds 
 that opinion, but it unfortunately happens for the argu- 
 ment, that Mr. Fox has, as above stated, expressly given 
 
 c 
 
10 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section f^ reason, viz. that the sacred rules of criminal justice 
 had been departed from. 
 
 Mr. Rose, then asserts, what will not be disputed, that 
 bills of attainder have passed upon several other occa- 
 sions, and then proceeds to explain the circumstances of 
 violence and injustice, which distinguished Lord Straf- 
 ford's case, and to which Mr. Fox had only generally 
 alluded. In a note, he informs us further, that so highly 
 Rose, P . 7 . did the House of Lords disapprove this measure after the 
 Restoration, as to make an order for obliterating all the 
 proceedings relating to the bill of attainder in their jour- 
 nals. For what purpose this information is given, ex- 
 cept to corroborate the proposition he sets out with com- 
 bating, it is not easy to conceive. 
 
 Mr. Rose, however, soon loses sight of the passage in 
 Mr. Fox's book, and substitutes another for it, which 
 certainly is more liable to objection, for he supposes Mr. 
 p- 8 ' Fox to have made a comparison between the injustice 
 
 and enormity of Lord Strafford's case and that of the 
 King. Now it so happens, that Mr. Fox has not written 
 a word of comparison between the injustice and enormity 
 of the cases, but only between the violent measures of the 
 respective executions. 
 
 This unauthorized alteration of the passage serves as an 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. ] 1 
 
 introduction to a charge upon Mr. Fox, of not having section 
 
 attended " to the distinction between an abuse, or breach 
 
 " of a constitutional law, and a total departure from, 
 " or overturning, the constitution itself." But, as this 
 distinction does not exist between the two cases, it 
 was not necessary to attend to it. The constitution 
 had been overturned before the trial of the King, the 
 army had ceased to be the servants, and as Mr. Fox Fox >P' "■ 
 rightly expresses it, had become the masters of the 
 Parliament, and " being entirely influenced by Crom- 
 " well, gave a commencement to what may, pro- 
 u perly speaking, be called a new reign. The sub- 
 " sequent measures, the execution of the King, as 
 " well as others, are not to be considered as acts of the 
 " Parliament, but of Cromwell, and great and respect- 
 " able as are the names of some who sat in the 
 " high court, they must be regarded, in this instance, 
 " rather as ministers of that usurper, than as acting 
 * from themselves." Nothing can more strongly 
 mark the sentiments of Mr. Fox, as to the illegality 
 and injustice of the trial of the King, than this pas- 
 sage ; for he describes the court which tried him, to 
 have consisted of the ministers of an usurper. The 
 violence of republicanism did not, in Mr. Fox's mind, 
 set aside all considerations of the monarchical part of the 
 constitution, for that had been destroyed before, and 
 he would not have disputed the remark of Mr. Rose, 
 
 c 2 
 
12 A VINDICATION OP 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 that there was no example, by which the trial and 
 execution of the King could be sanctioned. 
 
 The execution Mr. Fox enters into a laboured discussion respecting the 
 
 of Charles the _• . ; ad 
 
 '»«. execution of the King, and he is the most unfortunate of 
 
 all historians, if after having occupied four pages in en- 
 deavouring to prove, that it was neither just nor neces- 
 sary, and the example of it not likely to be salutary but 
 pernicious, he could be liable to the charge of having jus- 
 tified it. Many of his private friends must know, that he 
 frequently spoke of this event in terms of the highest dis- 
 approbation, and that he made no secret of his thinking 
 even less favourably of the execution of the ill-fated mo- 
 narch, Lewis the Sixteenth. But, because, in discussing the 
 j ustice of the execution of Charles, he says, " Mr. Hume not 
 " perhaps intentionally, makes the best justification of it 
 " by saying, that while Charles lived, the projected republic 
 " could never be secure ;" and then endeavours to shew, 
 that even this justification, the best which can be made, 
 is not sufficient, Mr. Rose seizes the proposition which 
 Mr. Fox disapproved of, and had stated only to answer, 
 seriously objects to it as an original observation of Mr. 
 Fox himself, and then concludes with denying that Mr. 
 Hume attempts to set up such a justification. Here Mr. 
 
 Hume,vii. P . Rose is certainly mistaken, for Mr. Hume does set it up, 
 by describing the measure, as one which was thought 
 requisite for the advancement of the common ends of 
 safety, and ambition of those, who promoted it. 
 
 Fox, p. 13. 
 
 *37 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 Mr. Rose ought not to have withheld the words, which 
 
 immediately follow the passage he has cited from Mr. 
 
 Fox, they are, " But to justify taking away the life of an Fox >p- r 3- 
 " individual upon the principle of self-defence, the dan- 
 " ger must be not problematical and remote, but evident 
 " and immediate. The danger, in this instance, was not 
 " of such a nature," &c. Here Mr. Fox is arguing in 
 favour of the opinion of Mr. Rose, that the execution of 
 Charles the First is not to be justified, and Mr. Rose 
 may rest in peace, in full assurance that even the defence 
 made for it by Mr. Hume is not to be supported. 
 
 The petty observations already noticed are only intro- 
 ductory to the grand charge against Mr. Fox, of enter- 
 taining sentiments, which " must in the minds of many Rose, p. i Q . 
 " excite considerable astonishment." The passages al- 
 luded to are these, " among the modes of destroying per- fox, p i 4 . 
 " sons in such a situation," (i. e. as monarchs deposed), 
 " there can be little doubt but that adopted by Cromwell 
 " and his adherents is the least dishonourable ; Edward 
 " the Second, Richard the Second, Henry the Sixth, Ed- 
 " ward the Fifth, had none of them long survived their de- 
 " posal ; but this was the first instance, in our history at 
 " least, where of such an act it could be truly said that 
 ft it was not done in a corner." And afterwards, " After p. 16. 
 ,c all, however, notwithstanding what the more reason- 
 " able part of mankind may think upon this question, 
 " it is much to be doubted, whether this singular pro- 
 
14 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 ceeding has not, as much as any other circumstance, 
 ■ " served to raise the character of the English nation in 
 " the opinion of Europe in general. He, who has read, 
 " and still more, he who has heard in conversation, dis- 
 " cussions upon this subject by foreigners, must have 
 *f perceived, that even in the minds of those who con- 
 'i demn the act, the impression made by it has been far 
 " more that of respect and admiration, than that of dis- 
 " gust and horror. The truth is, that the guilt of the 
 " action, that is to say, the taking away the life of the 
 " King, is what most men in the place of Cromwell and 
 " his associates, would have incurred ; what there is of 
 " splendour and magnanimity in it, I mean the publicity 
 " and solemnity of the act, is what few would be capable 
 " of displaying. It is a degrading fact to human nature, 
 " that even the sending away the Duke of Gloucester was 
 " an instance of generosity almost unexampled in the 
 " history of transactions of this nature." 
 
 Before we enter into an examination of the senti- 
 ments contained in this paragraph, which have excited 
 to so great a degree the astonishment of Mr. Rose, it will 
 be proper to notice a mistake, made by him in the few 
 words, which introduce them to our notice. He says, 
 Rose, p. 9. " according to Mr. Fox, our horror at the atrocity of the 
 " Ring having been put to death, is to be abated by the 
 <( publicity of the act." Here Mr. Rose, through inad- 
 vertency, has so expressed himself, as to lead his readers 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 15 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 to the inference, that Mr. Fox has said the horror ought 
 to be abated ; but the sense of the passage is, that it - 
 was in some degree abated, or rather the mode, in which it 
 was done, did in fact excite less horror from its publicity, 
 than it would have done, if it had been less public and 
 solemn. Mr. Fox relates its effect upon the human mind, 
 not his opinion that such ought to be its effect. He states 
 it as a fact, and gi^es no reason for it, but the rarity 
 of such open, public, and avowed proceedings, attending 
 the violent death of a prince. 
 
 The principal objection of Mr. Rose to the sentiments 
 above alluded to is, that the publicity and solemnity of 
 the act could be no abatement of its atrocity, for it could 
 neither be an alleviation of the misery of the King, nor 
 inspire foreigners with respect, to make a public de- 
 grading exhibition of him, to expose him to insult, and 
 to humiliate him, by charging him before the instruments 
 of Cromwell, who were appointed to try him. Here Mr. 
 Rose has misstated, not wilfully, we admit, the sentiments 
 of Mr. Fox ; for, it is not said, that the publicity of the 
 act abates its atrocity, but that few would be capable of , 
 displaying the splendour and magnanimity, which Crom- 
 well and his associates did in the publicity and solemnity 
 of the act. And these sentiments, which Mr. Rose can 
 hardly imagine could have entered into the human mind, 
 to conceive, are found, with increase of astonishment let 
 him learn it, in the mild philosophical temperament, Roie,imr.p.*ii. 
 
16 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 Hume, vii. p. 
 141. 
 
 (as he describes it) of Mr. Hume, who warmed with 
 almost enthusiastic rapture, speaks of the trial of Charles 
 in the following glowing terms. " The pomp, the dig- 
 " nity, the ceremony of this transaction corresponded to 
 '• the greatest conception, that is suggested in the annals 
 " of human kind ; the delegates of a great people sit- 
 " ting in judgment upon their supreme magistrate, and 
 " trying him for his misgovernment and breach of trust." 
 
 lb. p. 140. 
 
 Here Mr. Hume, as well as Mr. Fox in the passage 
 objected to, makes no allusion to the feelings of the in- 
 dividual concerned, but only to the solemnity of the 
 mode of proceeding against him. Mr. Rose, however, with 
 the dexterity of a man used to combat for victory, and 
 not conviction, changes the ground, and without denying 
 the fact he objects to, directs the attention of the reader 
 to another subject — to the situation of the king, degrad- 
 ed, insulted, and humiliated, insisting that this mode of 
 proceeding could neither alleviate his misery, nor inspire 
 foreigners with respect. But it is not clear that the pub- 
 licity of the transaction was not an alleviation of misery 
 to the King, for Mr. Hume relates, that even after the 
 ordinance for his trial was passed, he still was in dread 
 every moment of a private assassination, and Harrison, 
 in whose custody he was placed, endeavoured in vain to 
 remove the impression ; and, though Mr. Rose could 
 hardly imagine it could enter into the heart of man to 
 conceive, that the proceedings against the King could 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 17 
 
 inspire foreigners with respect, yet he allows Mr. Fox's sect *on 
 assertion, that the execution of Charles had that effect to 
 
 pass uncontradicted ; contenting himself with saying, " as R 0se , P . «. 
 " it would be difficult to form a probable conjecture 
 "as to the sentiments of foreigners, respecting the 
 " execution of Charles the First, it is not worth while to 
 " oppose the opinion of any, expressed either in writing 
 " or conversation, to those stated by Mr. Fox." It would 
 be rather difficult to contradict this assertion, for no man 
 had better opportunities, from his own reading and ob- 
 servation, of knowing the sentiments of foreigners upon 
 the subject; but if it were not founded in truth, the rea- 
 son given, namely, its difficulty, for not contradicting 
 it, does not seem very satisfactory. 
 
 We must now recal the attention of the reader to ano- ¥ r Fox * s sen - 
 
 timents on the 
 
 ther part of the passage quoted as above from the historical ^^ °|j 
 
 work, which has been made the foundation of a most teenth * 
 
 unfounded and unjust insinuation, against the memory 
 
 of Mr. Fox. " If such high praise," says Mr. Eose, 
 
 " was in the judgment of Mr. Fox, due to Cromwell for Rose > p- «• 
 
 " the publicity of the proceedings against the King, how 
 
 " would he have found language sufficiently commenda- 
 
 " tory to express his admiration of the magnanimity of 
 
 " those, who brought Lewis the Sixteenth to an open 
 
 " trial!" 
 
 The reasoning of Mr. Rose in this sentence, is well 
 
 D 
 
i8 a Vindication op 
 
 -™_™_== «< 
 
 section worthy of notice. " If such high praise," says he, 
 was in Mr. Fox's judgment due to Cromwell," &c. 
 What high praise? Simply this, that it is less base to 
 execute openly, than to assassinate privately. And what 
 Mr. Fox had said of the execution of Charles the First, he 
 might, alluding to its publicity, perhaps, hare said, of that 
 of Lewis the Sixteenth, namely, that it was less atro- 
 cious than if he had been murdered in private ; but Mr. 
 Fox could have been at no loss to find language suffi- 
 ciently strong to convey the degree of praise, which, on 
 such a view of the subject, belonged to the judges who 
 condemned him. Mr. Rose seems to think, that because 
 Mr. Fox said something in extenuation of the execution 
 of Charles the First, if it amounts even to extenuation, he 
 must have said much in actual praise of that of Lewis the 
 Sixteenth. But many reasons may be given why he should 
 have condemned, as in fact he did condemn that act, 
 without offering any thing in extenuation of it ; it could 
 be less excused by the plea of necessity, either from the 
 character of the individual, or the circumstances of the 
 times ; it was less provoked by previous animosity and 
 warfare ; and even less remarkable for that appearance of 
 splendour or magnanimity, which publicity can confer 
 even on an atrocious act, among other reasons, because it 
 was not the first instance of such an exhibition, and was 
 obviously an imitation of that of Charles the First. 
 
 But we will not detain the reader by the further dis- 
 
MR. FOXS HISTORICAL WORK. 1Q 
 
 cussion of fallacious suppositions and hypothetical argu- section 
 
 ments, when the statement of a few plain facts will put 
 
 an end to all speculation. For Mr. Fox has expressed and 
 enforced his sentiments in the House of Commons, re- 
 peatedly, and upon the most public occasions. His de- 
 clarations may, possibly, have escaped the memory of Mr. 
 Rose, though at the time they were made be must have 
 been present to hear them, and they were circulated, and 
 made the topic of conversation and party dispute in every 
 corner of the kingdom afterwards. At that period Mr. 
 Rose was not only a member of the House of Commons, 
 but in an official situation, which required his regular at- 
 tendance upon its sittings. Mr. Fox had conceived, that 
 his speeches relative to France had been grossly misrepre- 
 sented, and in consequence of his complaints, a more than 
 ordinary attention was paid, both within the House and 
 without, to his words and expressions, whenever any 
 event, connected with the revolution in that country, was 
 under discussion. An anxious wish to vindicate himself 
 from these aspersions, induced him to take more than 
 one opportunity of declaring, in the House, his opinion 
 upon the event to which Mr. Rose alludes. 
 
 A register of Parliamentary debates may not be always 
 •accurate in minute circumstances, or stating the precise 
 expressions of a speaker, but it is not likely that the gene- 
 ral substance of a speech should be mistaken, especially 
 the recollection of living witnesses confirms the written 
 
 P 2 
 
20 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section accoun t. The Parliamentary Register states, that upon 
 
 " Thursday, 20th December, 1792, on the bringing up of 
 
 psri.Reg.xMiv. tne report of the Committee of Supply, granting 25,000 
 
 p ' 183 seamen, Mr. Fox said the proceedings with respect to 
 
 the royal family of France, " are so far from being mag- 
 
 " nanimity, justice or mercy, that they are directly the 
 
 " reverse, that they are injustice, cruelty, and pusilla- 
 
 " nimity," and afterwards declared his wish for an address 
 
 to his Majesty, to which he would add an expression, 
 
 " 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 
 
 " under consideration in Paris, I should be obliged to any 
 
 "person for his better suggestion upon the subject." 
 
 Then, after stating 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 subject." And on the following day, when 
 
 a copy of instructions sent to Earl Gower, signifying that 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 21 
 
 he should leave Paris, was laid before the House of Com- section 
 
 mons, Mr. Fox said, " He had heard it said, that the pro- 
 
 " ceedings against the King of France are unnecessary, p" 1 ^*"™' 
 '* 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," &c. 
 
 The execution of the King of France took place on the ib. P . 3S7 , 
 2 1st day of January, 1 793, and on Monday, 28th January, 
 1 793, a message was presented to the House of Commons, 
 laying before it the correspondence with Mr. Chauvelin, 
 and the order to him, " in consequence of the atrocious 
 " act recently perpetrated at Paris;" and also communi- 
 cating the necessity to make a further augmentation of 
 his Majesty's forces, by sea and land. Upon this occa- 
 sion, Mr. Fox said, " With regard to that part of the 
 " communication from his Majesty, which related to the 
 " late detestable scene exhibited in a neighbouring coun- 
 " try, he could not suppose there were two opinions in 
 " that House ; he knew they were all ready to declare • 
 
 " their abhorrence of that abominable proceeding." 
 
 Two days afterwards, 1st February, 17Q3, in the debate ib.p.410. 
 on the message, Mr. Fox pronounced the condemnation 
 and execution of the King to be " an act as disgraceful 
 " as any that history recorded : and whatever opinions 
 " he might at any time have expressed in private con- 
 
22 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 ** versation, he had expressed none certainly in that 
 " House on the justice of bringing Kings to trial : re- 
 " venge being unjustifiable, and punishment useless, 
 " where it could not operate either by way of prevention 
 " or example; he did not view with less detestation the 
 " injustice and inhumanity, that had been committed to- 
 " wards that unhappy monarch. Not only were the 
 " rules of criminal justice, rules that, more than any 
 " other, ought to be strictly observed, violated with re- 
 " spect to him; not only was he tried and condemned 
 *'* without any existing law, to which he was personally 
 m amenable, and even contrary to laws that did actually 
 "exist; but the degrading circumstances of his imprison- 
 i€ ment, the unnecessary and insulting asperity, with 
 " which he had been treated, the total want of repub- 
 " lican magnanimity in the whole transaction, (for 
 " even in that House it could be no offence to say that 
 " there might be such a thing as magnanimity in a repub- 
 " lie) added every aggravation to the inhumanity and in- 
 " justice." 
 
 Having by these extracts assisted the memory of Mr. 
 Rose, will he say that he does not recollect the uttering of 
 any of the expressions or sentiments contained in them ? 
 Will he now ask how Mr. Fox would have found lan- 
 guage sufficiently complimentary to express his admiration 
 of the magnanimity of those who brought Lewis the Six- 
 teenth to an open trial, when, in Mr. Rose's presence, he 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 25 
 
 had repeatedly declared their conduct to be unjust, inhu- section 
 
 man, and detestable, and to be totally wanting in magna- — 
 
 nimity ? Mr. Fox complained, that the most cruel misre- 
 presentations of the language he had used in debate, had 
 been circulated, but for them might be urged the heat of 
 the moment, and the cry of a party; Mr. Rose has no 
 such excuse to make : he writes coolly seventeen years 
 after the event alluded to happened, when both his patron, 
 and his political opponent are resting undisturbed in the 
 silent grave; and all personal animosity between their 
 former adherents might reasonably be expected to be 
 laid aside and forgotten. It may be thought too severe 
 to impute to Mr. Rose a wish to revive, against the me- 
 mory of Mr. Fox, calumnies which he had satisfactorily 
 answered at the time they were spread abroad, and which 
 had for many years lost their currency. But if Mr. Rose 
 should be brought to the remembrance that; Mr, Fox did, 
 with great anxiety and feeling, declare his abhorrence, 
 more than once, of the proceedings against Lewis the 
 Sixteenth, will he think it is a sufficient apology for 
 having made such a groundless attack, that he wrote 
 his observations carelessly, and in haste, and that he did 
 not recollect the circumstance ? And what then becomes 
 of his boasted claim to accuracy ? Such a charge should 
 not have been insinuated, without previous consideration 
 and inquiry, and a full persuasion founded thereon, of its 
 truth. 
 
24 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section -]yf r< p ox having, in the passages before cited, re- 
 
 Mose, p. ii. 
 
 marked, that among the modes of destroying; deposed 
 
 Examples of de- 11 
 
 staying depo- monarchs, that adopted by Cromwell and his adhe- 
 
 sed princes. 
 
 rents was the least dishonourable, and produced as 
 examples of the more dishonourable, the deaths of the 
 deposed princes, Edward the Second, Richard the 
 Second, Henry the Sixth, and Edward the Fifth, 
 Mr. Rose sagaciously remarks that, they " are of a 
 " kind too savage to be quoted as precedents of any 
 " proceeding, which can pretend to be of a legal or 
 " judicial character-" Here the reader will observe, 
 that Mr. Fox agrees with Mr. Rose, and accordingly 
 classes all these cases among the more dishonour- 
 able ones ; and that Mr. Rose himself is pleased to de- 
 scribe the proceedings against Charles as pretending 
 to be of a legal or judicial character. 
 
 Mr. Fox's «e- Mr. « Rose is not content with the second period 
 English histo- marked out in the historical work, because, instead of 
 Rose >P .i». ending in 1640, it might have included the reign of 
 Charles the Second, or been extended to the Resto- 
 ration; because the measures in the reign of James 
 the First, and the early part of Charles the First, led 
 to the consequences which ensued in the latter 
 part of Charles the First, and the reign of Charles 
 the Second, Hence we learn that a period, to meet 
 Mr* Rose's approbation, should include not only the 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 25 
 
 consequences, but the remotest cause of them ; in section 
 
 short, the history of the most ancient nation now 
 
 existing should consist of only one period, or rather, 
 every history must begin with the creation of the 
 world, for that measure certainly produced the state 
 of things existing at the present day. Mr, Fox's po- 
 sition at the outset of his work is, that in reading 
 " the history of every country, there are certain pe- 
 " riods at which the mind naturally pauses to medi- 
 " tate upon, and consider them with reference, not 
 cs only to their immediate effects, but to their more 
 " remote circumstances ;" and Mr. Rose, who had 
 previously declared his agreement with him, now 
 raises an objection, which militates against any division 
 at all. The only question is, whether from the altera- 
 tion, which actually took place in the government of 
 this country in J 040, that was not a proper time to 
 pause and meditate. With all due deference to the 
 opinion of Mr. Rose, it may be thought that a more 
 proper moment for the purpose can hardly be pointed 
 out in our history. And even upon Mr. Rose's prin- 
 ciple, it may be defended, for the measures he alludes 
 to occasioned the devolution of more than ordinary 
 powers upon the Commons in lG-10; and the conse- 
 quence of their putting them into use was, the over- 
 throwing of the monarchy, and after its restoration a 
 reign disturbed by acts of turbulence and violence, lit- 
 tle less mischievous and destructive than an open 
 
 F 
 
26 A VINDICATION OP 
 
 SECTION c — j war wou l^ Jj^g ^ een> rpj^ term i nat j on f t hi s 
 
 period (the third) with the reign of Charles the Se- 
 cond, Mr. Rose also thinks was not well considered. 
 because " the reign of his brother was surely not less 
 " remarkable for religious dispute and political contest 
 " than his own." Mr. Fox probably fixed the end of 
 the third period, from the consideration that at that 
 sera his regular history was to begin; moreover the 
 reign of James the Second being more remarkable for 
 the religious contest he raised or inflamed, might have 
 been a sufficient reason in his mind for separating it 
 from his brother's. But the argument we have just 
 used, will apply equally here, and the reader is desired 
 to recollect for what purpose this division into periods 
 was made at all, and then to consider whether the 
 accession of the misguided monarch, whose whole 
 reign was employed in hastening his own destruction 
 by the folly and rashness of his conduct, was not a 
 fit time, from which to trace the immediate causes of 
 his ruin. 
 
 Rose, p. 13, 
 
 It remains to be noticed, that Mr. Rose is not 
 correct, when he says that " Mr. Fox points out a 
 '■' particular year within that period," i. e. between 
 1640 and ]084, " when the constitution had attained 
 " its greatest perfection," for he has left out the 
 word " theoretical," before the word H perfection," 
 and also omitted to observe, that the opinion did not 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 2? 
 
 originate with Mr. Fox, but is quoted by him from SEC ™& 
 Mr. Justice Blackstone. But more of this hereafter. 
 
 The character given of Monk in the historical work, character 
 
 01 
 
 Monk. 
 
 is certainly not a favourable one, and Mr. Rose says, fox, p . 9 , 10 
 
 i • • i ii i Rose, p. 14. 
 
 that in it " is a seventy, neither supported by popular 
 " belief, nor by the authority of history." He then 
 insinuates, that Mr. Fox was a friend to a republican 
 form of government, adding, '• the general contributed 
 " to the overturning a government, which Mr. Fox, 
 " with all his seeming partiality for one partaking 
 " much of republican principles, would not have ven- 
 " tured to recommend." He certainly would not 
 have recommended it, nor would Mr. Rose have im- 
 puted such a partiality, if he had not been living 
 in that political atmosphere, which he says so power- 
 fully affects the understanding of those within its 
 influence. Mr. Rose is called upon to point out a single 
 sentence in the historical work, from which it can be 
 fairly inferred that Mr. Fox was not sincerely attached 
 to a limited monarchy, and though none can be found, 
 we will not rank this among the unjustifiable artifices 
 of a political partizan, to calumniate and injure the 
 character of the principal opponent of his party, 
 but lament that Mr. Rose should, under an influence 
 he might not be sensible of himself, inadvertently in- 
 sinuate that, which upon reflection he must be sorry he 
 ever wrote. But this insinuation is repeated in the 
 
 e 2 
 
28 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 bottom of the same page, aggravated by its being a 
 
 direct perversion of the words of Mr. Fox to a sense, 
 
 which he never intended they should bear. The words 
 fox, P . 19, are, " It is impossible, in reviewing the whole of this 
 '■' transaction not to remark, that a general, who had 
 " gained his rank, reputation, and station in the ser- 
 " vice of a republic, and of what he, as well as 
 " others called, however falsely, the cause of liberty, 
 " made no scruple to lay the nation prostrate at the 
 " feet of a monarch, without a single provision in favour 
 " of that cause." Nothing can well be more guarded 
 than the expression of Mr. Fox. He is arguing against 
 the conduct of a professed republican, who had basely 
 betrayed the cause he was engaged in, and con- 
 tents himself with saying, that Monk called it, how- 
 ever falsely, the cause of liberty, but gives it no de- 
 nomination himself. Yet Mr. Rose has laid hold of 
 Rose, p. i 4 . the expression, " in favour of the cause of liberty," 
 and accompanied it with the words, " as Mr. Fox 
 " expresses it," as if this was his description of the 
 cause, in which Monk had been engaged, instead of 
 the description of it by Monk himself, and others of 
 his time. 
 
 cromweii and In the next page the same insinuation occurs, but 
 
 Monk com- . i> en - 0. 
 
 pared. in a rather different form, come displeasure is mani- 
 
 fested at a comparison made between the characters 
 of Oliver Cromwell and Monk, in which the prefer- 
 
MR. F0XS HISTORICAL WORK. 2Q 
 
 ence is given to that of the former, and then Mr. sec t>on 
 
 Rose adds, " It will require a great partiality for a — - 
 
 " republican form of government, to account for this Rose, p. 14. 
 " predilection in favour of the destroyer of monarchy, 
 * and this prejudice against the restorer of it." Mr. 
 Rose here exhibits the same childish partiality for 
 Kings, which had been reprobated by Mr. Fox in 
 the writings of Mr. Hume ; according to him, the 
 meanest of mankind, if a restorer of monarchy, is to 
 be preferred to the possessor of the greatest mind 
 and talents, if a destroyer of it. Mr. Fox thought 
 more philosophically, he felt neither predilection for 
 the one, nor prejudice against the other, but, ac- 
 cording to the best of his judgment, gave an impar- 
 tial character of both. If Monk was a base and 
 worthless character, it was giving no opinion of 
 the cause in which he was engaged, to say so ; and if 
 Cromwell was a man of a superior class, it was the 
 duty of a historian not to withhold his proper meed of 
 Draise. 
 
 We shall now proceed to examine, whether Mr. Fox 
 was justified in the characters which he has given to 
 these persons, who in their days acted such distin- 
 guished parts in the history of this country ; but in 
 doing this, it is necessary to premise that our remarks 
 will be confined to such circumstances only, as have 
 provoked the animadversions of Mr. Rose. 
 
30 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 Character of 
 Cromwell. 
 
 Fox, p. 17- 
 
 5t>. p. 18. 
 
 Against Mr. Fox's character of Cromwell is objected, 
 that to him, " no vice is imputed but hypocrisy," It 
 might be presumed from this statement, that Mr. Fox 
 had described Cromwell as one of the most perfect of 
 human beings, unstained by any other vice. On the 
 contrary, aft£r describing the virtuous conduct of 
 Washington, Mr. Fox says, " but although in no 
 " country or time would he have degraded himself 
 11 into a Pisistratus, or a Caesar, or a Cromwell," &c. ; 
 here it is most clear, that in the scale of perfection, 
 according to Mr. Fox's opinion, Cromwell did not 
 stand so high as Washington, for if he did, it would 
 have been no degradation to the latter to have assumed 
 his character. The system of Cromwell is then said 
 to be, " condemned equally by reason and by preju- 
 " dice." His great talents, the splendour of his cha- 
 racter and exploits, are then alluded to, and the glory 
 of his reign contrasted with those of the four monarchs 
 of the house of Stuart : and the concluding sentence 
 which gives rise to Mr. Rose's objection is, " upon 
 " the whole the character of Cromwell must ever 
 
 
 
 f* stand high in the list of those, who raised them- 
 " selves to supreme power by the force of their ge- 
 " nius; and among such, even in respect of moral 
 " virtue, it would be found to be one of the least 
 " exceptionable, if it had not been tainted with that 
 " most odious and degrading of all human vices, 
 " hypocrisy." To say, that his character is one of the 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. _ $1 
 
 least exceptionable, in point of moral virtue, among section 
 
 the persons above described is not, upon Mr. Fox's, 
 
 or indeed any other principles, to pay him a very 
 high compliment. The passage itself admits, that the 
 character of those, who have raised themselves to 
 supreme power by the force of their genius, are ge- 
 nerally exceptionable in respect of moral virtue, and 
 though Cromwell's might be one of the least excep- 
 tionable, if not tainted with hypocrisy, it does not follow, 
 as Mr. Rose has incorrectly stated, that no other vice is 
 imputed to him. The inordinate love of power certainly 
 belonged to him, and Mr. Fox had before called him 
 an usurper. It may be observed farther, that Dr. 
 Welwood, who cannot be suspected of leaning toward 
 republicanism, does not differ from Mr. Fox, for he 
 says, Cromwell was, " for what was visible, free from wdw, m«h. 
 " immoralities, especially after he came to make a figure P ' r ° 9 ' 
 " in the world." 
 
 The reader will probably not be displeased to turn Mr.iWs 
 from the consideration of general insinuations, and Monk" " Sd ' nst 
 charges of a nature so loose and indefinite, as to ren- 
 der it necessary, in order to answer them, to enter 
 into previous discussions, both tedious and uninter- 
 esting. We shall now, in prosecution of our general 
 plan, advert to the charges made by Mr. Fox against 
 Monk, and examine in what manner they have been 
 attempted to be answered by Mr. Rose. They are 
 
 v 
 
32* A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section three in number, and we are relieved from the 
 ; - difficulties just mentioned, for they are specific in 
 their nature. 
 
 Monk restores In the first place, Mr. Fox reproaches Monk with 
 
 the King with- . * 
 
 out conditions, having restored the monarch without a single provision 
 in favour of the cause which he and others had called 
 
 Rose, p. 14. 
 
 the cause of liberty. Mr. Rose at first endeavours to de- 
 fend this omission by a series of hypothetical arguments, 
 which, by their extreme weakness, afFord a convincing 
 proof of the truth of the observation he is combating. 
 He argues first, that though this conduct might be re- 
 gretted, yet it must be recollected, that there could hardly 
 have been time to settle the boundaries of the regal 
 power ; and secondly, that Monk might have been 
 of opinion, that the restoration of the monarchy 
 would have implied all the limitations of its ancient 
 constitution, but what these limitations were, or where 
 to be sought for, Mr. Rose has not informed us. 
 Certainly not in the history of the reigns of the two 
 preceding princes of the house of Stuart, and surely 
 Monk cannot be supposed, like Mr. Rose, who has 
 lived the greatest part of his life among records, to 
 have formed any opinion of the limitations which 
 existed during the time of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors , 
 thirdly, that Monk might have thought any delay 
 would have been dangerous ; fourthly, that he might 
 have been less anxious in this respect, from his hav- 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 33 
 
 ing been witness of the abuse of liberty. And after- sec tion 
 
 wards Mr. Rose gives, what he supposes to be, two 
 
 additional reasons, but which are in fact included in 
 the foregoing ones, viz. that Monk might have been 
 so disgusted with the scenes he had been witness 
 to, as to be willing to give his assistance to bring 
 about any change likely to restore order ; and that 
 he might be alarmed lest the army should not have 
 co-operated in his designs. 
 
 That Monk might have defended himself by these 
 arguments, is certainly within the sphere of possibi- 
 lity, but that he would have had recourse to them is 
 highly improbable. He had complete pow r er over the 
 army; it w r as governed by his creatures, and was sub- 
 servient to his w T ill. If he had proposed that the 
 crown under certain restrictions, should be offered to 
 the King, there was no existing power to oppose it. 
 
 But Mr. Rose says, that it should not be imputed Rose, P . i;. 
 exclusively to him, that such restrictions were not 
 stipulated for; and in order to prove this position, 
 enters into a most extraordinary argument, for he con- 
 tends upon the principles of a true republican, if we 
 do not misunderstand him, that independent of Monk, 
 there existed in the Parliament a legal constitutional 
 power, by virtue of which Charles was invited to the 
 throne without any restrictions. To this there are 
 
 F 
 
I. 
 
 Ludl. Mem. p. 
 
 34 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section ^ wo decisive answers, first, that the remnant of the 
 - long Parliament itself was allowed to assemble only 
 upon conditions, and for purposes prescribed by Monk ; 
 and next, that the new Parliament was illegally sum- 
 moned afterwards. 
 
 The excluded members were restored to their seats 
 in the Rump Parliament, which met after the abdica- 
 tion of Richard Cromwell, but upon condition, as Lud- 
 low informs us, and as their conduct afterwards justi- 
 fies us in believing, that Monk should be voted general 
 of all the forces by land and sea, a constant mainte- 
 nance settled on the army, and a new Parliament 
 ordered to be chosen, after which they should put 
 an end to themselves in a day or two at the most. 
 Accordingly, the Rump Parliament, as Ludlow says, 
 lb. p. 363. after passing a vote, to delude the people, that no one 
 who had been in arms against the Parliament, should 
 be eligible to the new one, dissolved itself. In con- 
 sequence of this arrangement, writs were issued by 
 the keepers of the liberties of England, and to use 
 Mr. Rose's de- Mr. Rose's words, " a free convention met, in which 
 mocratjc pru.. (e ^ e L orc } s assembled also. It was therefore, by an 
 
 " assembly, elected by the unbiassed voice of the peo- 
 " pie, in pursuance of an act of the Commonwealth 
 " Parliament, that the King was called to his throne 
 " without conditions." Mr. Rose t^an hardly have been 
 aware of the concessions he is here making ; but the 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 3b 
 
 conduct of Monk was to be defended, or at least pal- section 
 liated at all events, and the principles of that defence, — - 
 
 might never be inquired into. 
 
 If the acts of a Parliament, chosen under the sanc- 
 tion of an army, and existing only at its pleasure, can 
 form a justification for the conduct of the general of 
 that army, then it may be argued with greater ap- 
 pearance of reason, that the acts of a Parliament elected, 
 certainly as freely, under Cromwell, and possessing 
 more of independence, justified the usurpations of Crom- 
 well. But in another point of view, Mr. Fox has not 
 supported any principles in their nature so democratic, 
 or as Mr. Rose would call them, republican, as he is 
 here obliged to resort to. For he defends the Resto- 
 ration of the King without any restrictions, not upon 
 any ancient acknowledged principles of govern- 
 ment, but the invitation of a free convention, elected 
 by the unbiassed voice of the people. It is hardly- 
 worth noticing, that in order to prop this tottering argu- 
 ment, it is assumed that the convention was properly 
 assembled, freely elected, and acted without restraint; 
 yet in form, it was summoned as we have seen, by the 
 keepers of the liberties of England, and in fact, a numerous 
 description of persons was excluded, and it depended for 
 its existence on the pleasure of Monk and his army. 
 
 Mr. Rose apologizes for the restoring of the King r , c , p> iS , 
 
 f 2 
 
30 
 
 A TINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 Difference of 
 circumstances 
 at the restora- 
 tion and revo- 
 1 ution. 
 
 without limitations from a supposed difference between 
 the circumstances attending the Restoration and the 
 Revolution ; and in the latter period he tells us, that 
 " there was full leisure for deliberation." But upon a 
 minute examination of dates, it will be found that 
 there was not, taking the calculation in the most fa- 
 vourable manner for Mr. Rose, any material difference 
 between the times afforded for deliberation at these 
 periods. At the Revolution, James fled on the ] l th 
 day of December, and William and Mary accepted 
 the crown on the 13 th of February following, so that 
 thirty-three days only could be employed in settling 
 the constitution, and consulting the wishes of those, 
 to whom the regal power was to be committed. At 
 the Restoration, a much longer time elapsed, from the 
 period when Monk is supposed, by some, to have first 
 entertained sentiments favourable to monarchy, and the 
 King was in fact restored ; but at all events twenty- 
 eight days elapsed between the open declaration of his 
 sentiments made on the 1st May, l60o,* and the King's 
 return to the seat of government. 
 
 * On the 1st May, Monk directed Mr. Annesley, president of the coun- 
 cil, to inform the House of Commons, that Sir John Granville, a 
 servant of the King's, had been sent over by his Majesty, and was 
 then at the door with a letter for the House. But from Thurloe's State 
 Papers, as will be shewn presently, it appears that Monk's disposition 
 was known to Lord Clarendon to be friendly to the King, so early 
 as about the middle of March, and his design to restore monarchy 
 suspected about the same time by Harry Martin, to whose quick- 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 37 
 
 But another assertion requires a more minute con- section 
 
 revents 
 ons of 
 
 sideration. " It is not improbable," says the observer, - 
 " that if any man, at the Restoration, had even sug- | VJonk p 
 " gested a new check on the regal power, he would ,becroW11 ' 
 a have been considered as an enemy to -royalty, and Rose >P- 18, 
 ** would have been treated accordingly." This may 
 be admitted to be the case, after Monk had decided 
 that the King - should be recalled, without any restric- 
 tions. But if he had himself proposed any, or en- 
 couraged others to have done so, there Were many 
 persons, of note, who would most gladly have 
 risked the consequences ; but despairing of success, 
 without Monk's approbation and assistance, they aban- 
 doned the design. Ludlow, whose authority as an 
 independent in religion, and a republican in politics, 
 
 ness and penetration the republican party were frequently under con- 
 siderable obligations. The following anecdote is preserved in the Bri- 
 tish Museum : — : ' : When Harry Martin was leaving England, to live 
 " in Holland, March 1659, he went to take his leave of Monk, and 
 '•'• asked him, whether he would set up a kingly, or a commonwealth 
 
 - government ; — a commonwealth, said Monk. . This was after the 
 " militia was settling. Said Martin I'll tell you a story ; I met a 
 i: man with a saw, a pick-axe, and a hatchet, and asked him what 
 ' ; he meant to do with those tools : — he said, I am going to take mea- 
 
 - sure of a gentleman to make him a suit of clothes, apply it your- 
 •■ self; it is as likely you will set up a commonwealth with your 
 li w be to make a suit with those tools. SirR.W." Probably 
 these initials stand for Sir R. Willis, who might have related the 
 story.— Svmond's .Anecdotes in Dr. Birch's Papers in the British Mu- 
 seum. MSS. No. 4164, 
 
38 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section ]yj r Rose might not singly give credit to, expressly 
 — asserts, that when the secluded members were restored 
 
 Ludl. Mem. p. . 
 
 363. it was debated whether they should agree upon a 
 
 settlement, or whether it should be left for a Par- 
 liament to do; and some were for calling in the 
 Lords, and entering into a treaty with the King for 
 a future establishment, which should be grounded 
 " chiefly upon the concessions made by the last King 
 " in the Isle of Wight."* He then states that Monk, 
 being earnestly desirous to bring in the King with- 
 out any conditions, in hopes " to procure a recom- 
 " pence equal to the greatness of his treachery, pre- 
 " vented the success of that proposition, which part he 
 " acted so openly, that divers of the secluded and other 
 " members" resolved to imitate him. Wei wood also in 
 his memoirs, as cited by Mr, Rose, says, that " some 
 
 Rose, p. 16. . . . . 
 
 note. « were for bringing him" (i. e. the King) " back 
 
 " upon terms." The republican Ludlow's authority in 
 this instance is corroborated by a letter to the King 
 himself, dated lQth March, 1660 ; in which is said, " a 
 
 ciar.st.Pap. " great part of this council," (i. e. the council of 
 state) " by name Sir Gilbert Gerard and Mr. Crewe, 
 '■' and that gang are really upon the bringing in the 
 " King upon the articles of the Isle of Wight;" 
 
 * Those concessions were drawn up in the form of a bill for a 
 new coronation oath, which see, Ludl. Mem. p. 531. And this bill, 
 perhaps, was the object of Sir M. Hale's motion, mentioned hereafter 
 at p. 40. of this work. 
 
 HI. p. 7O3. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. $Q 
 
 which seems to imply that the writer was surprised at section 
 
 there being an inclination in these persons to bring in 
 
 the King at all. Four days afterwards, (23rd May, lfJOo) 
 Mr. Samborne, in a letter to Lord Chancellor Hyde, 
 informs, that " the chief of the Presbyterian party of ciar. st. p ap , 
 
 ,, iii.p. 705. 
 
 " the counsel of state, and others met in a junto,"' 
 (of which the Lords Bedford and Manchester, and Mr. 
 Pierpont are afterwards said to be members, and Pop- 
 ham, Waller and Sir John suspected) " where many 
 11 things were debated, and at last it was resolved 
 " upon, that they should immediately send proposi- 
 " tions to the King, which they had drawn up, and 
 " were more insolent than ever they had demanded 
 " of the late King : ***and I have it from good hands 
 " that Monk abhors the Presbyterian impudence in 
 " these proposals to the King." Some who were most 
 violent in this design are made to say, " they cannot 
 " be secure if they permit so much as a kitchen-boy 
 " to be about the King of his old party ; and that 
 " he must be so fettered, as that he should not write 
 " a letter but they must know the contents of it." 
 
 Lord Clarendon's correspondent has assured us, in the 
 last preceding letter, that Monk was acquainted with, 
 and did not approve of the proceedings of the presbyterian 
 junto ; and, from another letter in the same collection, 
 it may be fairly inferred, that Ludlow's charge against 
 Monk was well founded ; at least, that the emissaries of 
 the King were zealously employed in endeavouring to 
 
40 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section prevail on Monk to restore him without conditions; for 
 4th May, 1660, Lord Mordaunt writes, " Last week I 
 
 Clar.St.Pap. i.i. 
 
 p. 739. " sent you word it tnen clearly Jay in the generals 
 
 <s power to restore the King without terms ; but last 
 " week is not this week, neither did he strike whilst 
 " the iron was hot. My opinion is, his interest les- 
 
 Bumet. i.p. 88. " sens again," &c. Afterwards when the convention 
 was assembled, one of the most upright and honour- 
 able of its members, Mr. (afterwards, Sir Matthew) 
 Hale, moved for a committee to look into the pro- 
 positions and concessions made during the life of the 
 late King, particularly at the treaty of the Isle of 
 Wight, and draw up such propositions as they should 
 think fit to be sent over to the King; this mo- 
 tion being seconded, Monk got up, and answered it 
 by urging the extreme danger of any delay, and that 
 they might as well prepare them and offer them when 
 the King should come over ; and then moved that 
 commissioners should be sent immediately to bring 
 over the King. This was echoed with such a shout 
 over the House, that the motion was no more in- 
 sisted upon. 
 
 These authorities prove that Monk did not argue, 
 as Mr. Rose's fertile imagination fancied he might have 
 done. To him, as Mr. Fox justly observes, " did the 
 Fox, P . 13. « nation look up, ready to receive from his orders 
 " the form of government he should choose to pre- 
 " scribe ;" but he and the King's emissaries were acting 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. ^ 41 
 
 in concert to bring in the King, without any limitation section 
 
 i. 
 
 to the regal power: he prevented a party in the - 
 council of state, who would have run the risk of 
 being considered and treated as enemies to royalty, 
 from taking the steps necessary to impose some re- 
 strictions ; and in the convention, he defeated Mr. Mat- 
 thew Hale's salutary design, by proposing a resolu- 
 tion, that the King should be sent for without any. 
 Thus, be it to his praise or not, to him, and to him 
 alone, was the King indebted, that he mounted 
 the throne with unlimited authority. For this service 
 Monk was afterwards liberally rewarded ; but so short- 
 sighted is the policy of men, that this circumstance 
 of triumph in 1G60, after proving a perpetual source 
 of vexation to the King occasioned the ruin of the 
 House of Stuart only 28 years afterwards. A wiser 
 conduct was pursued at the Revolution ; the Prince of 
 Orange accepted the crown under such limitations as 
 were well calculated to give security to the monarch, 
 and liberty and happiness to his people. 
 
 Mr. Rose is always on the alert to detect republican tfSFS? 
 principles in Mr. Fox's work, and always desirous to IS?™ 04 
 communicate to others the impression he has himself 
 taken up. Thus, after he has in one place mentioned Rosep.19. 
 the restoration, he adds, " according to Mr. Fox, the 
 " worst sort of revolution." Mr. Fox having de- 
 scribed what might have been the speculations of a 
 
 G 
 
42 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section sagacious observer of the circumstances which pre- 
 
 ceded the year 1 640, comparing them with the events 
 
 which happened afterwards, asks, as proper subjects 
 for these conjectures, how long the army may be be- 
 fore it would range itself under a single master ? and 
 what form of government he would establish ? He then 
 goes on to say, " or will he fail, and shall we have a re- 
 " storation, usually the most dangerous and worst of all 
 " revolutions ?" This observation is of a general nature, 
 alluding to no particular event, but to all restorations, in 
 all countries, and in all times. Mr. Fox might lay 
 down as a general principle, that any restoration must 
 necessarily be dangerous to the liberties of the people, 
 because" the ancient system would resume its func- 
 tions armed with more despotic power, and abuses of 
 every kind would be triumphantly re-established. A 
 revolution is a desperate remedy, and to be resorted 
 to only in cases of the most urgent necessity; for 
 when an ancient system is broken up and destroyed, 
 no human foresight can fix the limits at which the 
 rage for alteration shall stop, the period at which the 
 horrors of civil war shall cease, or the number of 
 victims which shall be sacrificed. In most cases, a 
 restoration may be justly styled the worst of revolu- 
 tions, because, notwithstanding the risks which have 
 been run, and the privations which have been endured, 
 it has usually happened, that it has afforded no pre- 
 sent alleviation to the misery which had originally pro- 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 43 
 
 voked the preceding revolution, and has destroyed all SEC n° N 
 
 prospect of grievances being redressed, and the situa- 
 
 tion of the people being meliorated. 
 
 Mr. Fox's opinions concerning a restoration, are 
 
 * ° Gibbon's Rom. 
 
 neither new nor peculiar. It would be easy to ac- Emp.c.48. 
 
 cumulate instances and authorities, let one suffice: — 
 
 Mr Gibbon observes, " The ancient proverb, That blood- 
 
 " thirsty is the man who returns from banishment to 
 
 " power, had been applied with too much truth to 
 
 " Marius and Tiberius, and was now verified for the 
 
 '* third time in the life of Andronicus." 
 
 Mr. Rose unwarrantably confines this general obser- 
 vation to the Restoration of Charles the Second, and 
 it may therefore be worth while to examine shortly, 
 whether even that great event might not be cited as 
 an example of the truth of Mr. Fox's general obser- 
 vation. The Restoration was in one point of view 
 a most fortunate incident for this country, for it 
 brought back the form of government, to which the 
 people had been accustomed, and which a majority of 
 them preferred ; and it laid the foundation of the 
 happy political system, under which we now live. 
 But we must not forget that it was also accom- 
 panied with the re-establishment of most of the abuses 
 of the former monarchy, and that, according to Mr. 
 Rose, so strong was the cry in favour of kingly go- 
 
 g 2 
 
44 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section vernment, it would not have been safe for the re- 
 storer of it to have proposed the most salutary re- 
 strictions. Even Monk himself would have been con- 
 sidered as an enemy to royalty, and treated as such. 
 A wild and enthusiastic spirit in favour of the an- 
 cient form of government, has generally preceded, and 
 occasioned restorations ; it is not peculiar to that just 
 mentioned, but belongs indiscriminately to all, and may 
 be one of the reasons operating upon Mr, Fox's mind, 
 and inducing him to make the observation in question. 
 The existence of such a spirit, at the moment of a 
 restoration, must be highly dangerous to the liberty 
 of the people, and prevent them from deriving the be- 
 nefit, they might have expected from resistance. In 
 this respect, therefore, it may be doubtful in what class 
 of revolutions the Restoration of Charles the Second 
 ought to be placed, for owing to his being seated on 
 the throne, without limitation, almost the whole of 
 his reign Was one continued tumultuous struggle be- 
 tween him and his subjects, and, if the fear of Popery 
 had not united and invigorated the friends of rational 
 liberty, it might have been recorded in history among 
 the worst of revolutions, and as one which had blasted 
 the rising prosperity of a great people. By constant 
 adherence to a system of unexampled duplicity and 
 meanness, Charles contrived to retain a precarious 
 throne, but, within less than four years after his death, 
 the errors of the first revolution were so severely felt, 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 45 
 
 that a second became necessary to reform them, and SEC J I0N 
 the liberty of England was established on the expulsion 
 of his brother, and his family, and accompanied with 
 a change in the right of succession to the throne. 
 
 Mr. Rose is quite indignant at the character given 
 of Monk by Mr. Fox, though he admits, that " too R °^,p. 
 " much praise has been bestowed on Monk by those 
 rt who approved of the measure, and too much cen- 
 " sure by those who disapproved of it." There is an 
 insinuation conveyed in this last sentence, which must 
 not be permitted to pass unnoticed. By connecting 
 those, who praise and censure Monk with those, who 
 approve or disapprove of the measure, on Mr. Fox 
 is cast the opprobrium of disapproving of the Resto- 
 ration, because he censures Monk. But is it not pos- 
 sible that a historian may censure a distinguished po- 
 litical character, and yet not be an enemy to his mea- 
 sures? And does not Mr. Rose give up all pretensions 
 to candour, when he thus acknowledges that he praises 
 Monk, not on account of any merits of his own, but 
 of the cause in which he was engaged ? In his eyes 
 the character of a restorer of monarchy, however base 
 and immoral, must be entitled to admiration; and even 
 that of Monk appears to him, only not so perfect as 
 to justify unqualified praise being bestowed on his me- 
 mory. 
 
46 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section ]y| r r 0SCj however, detracts from the merit of Monk, 
 when he says, " It is true that he gave great fur- 
 
 The people de- • "„'",'. 
 
 sirousoftheRe- « therance to it, (1. e. the restoration of the King) 
 
 storation. v D/ 
 
 Rose,p.ao. " but in doing so, he only fell in with the eager and 
 " anxious wishes of almost all descriptions of men in 
 " the country ; for we can now hardly trace a move- 
 " ment to attempt to prevent it, except by individuals, 
 " who were under apprehensions for their personal 
 " safety." The reasoning here is not logical, for though 
 no movement at all can be traced, it would not be a 
 proof of the existence of the eager and anxious wishes in 
 almost all descriptions of men ; because a man does not 
 attempt to prevent a thing, it does not follow that he 
 eagerly wishes for it ; especially when his personal safety 
 may be endangered by the attempt. And in the present 
 case, the fact, if it existed, is naturally accounted for, 
 from Monk, by great hypocrisy and treachery, having 
 acquired the most despotic power, and deprived the 
 republicans of all prospect of success, from any op- 
 position they could possibly have made. 
 
 Effect of seiz- The remark, that the seizure of the crown lands, 
 
 ure of church 
 
 andcrowniands an( j ^ e sa | e f the bishops' lands, had hardly any effect 
 
 during the usur- L j j 
 
 pation. on checking the general wish for the restoration, al- 
 
 dose, P . »o. though it was believed there were above 400,000 families 
 in the kingdom engaged to the Parliament by those pur- 
 chases, (i. e. of the bishops' lands, for no other sales 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 47 
 
 had been mentioned before) deserves to be noticed, section 
 
 only as it affords a striking instance of Mr. Rose's 
 
 credulity and incorrectness. The only authority he 
 cites for the number of families influenced by the 
 purchase of bishops' lands, is an anonymous pamphlet, 
 preserved in the collection of Lord Somers's Tracts* 
 of which the title itself might lead to suspicion in any 
 dispassionate mind of the authenticity of the statements 
 contained in it. It is " a scandalous, libellous, and 
 " seditious pamphlet, entitled, The Valley of Baca, or 
 " the Army's Interest Pleaded, the Purchasers Seconded, 
 " the Danger of the Nation Demonstrated in Thirty- 
 " four Queries, Answered, and the Present State of Af- 
 " fairs Briefly Vindicated." This, however, is the sole 
 authority, on which an author, pluming himself on 
 his official accuracy, ventures to make an assertion, 
 which, if he had reflected for a single moment, he 
 would at least have hesitated to give credit to. Four 
 hundred thousand families are mentioned in that scan- 
 dalous, libellous, and seditious pamphlet, to which the 
 tract in Lord Somers's collection was the answer ; and 
 they would contain, probably, at least 1,700,000 people ; 
 at that time composing, we may calculate, one-fourth 
 part of the whole population of England. Unfortu- 
 nately, however, for Mr. Rose's argument, the pamphlet 
 affords no authority for his assertion, for he is speak- 
 ing of the purchasing of bishops' lands, the pamphlet 
 of the purchasers of the crown lands. But that we may 
 
48 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section no t b e supposed to cavil about words, let us admit 
 — — Mr. Rose has inadvertently made a mistake, and that 
 his intention was to include the purchasers of both 
 crown and bishops' lands; then, the book relating to 
 the crown lands only, there must have been more than 
 400,000 persons influenced by the purchases of both, and 
 Willis's Survey of the Cathedrals will enable my readers 
 to make a loose calculation of the great number which 
 must be added to a number already too large to be readily 
 acknowledged to be correct. This would only make the 
 argument more desperate. And it is clear, that Mr. 
 Rose was not sufficiently acquainted with the facts, 
 which he meant to press into the service, for at the con- 
 clusion of the paragraph, he mentions that great num- 
 bers of officers and soldiers had assignments for their ar- 
 rears on the estates of persons forfeited for their adherence 
 to the King; and therefore to the 400,000 families en- 
 gaged by purchases of crown lands, and to those en- 
 gaged by purchases of the bishops' lands, we must also 
 add this third class of families, described by Mr. Rose 
 as very numerous. According to this absurd calcula- 
 tion, there could be very few families left to support 
 the King's cause, nor could there be any considerable 
 remnant of those, who had suffered for it. If Mr. 
 Rose had only taken common pains to have ascer- 
 tained the fact from authentic documents, instead of 
 relying upon the loose statement of an anonymous 
 party pamphlet, he would have found that persons, best 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 4g 
 
 informed upon the subject, did not consider the in- section 
 
 £uence of the purchasers of crown or church lands, ■ 
 
 or the holders of the lands of delinquents, as forming 
 so formidable a body. In a letter dated 20th Feb- 
 ruary, 1659-60, Lord Chancellor Hyde says, " I am ciar.st.Pap. m. 
 " not so much frighted with the fear of those per- 
 ** sons, who being possessed of the church, crown, 
 *' and delinquent's lands, will be thereby withheld from 
 " returning to their duty, except they might be as- 
 " sured to retain the same. First, I do not think the 
 *' number so very considerable of all those who are 
 ** entangled in that guilt, that their interest can conti- 
 " hue or support the war, when the nation shall dis- 
 <f cern that there is nothing else keeps off the peace. 
 " Secondly, they who have the greatest share in 
 " those spoils, are persons, otherwise too irrecon- 
 " cileable, either by their guilt as King's murder- 
 " ers, or their villainous resolutions, as Sir Arthur 
 " Haslerigg and others, that no overtures of that 
 " kind would w r ork upon them, but would be turned 
 " into reproach ; and as the number of those is not 
 " great, so the greatness of their possessions makes 
 " them more enemies than friends, setting all other 
 " guilt aside." Nor was the value of the land, by 
 which so many families were engaged to the parlia- 
 ment, so great as might be imagined, or Mr. Rose's 
 assertion might erroneously give rise to suspect. In ib. p . 7 a 3 , 
 another letter, 6th April, 1660, from Mr. Barwick to 
 
 H 
 
Sq a vindication of 
 
 section the Lord Chancellor ; he says, " by computation, less 
 — - ■ '«'•- ee than a year's tax would now redeem all the land 
 " that hath been sold of all sorts, which, upon the 
 " refreshment the kingdom will be sensible of at first 
 " upon his majesty's return, may possibly be granted." 
 oiar.st.Pap.Hi, The arranging of the claims of those purchasers and 
 holders was. a matter of great difficulty ; and at last 
 a plan, consented to by Monk, was settled, though 
 never carried into effect* 
 
 The instances of incorrect statement in Mr. Rose ? s 
 work are almost as numerous as the pages he has writ- 
 ten. Another occurs in £jie paragraph we have just ex- 
 amined : he cites Ludlow as saying, that " authority 
 " was given to sell the estates of the crown and the 
 " church" upon certain conditions. But, in the pas- 
 jLudi. Mem. p. sage alluded to, Ludlow informs us, that authority 
 was given to sell the estates not of the crown and 
 church, but those which had formerly belonged to 
 the deans and chapters. And then further adds, that 
 the fee farm rents of the crown were also sold, but 
 Ihe crown lands were assigned to pay the arrears t>f 
 the soldiers, who were inarms in the year 1647. The 
 want of accuracy in this particular instance may not ma- 
 terially affect the vindication of Mr. Fox, but it shews 
 what little reliance can be had upon the statements 
 of Mr. Rose, and how little he has studied to be cox- 
 j*ect« 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 51 
 
 Mr. Fox says of Monk, that he "acquiesced in the sec Jk>n 
 " insults so meanly put upon the illustrious corpse 
 
 . Insults to the 
 
 " of Blake, under whose auspices and command corpse of Biake 
 " he had performed the most creditable services of 
 « his life.*' This story, Mr. Rose says, rests n Rose ' pai - 
 the authority of Neale's History of the Puritans, where Neaicii.p.587 
 we read that on the 30th of January, 1660, the bodies 
 of Cromwell, Bradshaw, and Ireton were drawn upon 
 hurdles to Tyburn and there hung up; and that towards tt>. P .6i 9 
 the latter end of this year his Majesty's warrant to the 
 dean and chapter was obtained, to take up the bodies 
 of such persons, who had been unwarrantably buried in 
 the chapel of Henry the Seventh, and in other chapels 
 and places within the collegiate church of "Westmin- 
 ster since 164], and to inter them in the church-yard 
 adjacent; and on the J2th and 14th of September 
 about twenty bodies were taken up, and among them, he 
 mentions, that of Blake ; and these, with some others, 
 of lesser note, were all thrown together into one pit in 
 St. Margaret's " church-yard, near the back-door of 
 " one of the prebendaries." Mr. Rose boldly asserts, 
 that this account has been refuted by Grey, and also 
 by clear evidence adduced by Bishop Kennett in his 
 Historical Register. Not troubling the reader with the 
 refutation by Grey, we will examine the nature ol 
 this clear evidence adduced by Kennett. It is fortu- 
 nate that both parties are agreed in taking Kennett 
 for their umpire; for they both rely upon the same 
 
 h 2 
 
52 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section p a g e of his book. Mr. Rose admits, in the text, 
 
 — — without giving any dates, that there was such an or- 
 
 536. ' der as Neale alludes to, and that, in consequence, the 
 bodies of Cromwell, Ireton, &c. were dug up and ig- 
 nominiously treated ; but Blake's, which he does not 
 mention to have been dug up, " was," he says, " with 
 " great decency, re-interred in St. Margaret's church- 
 "yard." But, as it could not be re-interred, unless 
 it had been taken up, we may conclude it was dug 
 up in the same irreverent manner as the bodies of 
 those, who were so ignominiously treated afterwards. 
 And if it was dug up at all, in pursuance of the before- 
 mentioned order, Mr. Fox's observation is strictly true, 
 that this illustrious corpse was meanly insulted. And 
 Mr. Rose does not deny that, if that were the case, 
 it was done with the acquiescence of Monk. But this 
 passage of Mr, Rose's work is deserving of more 
 minute investigation, and is another notable in- 
 stance of the boasted accuracy which occasioned him 
 to undertake the correcting of errors in Mr. Fox's 
 work. He describes the bodies of Cromwell, Ireton, 
 Blake and others, to have been taken up at the same 
 time, by the order to remove the dead bodies of those 
 who had acted against the King, and been buried in 
 Westminster Abbey ; but the fact is, that in pursu- 
 ConuJoum.vin ance ©f a joint resolution of the House of Lords and 
 Commons of the 8th of December, 1660, an order of 
 both houses was made, for the carcases of Cromwell, 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 53 
 
 Ireton, Bradshaw, and Pride, whether buried in West- section 
 
 minster Abbey, or elsewhere, to " be with all expe- 
 
 " dition taken up and drawn upon a hurdle to Ty- 
 " burn, and there hanged in their coffins for some 
 " time, and after that buried under the said gallows/'* 
 
 Those of Ireton and Cromwell were taken up on Dart, ii.p, 144. 
 the 20th of January, Bradshaw's on the 2yth, and all 
 three were hanged upon the gallows at Tyburn on 
 the 3oth, where they continued till the next day at 
 sun-set, when they were cut down, the trunks buried 
 in a hole at the foot of the gallows, and their heads Hist.Reg.p.536, 
 placed on Westminster Hall. More than six months 
 afterwards, viz. loth of September, Kennet states the 
 warrant of the King (which Neale alludes to) to have 
 issued; and that on the 12th, and 14th of that 
 month, the bodies of several persons mentioned were 
 taken up, that of Blake, being one dug up on the 
 
 Com.Journ.viii, 
 p. 197. 
 * This order originated in the House of Commons on the 4th, De- 
 cember: and the Serjeant at Arms was ordered to take care, that 
 •• it was put in effectual execution." Mr. Titus was also ordered 
 to carry it up to the Lords for their concurrence. But, probably, it 
 occurred to some of the members that the performance of this duty b ' p ' a00 ' 
 did not belong to their office ; and on the 6th of December he was 
 directed to take care it should be done by the common execu- 
 tioner, and others, to whom it should respectively appertain; and lb. p.aoz. 
 the sheriff of Middlesex was to give his assistance. In this form it 
 was sent to the Lords on the 7th, December, and the Lords returned 
 It on the Sth, with the further addition, that the dean of Westminster 
 %hould give directions to his officers to assist. 
 
S4 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 i. 12th. But the blunders of Mr. Rose do not end here; 
 
 for he has favoured his readers, in a note, with an ex* 
 tract from a newspaper in his possession, published on 
 the 26th January, iCOl, which correctly announces that, 
 in pursuance of an order of Parliament, the carcases of 
 Cromwell and Ireton were digged up out of their graves 
 (which, with those of Bradshaw and Pride) were to be 
 hanged at Tyburn, and buried under the gallows. The 
 next number of the paper stated the particulars, " but," 
 adds Mr. Rose, " not a syllable concerning the corpse 
 " of Blake." It would have been miraculous if there 
 had been ; for the corpse of Blake was then resting 
 peaceably in the vault in which the gratitude of his coun- 
 try had deposited it. And there it remained for many 
 months afterwards, until disturbed, in pursuance of the 
 royal mandate. 
 
 But Mr. Rose's accuracy has not even yet been fully 
 appreciated, for his assertion, that the corpse was re- 
 interred in St. Margaret's church-yard " with great de- 
 " cency," is not supported by history. Neale alleges 
 that it, " along with the others* were thrown into one 
 " pit." Upon appealing to Kennett, cited as before 
 observed, by both parties, nothing satisfactory is found, 
 Dan, y. p. 145- nor j s Dart in his History of the Cathedral Church 
 of Westminster, as referred to by Kennett, more ex- 
 plicit. Both of these authors, probably, wishing to 
 conceal or palliate the disgraceful treatment of the corpse 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 55 
 
 of a hero, to whom, perhaps, more than any other SEC J" ION 
 (with the exception of the immortal Nelson) this coun- 
 try is indebted for her present maritime glory and 
 strength, have expressed themselves in cautious and 
 ambiguous terms. But Anthony Wood, in his Fasti wood's Fasti, n. 
 
 b . p. 405. 
 
 Oxonienses, enumerating Blake among the batchelors, 
 mentions the order of the King before mentioned, and 
 then adds, " His body, I say, was then (September, 1 2th) 
 " taken up, and, with others, buried in a pit in St. 
 " Margaret's church-yard adjoining, near to the back 
 " door of one of the prebendaries of Westminster, ivL 
 " which place it now remaineth, enjoying no other 
 " monument but what it reared by its valour, which 
 " time itself can hardly efface." The story then, 
 does not rest on the authority of Neale only, as 
 Mr. Rose states, but is supported by fan author whose 
 political sentiments cannot be suspected of being too fa- 
 vourable to liberty of any description, and from whom 
 probably Neale had borrowed it. We will now leave 
 to Mr. Rose the task of reconciling the refutation of 
 Grey, and the clear evidence of Kennett, with the po- 
 sitive assertion of Wood, 
 
 The next passage in Mr. Fox's work objected to, is that Monk's base 
 
 r D J conduct to the 
 
 which charges Monk at the trial of Argyle with having EariofArgyi*. 
 u produced letters of friendship and confidence to take 
 " away the life of a nobleman, the zeal and cordiality 
 ' of whose co-operation w r ith him, proved by such docu- 
 
S'6 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section ^ments, was the chief ground of his execution." The 
 * ■ "— propriety of Mr. Fox's remarks upon this conduct are not 
 disputed. Mr. Rose himself calls it, " an infamous act," 
 provided the fact were true; and takes upon himself 
 the proof of its falsehood with a confidence, which 
 nothing, he has produced in argument, can war- 
 rant. He stumbles at the threshold, for in terms, 
 which convey an imputation upon Mr. Fox for not 
 having made proper inquiries before he wrote, he him- 
 self makes an assertion, which is not correct. He says, 
 Rose, p. %%. that, " On considering the evidence accessible to every 
 " one when Mr. Fox wrote respecting the share Monk 
 " is represented to have had in the death of the Mar- 
 " quis of Argyle, it will be found that the charge 
 " against him for so infamous an act rested, as has been 
 observed, on the assertion of Bishop Burnet, which 
 appears to have been satisfactorily refuted by Dr. 
 Campbell," and he refers to the Lives of the Admi- 
 rals, and the Biographia Britannica. If Mr. Rose had 
 consulted evidence accessible to every one, nay, if he 
 had opened the very books he has mentioned in his 
 note upon this page, he must have discovered, that 
 though when Dr. Campbell wrote, this charge against 
 Monk might rest on the assertion of Bishop Burnet, 
 yet when Mr. Fox wrote, it did not. In the note before 
 alluded to, we are told, that ** Mr. Laing, in his History 
 " of Scotland, also relies on the bishop's authority, 
 " confirmed, as he says, by Baillie, vol. ii. p. 431, 
 
 it 
 
 (C 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 5? 
 
 " and by Cunningham in his History of Britain, vol. I. section 
 
 "p. 13." Here we have a notable instance of official — — 
 
 accuracy, for Mr. Rose does not take the trouble to turn 
 either to Baillie or Cunningham, to see whether they 
 confirm the bishop or not, though he seems to dispute 
 the fact, leaving it on the assertion of Mr, Laing. It is 
 clear that he did not examine Baillie, for he has copied 
 the misprint of the page from Mr. Laing's work, and 
 cites from page 431, instead of 451. Mr. Rose is not 
 an indolent man, his industry is apparent in every 
 section of his book ; it may not be always well directed, 
 but this is an instance, of which very few occur, of 
 his having made no exertion at all to verify a most 
 important fact*, upon which all his future reasoning 
 
 * That the reader may form a proper judgment of these references 
 which if Mr. Rose had condescended to have examined, might, pro- 
 bably, have put this question to rest, the passages are copied at length 
 here. Baillie says, "When his libelled crimes appeared not unpar- 
 " donable, and his son Lord Neil went up to see his brother Lome 
 tt at London, and spake somewhat liberally of his father's satisfactory 
 <f answers, Monk was moved to send down four or five of his Letters 
 tc to himself and others proving his full compliance with them y that 
 11 the King should not reprieve him. The chancellor and Rothes 
 u went to court to shew the hazard of his escape. The man was 
 " very wise, and questionless the greatest subject the King had, some- 
 " time much known, and beloved in all the three kingdoms. It was 
 " not thought safe he should live." Baillie mentions many circum- 
 stances concerning the proceedings against, and execution of Argyle, 
 which show that he was minutely informed of every part of the trans- 
 
 I 
 
58 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section U pon the subject was to depend. The reader is left 
 
 — — to account for this conduct as he pleases, but it must 
 
 not be forgotten, that his benumbed faculties are re- 
 stored, when the attack is to be revived upon Bishop 
 Burnet; he is then laborious in his inquiries, his mind 
 resumes its usual activity, and neither dust nor cob- 
 webs prove obstacles to his pursuit. 
 
 Mr. Rose's We shall not weary our readers with discussing 
 
 sn^wTred, s all the arguments, adduced by Dr. Campbell upon 
 
 the subject. In Mr. Laing he has met with not a 
 
 contemptible opponent, and few will be of opinion 
 
 that the latter had the worst of the argument. Mr. 
 
 action: and that he was interested in it, and likely to observe what 
 passed, appears from the following- passage. " Argyle long to me 
 ts was the best and most excellent man our state of a long time had 
 i( enjoyed, but his compliance with the English, and remonstrants 
 " took my heart off him these eight years : yet I mourned for his death 
 " and still pray to God for his family. His two sons are good 
 " youths, and ever were loyal" Baillie's Letters II. p. 451. 
 
 Cunningham lived after the execution of Argyle, but he was inti- 
 mately connected with his son and his family ; was trusted by the 
 Whigs of Scotland, and in a situation to obtain the best information 
 upon the subject. " At the restoration many letters were addressed 
 " to the King," of which Cunningham says, " I myself have three- 
 " score," afterwards he adds, " There is one from the Marquis of Ar- 
 __ « gyle, in which after wishing his Majesty all health and prosperity 
 
 " he gravely excuses his absence on account of his bad state ot 
 " health, and the length of the journey. 'As to other matters* says 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 59 
 
 Rose has reprinted Dr. Campbell's attack upon Burnet section 
 in his Appendix, but we shall confine ourselves chiefly _______ 
 
 to such of his arguments, as are retailed in the ob- 
 senations. It was not merely an attack upon the 
 bishop, which was in the contemplation of Mr. Rose, 
 it was aimed also at Mr. Fox, who, without taking proper 
 pains to get information, is charged with having retail- 
 ed the scandal. A Whig bishop, and a Whig states- 
 man were to be levelled to the ground at one blow ; and 
 though Mr. Rose's intention to be correct and candid, 
 cannot be disputed, the political atmosphere thickened 
 round him, his best efforts were traversed and con- 
 
 " he, ' I refer to my son Lome.' The King, on reading this letter, 
 li spoke to tlie Lord Lome in a very kind manner; upon which, Ar- 
 " gyle, conceiving hopes of safety, set out for London, and came to 
 " court to cast himself upon the King's clemency. But, through the in- 
 u terference of Monk,vrith whom he had held a long and intimate friend- 
 ' : ship in the time of Oliver, he was presently committed to custody, 
 '• and sent back for his trial to Scotland. He endeavoured to make 
 " his defence, but, chiefly ly the discoveries of Monk, was condemned 
 " of high treason and lost his head." Cunn. Hist. I. p. 13. It seems, 
 by this extract, that the letter from Argyle to the King was in 
 Cunningham's possession, among the threescore letters he mentions. 
 And, it may be observed, that both Baillie's and Cunningham's tes- 
 timonv may now be added to the proofs adduced in the text, to 
 shew the incorrectness of Dr. Campbell's assertion that Monk always 
 considered Argyle as a secret friend of the King; for in the time of 
 Oliver he '•'• held a long and intimate friendship with him ;" and it 
 was on account of his compliance with the English that Baillie e- 
 -tianged himself from him. 
 
 12 
 
60 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section founded : and this may be added to the numerous 
 - instances of the weakness of human resolutions. 
 
 He begins by observing that Woodrow is entirely 
 Rose,p.« 3 . silent upon the point. Then that a diligent search 
 had been made among the records of the parliament, 
 council, and justiciary in Scotland, but nothing was 
 to be found ; and then in a collection of all the pub- 
 lications during the civil war, and some years after 
 the restoration, supposed by Mr. Rose to be complete ; 
 ib.p.a6. anc * lastly, in the Newspapers- of the times, published at 
 Edinburgh*, bat in none of them could be found any 
 trace of the fact in question. With respect to the 
 Newspapers, \f any such exist, it is impossible to judge 
 whether they are deserving of any credit in proving 
 this negative without some further explanation. Per- 
 haps upon examination they might turn out to be only 
 
 * What these Newspapers were, we should have been under obli- 
 gations to Mr. Rose if he had condescended to describe with some 
 degree of particularity ; for we collect, from Chalmer's Life of Rud- 
 diman, that no Newspaper was published at Edinburgh till 1654, when 
 the English Mercurius Politicus was first reprinted there, and conti- 
 nued to be published afterwards till the 11th of April 1660, when 
 it assumed the name of the Mercurius Politicus, and this was pro- 
 bably the only paper printed at Edinburgh at the time of the trial 
 of Argyle. On the 31st December, 1660, was published at Edinburgh, 
 the Mercurius Caledonius which was the first Newspaper " of Scot- 
 " tish manufacture," but the publication extended only to ten num- 
 bers. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 6l 
 
 English Newspapers reprinted at Edinburgh ; but in all section 
 
 i. 
 
 Rose, p. 24. 
 
 events there probably was not more than one News- 
 paper published there at that time, and in that case we 
 shall be justified in presuming that it was under the 
 controul of the court, and the adherents of Monk. 
 
 Besides these laborious investigations, we are informed 
 that a collection of pamphlets, printed in the reign of 
 Charles I. and Charles II. now in the British Museum, 
 was inspected, and Thurloe's State Papers examined, with 
 what success will appear presently, and in addition to this 
 long list of references the reader is presented with an * F ' 
 extract from Skinner's Life of Monk, which shall also 
 be particularly attended to. 
 
 A pamphlet was discovered, as Mr. Rose informs 
 us, in the collection in the British Museum, intitled 
 " The Last Proceedings" against the Marquis of Argyle, 
 containing, inter alia, a Speech, in which "he expressly 
 ei denies having any epistolary intercourse with Crom- 
 " well, or any of that sectarious army." In the speech 
 of Argyle, given in the State Trials, supposed to be made 
 on the scaffold (27th May, 1661), after declaring his loy- st.Tr.n.p. 4 j 4 
 alty to the King while he was in Scotland, and denying 
 having had any share in the death of Charles I. he 
 says, " I shall not speak much of these things, for 
 " which I am condemned, lest I seem to condemn 
 " others. It is well known it is only for compliance. 
 
62 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section tt which was the epidemical fault of the nation. 1 
 
 " wish the Lord to pardon them. I say no more." 
 
 Here he seems to admit that he had been guilty of 
 compliance, which was one part of the crime imputed 
 to him, and excuses himself for it to a certain degree, 
 but there is nothing in his speech bearing any re- 
 semblance to the passage cited from the pamphlet. A 
 suspicion may arise that the words are not exactly quo- 
 ted, but if they are, there will be no difficulty in prov- 
 ing that the statement made cannot be so correct, that 
 either the author of the pamphlet, or Mr. Rose must 
 st.Tr. 11. p.420. have fallen into a mistake. For in the sixth charge made 
 against Argyle in parliament, it was alleged that he 
 kept " correspondence, with the usurper Richard Crom- 
 " well and Charles Fleetwood in the year 1058 and 
 ib. p. 4i i, " 1O59, by missive letters and other ways." And in 
 the 19th clause of his answer to the particular articles 
 of the libel, he says, " I did never correspond with 
 " Richard Cromwell, nor Fleetwood, except in order 
 " to my own affairs." • The charge being confined 
 to the corresponding with Richard Cromwell, and the 
 answer going also to that point, it is not likely he 
 should deny his having had any epistolary correspon- 
 dence with Oliver, which was not a charge made 
 against him. Besides, if the words of the pamphlet 
 are to be taken as a positive denial of his ever having 
 written to Oliver, they are falsified by a letter from 
 Argyle, preserved in Thurloe's Collection of State Papers, 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 6*3 
 
 dated August 24, 1654, addressed to the protector Oliver section 
 himself, desiring his servant Colin Campbel may com- 
 
 Thurl. ii.p.517. 
 
 municate some particulars concerning him. Mr. Rose 
 having carefully examined this voluminous collection, 
 it may occasion some surprise that this letter should 
 have escaped his notice ; but there are other discoveries, 
 which he might have made there, if that examination 
 had been conducted with common attention, and which 
 Mould probably have occasioned considerable alteration 
 in his sentiments, if he had given them a full and 
 patient consideration. 
 
 The object of this very careful examination of Rose,p.24, 
 Thurloe's Collection was to discover, " whether 
 f there had been any communication between the 
 ** Marquis of Argyle and Monk, but nothing of the 
 " sort could be found ; on the contrary there is, be- 
 " sides the passages referred to in the Biographia, 
 " the heads of a discourse between the exiled King, 
 " and Don John of Austria on the state of Scot- 
 " land in the end of 1656, which afford strong pre- 
 " sumptive evidence, that no confidential letters, e- 
 " specially of such high importance to the writer, 
 " as those alluded to, were written by the Marquis." 
 Before we make any remarks on the passages cited 
 by Dr. Campbell, it may be proper to examine the 
 nature of the presumptive evidence now produced by 
 Mr. Rose. In the conversation between Don John of Timri.v.p. «•* 
 
t>4 
 
 A VINDICATION OW 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 Rose, App. 
 xnii. 
 
 Austria and the King, Don John was satisfied, in ge- 
 neral, with the accounts received from Scotland, and 
 would write to Spain ; but expressed some doubts on 
 which he requested explanation ; one of them was, that 
 Argyle and his son were then in special friendship 
 with the English. The King said, as for his son 
 " he was as assured of him as his brother ; and for 
 " the father, he knew always how to gain him ; and 
 " for their friends, they were all his friends on his son's 
 " account. As for the report, that Argyle himself 
 " was getting great things from the English, he said 
 " how much he got, it was always the better for 
 " him : for the business would need it all, for Ar- 
 gyle was a wise man and would not stand in his 
 way alone. And, to tell truth, he said, I have more of 
 him than any other; and, except for Cromwell him- 
 4t self, it is certain he carries immortal hatred at Lam 
 " bert and Monk, and all the rest of their officers. 
 " And of this evidence shall be given anon." Dr. 
 Campbell states, " that, under the usurpation, it was 
 '■' necessary for the Marquis to disclaim the conduct 
 tl of Lord Lome," but that this never deceived the 
 people in power ; and that, from letters in Thurloe's 
 Collection, it appears that Argyle was never considered in 
 any other light but as a concealed royalist, and Lome 
 as a declared one. Here he seems to have drawn an 
 inference, which his authorities do not entirely sup- 
 port. But, if this were so, what are we to think of 
 the conduct of the King, who consented to the trial, 
 
 e< 
 
 tt 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 65 
 
 and signed the warrant for the execution of one of 
 the oldest and best of his friends ; his father's yield- 
 ing an unwilling consent to the death of Lord Straf- 
 ford hardly equalled this instance of meanness and 
 ingratitude. In the conversation with Don John, he 
 declared he was assured of him, and got more from 
 him than any other; yet this attached and faithful 
 supporter was sacrificed for acts done before he was 
 admitted to the favour, and administered to the wants 
 of his sovereign. But this proposition is so mon- 
 strous, and places Charles in a view so much more 
 detestable and wicked than that, in which we have 
 been accustomed to regard him, that we ought to be 
 sure of the grounds we tread upon, and examine with 
 a most scrutinizing eye every circumstance concerning 
 it. Is it not possible that the reporter of this con- 
 ference may have mistaken its effect ; or may not 
 the King have stated in the conversation with Don 
 John his hopes of having the assistance of Argyle too 
 strongly? The object he had in view was of the 
 greatest importance to him; his restoration to the 
 crown might, as he conceived, depend upon the result 
 of that conversation, and if he was not perfectly 
 correct in his statement, it is more charitable to im- 
 pute the inaccuracy to the hasty and sanguine disposi- 
 tion of youth, which painted in his imagination Argyle 
 exactly what he hoped to find him upon trial, ra- 
 ther than to wilful and deliberate falsehood. Possibly, 
 
 SECTION 
 
 i. 
 
00 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section the passage in question may not have been accurately 
 - reported, for some parts of it certainly bear a very 
 
 different construction from that, which, in compliance 
 with Dr. Campbell's hypothesis, we have just put 
 upon it. Don John before he saw the King, for 
 some reason not disclosed, entertained suspicions of 
 the loyalty both of- the Marquis and his son, the 
 King evidently makes a distinction between them, he 
 was " perfectly assured" of the son ; but as to the 
 father, he seems to admit he was not then acting 
 for him, for he "knew how to gain him," and he 
 states their friends were his friends, not upon account 
 of the father, but the son. He does not deny that 
 Argyle was getting great things from the English, 
 which was the better for him, " for Argyle was a 
 " wise man, and would not stand in his way alone ;" 
 and though Argyle hated Monk, and Lambert, and 
 the rest of their officers, the King acknowledges that 
 he did not hate Cromwell. Either, then, the account 
 of this conversation, from its being so very contra- 
 dictory, is deserving of very little credit, or we must 
 look upon the conduct of the King, as in the high- 
 . est degree false and disingenuous, and presume that 
 like most other persons, who wish to impose by 
 false stories upon the credulity of others, he was not 
 always consistent in what he said. If there is no 
 mistake in the reporter, it is not easy to reconcile 
 the consolatory declaration, that Argyle was too pru- 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. &7 
 
 dent to stand in his way alone, with the disclosure of section 
 
 the secret that the King had more (we must suppose - 
 
 the expression means) money of him, than of any 
 other. Recollecting then the temptation which pre- 
 sented itself to the King's mind, to say as much as 
 he possibly could in favour of Argyle, we have a 
 right to take all those parts of the conversation, 
 which imply a doubt of Argyle's attachment to the 
 King, in the strongest sense against the Speaker, and 
 so far from affording presumptive evidence that no 
 confidential letters of the sort alluded to, could be 
 written by the Marquis, it affords a strong presump- 
 tion the other way, for it shews that he was acting 
 under the English power, and therefore probably 
 must have corresponded by letter occasionally with 
 those, under whom he acted. 
 
 Thurloe's Collection of State Papers, was examined Thurioe's sate 
 
 *■ ' .Papers examin- 
 
 throughout by Dr. Campbell; who " notwithstanding ed> 
 " his political principles," Mr. Rose says, " was 
 " most zealously attached to the family of Argyle." 
 He probably was allied to it, and felt acutely for its 
 honour, which he considered as stained by the con- 
 viction of its head of the crime of high treason; for 
 Dr. Campbell was satisfied in his own mind, that p^^ot* 
 the utmost object of the Marquis of Argyle, in all 
 his proceedings in Scotland, was " to restrain the 
 " power of the crown within due bounds." With 
 
 k 2 
 
68 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 Pose App 
 p.xxxii. 
 
 the faculties of his mind, affected by the noblest 
 feelings of his heart, he could not and he did not 
 examine Thurloe's State Papers, with the accuracy, 
 and state the result with the correctness, which 
 generally distinguish his writings. Mr. Rose having 
 referred to the quotations, made in the Biographia, 
 to shew the improbability of the existence of such a 
 correspondence, it may be proper to examine them 
 (as they are neither long nor numerous,) briefly, but 
 in detail. Dr. Campbell, in the Biographia, asserts that 
 upon the usurpation, the disclaimer of the conduct of 
 Lome by Argyle, ft never deceived the people in 
 " power;" and cites a letter in Thurloe's State Papers 
 Thuri.i.p, 5 i 4 . of the 27th, 1653, before Cromwell was made Protec- 
 tor, which, therefore, can have no reference to the 
 points now in dispute, and " We have," he says in 
 another place, " of late years had great discove- 
 " ries made of the correspondence under Cromwell's 
 " Government," (alluding to Thurloe's Collection,) " all 
 H which clearly prove that the Marquis of Argyle 
 " was never considered in any other light than that 
 " of a concealed royalist, as his son, the Lord Lome, 
 " was a declared one." The Doctor is not very fortunate 
 in the two Letters he cites to prove, that Monk was the 
 mortal enemy of the Marquis, and represented him in 
 the blackest terms to both Protectors. The first is 
 from Monk, dated the loth of June, 1657, accusing 
 him, as Dr. Campbell has fairly stated, of not de- 
 
 Rose, App 
 
 p. xxxiii. 
 
 Rose, App 
 p, xxxiv. 
 
 Thurl, vi. p. 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 
 
 serving the 12,oooZ. paid him as a debt ; and the other sec tion 
 of the 30th of December, 1658, is supposed to shew that 
 
 Thurl. vii. p. 
 
 Monk did not consider Argyle s going up to Richard s 584. 
 Parliament as a compliance with that Government, but 
 as an endeavour to overturn it. These Letters un- 
 doubtedly prove, that at the conclusion of Oliver's 
 Protectorate, and the beginning of Richard's, Monk 
 thought ill of Argyle ; but the last letter does not 
 charge Argyle with an intent to overturn the Govern- 
 ment. The Letter states that Argyle was endeavour- 
 ing to get Scotsmen chosen for the Parliament, and 
 to procure himself to be elected, notwithstanding he 
 was sheriff for Argyleshire, and adds, " neither do I 
 " guess he will do his highness's interest any good." 
 It was very natural, that Argyle should wish his own 
 country not to be represented by strangers, but it is too 
 strong a conclusion that because he endeavoured to 
 exclude them, he wished to overturn the Government. 
 
 These are all the quotations, the Doctor has made, 
 in his Biographia, to support his assertions, and all 
 that Mr. Rose has borrowed in aid of his argu- 
 ment. But in the Lives of the Admirals, the Doctor 
 again renews the attack, and says, " the thing is roma^ 
 " now out of all doubt, for by the publication of p,XXXV " 
 f* Thurloe's State Papers it appears, that Monk never 
 " considered the Marquis in this light, but always 
 " considered him as a secret friend to the King, and 
 
;o 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 " an active enemy to the Protector's government*" 
 And for this, he refers generally to the articles Argyle 
 and Monk, in the 3d, 4th, and 5th volumes. The 
 reader may be relieved from the apprehensions of our 
 entering into a minute examination of all the papers 
 referred to, but perhaps he may not be displeased to 
 have laid before him, a short sketch of the whole con- 
 duct of Argyle, as contained in that voluminous com- 
 pilation, by which means the erroneous statements of 
 Dr. Campbell and Mr. Rose may be explained and cor- 
 rected ; and it will appear, that it is so highly pro- 
 bable, as almost to amount to a certainty, that at one 
 time at least, during Monk's command, there did ex- 
 ist an epistolary correspondence between him and Argyle. 
 
 Situation of 
 Argyle and 
 Monk stated 
 
 The last struggle of the Scots in support of Charles 
 was in 1053 under Glencairn, who was superseded 
 by Middleton. Monk was sent by the Protector to 
 oppose them, and being ultimately successful, re- 
 mained in Scotland as commander in chief, till he 
 marched to London, and restored the King. Argyle 
 and his son Lord Lome took opposite sides, the former 
 declaring for Cromwell, and the latter for Charles ; 
 though on the 2 1st of July, 1054, Lord Lome is 
 Thuri.ii. p.473. stated to be joined with his father for the English, 
 but that is evidently a mistake, as will appear in a 
 subsequent page. An indemnity being offered by 
 Cromwell, about December, 1054, Lord Lome who 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 71 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 was an excepted person, at the persuasion of his fa- 
 ther, came in, but not till Monk had written to the ... 
 
 * I hurl. in. p. as. 
 
 Protector for his directions, whether he should be per- 
 mitted so to do, and upon what conditions ; but in the ib.v. p.18. 
 May following Lord Broghill declares his opinion that if 
 ever Charles Stuart makes any stir in Scotland, Lord 
 Lome will occasion it; and in August, he was de- i b . p . 3 i 9j 343 „ 
 scribed to be ready to take up arms for the King, 
 and foment any stirs. On the 28th February, 1656-7, ib.vi. P ,8i. 
 he was in prison in Scotland, and his removal re- ib. 43 6. 
 quested; and August the 3d, 1657, Lord Broghill re- 
 quested he and Lord Glencairn might be sent to 
 England, for there they would be safer kept, and if 
 they two were kept safe, he thought they would hardly 
 have a man fit to head a party in the nation, These pas- 
 sages afford no foundation for a suspicion that Argyle 
 and his son were acting in concert with each other, or 
 that the English government knew it ; and that in truth 
 there was no such understanding will be manifested by 
 the following citations more immediately respecting 
 the conduct of Argyle. But it may be necessary to 
 premise that in the charge presented to the Parliament, 
 many acts were alledged against him, as done in various 
 years from 1639 to nearly the abdication of Richard the 
 Protector. But the King having granted an act of in- 
 demnity in 1652, none relating to transactions before 
 that time were pressed against him ; and, as Baillie 
 tells us, the principal parts of the charges were, BailKe i;. p . 45I< 
 
72 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section te compliance with the English, his [sitting in the Par- 
 
 — " liament at London, his assisting Monk against 
 
 " Glencairn and Middleton on the hills." This last 
 appears to have been considered as a very mate- 
 rial charge, and was alledged to have been done 
 in 1654 and 1055. That Argyle was at this pe- 
 riod acting in concert with, or rather under the 
 orders of Monk, appears from a letter, written 18th 
 June, 1654, in which he is stated to have been sent 
 by Monk to gather what forces he could against 
 Montrose, who, after chasing Monk to Sterling Bridge, 
 is described to be hunting Argyle. And 19th July, 
 1654, Cromwell's troops were protecting Argyle's 
 country, which the King's troops had begun to burn. 
 In the same month Argyle is said to have 4000 men, 
 and his son joined with him for the English, as be- 
 fore mentioned, which certainly was not true ; for, by 
 referring to Baillie, it seems clear that Argyle and his 
 BaiiLH. p.394. son were at open variance, and the King's troops 
 who had begun to burn Argyle's country were com- 
 manded by, or connected with Lorne. 
 
 Thurl. ii. p. 
 359- 
 
 lb. p. 475. 
 
 lb. p. 478. 
 
 Clar. St. Pap. 
 iii.p. 135. 
 
 lb. p. 165. 
 
 What was the opinion entertained of Argyle, at an 
 early period, by the King, is manifested by a letter, 
 dated January 18, 1652-3, in which Sir Edward Hyde 
 says, the King "will never trust him," and then calls 
 him " the worst man alive ;" and in another letter, 
 dated May 9, 1653, he uses this expression, "fearing 
 " Cromwell much more than I do Argyle." So that 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 73 
 
 if, as Dr. Campbell asserts, Argyle was always a Royal- SEC j; i0N 
 ist he was certainly a concealed one in the beginning 
 of 1653, and had taken such effectual pains to con- 
 ceal his principles, that the King himself had mis- 
 taken him for one of his bitterest enemies, and de- 
 scribed him as a man not fit to be trusted. 
 
 Baillie corroborates the account given of Argyle, Baiiue, u. P , 
 and his connections in the before-mentioned letters; 
 for the 19th of July, 1654, he describes him " as almost 
 " drowned in debt, in friendship with the English, but i b . P . 3 8i. 
 " in hatred with the country." In a postscript dated the 
 next day, after explaining why Monk had been burn- 
 ing the lands of Lochaber, Glengary, and Seaforth, he 
 adds, " Glenorchy had been too great an intelligencer 
 " for the English, and sided with Argyle against 
 " Lome his son. So Middleton burnt much of his land. 
 " This burning, now begun on both sides, may ruin 
 " the whole country." And the particulars, which in ^J™«J- &* 
 the before mentioned letter, addressed to the Protec- 
 tor, Argyle desires his servant may communicate, 
 probably alluded to his losses and the destruction 
 of his property, in consequence of the severity of 
 Monk, and the retaliation of the royalists. And, 
 possibly, from this letter may be dated the enmity of 
 Monk, which might not shew itself immediately, but 
 was unrelentingly continued till it brought its object 
 to the scaffold. Argyle, however, continued steady to 
 
74 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section t h e s i(j e fr e h^ taken, and in December, 1654, Lord 
 
 Lome was to meet him, and probably would come in, 
 
 this circumstance Dr. Campbell relies upon to shew, 
 that Argyle was a concealed royalist, but the fact of 
 the governing power having previous notice that such 
 a meeting was to take place, and giving no orders to 
 prevent it, rather implies that this conference had its 
 approbation and concurrence, especially as Monk wrote 
 to the Protector for directions in case Argyle should 
 
 ib,iv. p.foo. prevail upon his son to come in. On the 4th of Febru- 
 ary, 1054, some intended alterations in the shires in the 
 Highlands are mentioned by Lord Brogbill, to which 
 it was expected Argyle's interest would lead him to 
 
 laiiiie, ii.p. object. Baillie's Letters now supply some important 
 particulars. On the 20th of July, 1654, Monk, Cow- 
 per, Twislington, and Argyle were at Dunbarton, 
 <e advising on a hard and sorrowful work, what 
 ff houses and what corn to burn :" and before the con- 
 clusion of the year 1655, probably about the time 
 when the Scottish chiefs submitted to the English, 
 Argyle sought a garrison to lie in the county of 
 
 Thuii.T. p.x8. Agyle, to keep it from his son's violence. In the 
 next year, it seems that the Protector had in contem- 
 plation to do something for Argyle, but his fidelity 
 had been suspected by Thurloe, to whom Lord 
 Broghill, on the 13 th of May, 1656, writes, describing 
 him as doing acts prejudicial to his highness's ser- 
 vice, and desires he, or the General, Monk, may have 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 75 
 
 ■a previous hint of whatever may be intended to be section 
 
 done for him, that his highness may be thoroughly 
 
 informed. Argyle, it should seem, left Scotland and 
 went to London, where he obtained from Cromwell 
 the sum of 12,000! as a debt for maintaining the 
 Scots troops in Ireland, upon the credit of the public 
 faith. And there is no trace of any suspicion of 
 Argyle's fidelity to the cause of the Protector having 
 been entertained by any of the officers of his Govern- 
 ment, until the year 1657; when, on 2oth May, some Th u f i-vi.p< 
 cautions were given concerning him, and some meet- 
 ings he was calling in Argyleshire to pay the losses 
 of the English in 1 652; and on 23d May, complaints ib. P . 3 o6. 
 were made to Monk of his conducts On loth June, Ib - p- 341- 
 Monk incloses to Thurloe, four letters, in which 
 he will find what his carriage has been since his coming 
 home, and how ill he deserved the l2,oool. which had 
 been given to him, and asserting he could shew he 
 owed l8,oool. to the State. On the 15th July, 1057, ib.p.405. 
 the Protector Oliver was proclaimed at Edinburgh, 
 Argyle and others of the nobility attending ; and Gum- 
 ble, chaplain to Monk, who writes the letter, relates 
 with exultation, that Argyle was all the while upon 
 the cross, while the proclamation was reading, 
 
 Upon the death of the Protector Oliver, in September Lamg.iH.p. 
 1058, Argyle returned into the Highlands oppressed 
 with debts, and the public hatred ; but in the latter 
 
 L 2 
 
76 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 Thurl. vii. p. 
 584- 
 
 Baillie ii. p. 
 434- 
 
 end of December, Monk, as before mentioned, com- 
 ~ plained heavily of him for opposing the court interest 
 in the election of members to serve in the Protector 
 Richard's, first Parliament, and for wishing to be 
 chosen himself for the county of Argyle. Baillie how- 
 ever informs us, that he was in fact chosen commis- 
 sioner of Aberdeenshire, and sat in that House of 
 Commons, complied with the Protector as long as he 
 stood, and then with the new Parliament, but finding 
 himself disregarded, slipt home for fear of being ar- 
 rested for debt, with small credit or contentment, and 
 afterwards was obliged to refund a large, sum to Mont- 
 rose. 
 
 The reader will now be enabled to judge of the 
 propriety of the assertions of Dr. Campbell, and the 
 strength of the presumptive evidence of Mr. Rose. 
 From 1652, nearly to the end of 1654, if not to the 
 beginning of 1657, Argyle was acting with the utmost 
 energy, to assist Monk in the subjugation and govern- 
 ment of Scotland ; he had been sent by Monk to raise 
 forces against Montrose, and in return was pursued by 
 him; his country was protected by Cromwell's troops 
 against the King's, which, commanded by his son, 
 were burning it ; and he consulted with Monk and 
 his friends, what houses and what barns were to be 
 burnt. Is it not then highly probable that in the active 
 part he took in these transactions, letters must have 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. fj 
 
 passed between him and Monk ? For instance, when under 
 Monk's orders he was raising troops to oppose Mont- 
 rose, would it not be his duty to communicate an ac- 
 count of his proceedings to his superior officer ? or, how 
 could they conveniently act at a distance from, yet in con- 
 cert with each other, if they were not occasionally to have 
 some written correspondence ? The probability there- 
 fore is, that Monk would be in possession of letters 
 written by Argyle, which would be most important to 
 prove, at least two of the three charges already men- 
 tioned to have been made against him, viz. his com- 
 pliance with the English, and his assisting Monk against 
 Glencairn, and Middleton on the hills. 
 
 And if Argyle was trusted by Monk so late as either 
 of the periods we have alluded to, what becomes of 
 Dr. Campbell's assertion that Monk always considered 
 the Marquis as a secret friend to the King's, and an 
 active enemy to the Protector's Government? During 
 a certain period, Monk must have manifested the mortal 
 hatred to Argyle, which the Doctor mentions, in an ex- 
 traordinary manner ; for he confided in, and consulted 
 him upon many occasions, and neither made complaint 
 nor expressed suspicion of his want of attachment or 
 zeal. It is surprising that Dr. Campbell, whose sagacity 
 on other occasions cannot be disputed, should have ex- 
 amined Thurloe's State Papers, and that Mr. Rose, not 
 content with the labours of his precursor, should 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
;s 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 have made a second examination, and neither of them 
 have remarked the difference in the style of the letters 
 concerning the Marquis at the commencement, and con- 
 clusion of Monk's command in Scotland. Down to a 
 certain date, he made no complaint of Argyle's con- 
 duct, but afterwards changed his opinion, and if Dr« 
 Campbell had confined his assertion to the latter period, 
 and contented himself with saying, that for some years 
 before the restoration he could shew that Monk was 
 the mortal enemy of Argyle, there would have been 
 no ground for dispute. 
 
 Extract from 
 Skinner's Life 
 of Monk. 
 
 Having proved that it is highly probable that Monk 
 did receive letters from Argyle, which might very ma- 
 terially affect his life, the next question is, did he pro- 
 duce them to the Parliament, which was sitting in 
 judgment upon the Marquis. All the a guments pro- 
 duced by Mr. Rose have been answered already, except 
 the extract from Skinner's Life of Monk, which he 
 cites to shew that such a glaring crime did not agree 
 with Monk's character, and that he was of no betray- 
 ing spirit. Mr. Rose contents himself with barely 
 copying the passage without telling us, how the facts 
 contained in it are to be applied to the argument. He 
 probably cites it in deference to Dr. Campbell, who had 
 quoted it before, or perhaps as a mark of gratitude to his 
 memory, as his widow, had presented him with all 
 her husband's papers, for if any corroboration of the 
 
MR. fox's historical work. 7Q 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 truth of the character given of Monk by Mr. Fox 
 
 should be thought necessary, the situation in which 
 
 Skinner describes him to have been placed, and to have 
 displayed such moderation and generosity in the forgiv- 
 ing of injuries would afford it. This biographer had been 
 chaplain to Monk, and Mr. Rose says, he " would not Rose. P . %, 
 " have ventured to make a false assertion at a time when 
 " the means of contradicting it were in the hands of 
 " every one." To this, as a general proposition, we 
 cannot accede, for folly and wickedness are often 
 united, and impudence frequently their companion. 
 The particular merit ot Skinner we shall now discuss. 
 The passage, is copied at length here. " In the Ibii 
 " number of the commissioners, the Duke of Albemarle 
 " was one ; wherein he gave the world one of the 
 " greatest instances" of his moderation ; for though he 
 " knew more of the guilt and practices of these cri- 
 " minals than most of those who sat on the bench, 
 " and some of them had been his greatest and most in- 
 " veterate enemies, yet he aggravated nothing against 
 " them, but left them to a fair trial and the me- 
 " thods of their own defence, when he could have 
 " offered matter against some of them that would 
 " have pressed them harder ; and, by a generous way 
 " of forgiving injuries, he had a little before saved 
 " the life of Sir Arthur Haslerigg, and afterwards pro- 
 "■ cured his estate also, by owning a promise made 
 " to him, when there was no man among them all 
 
80 . A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section tt w h h a cl more maliciously exposed or traduced 
 
 — " him." Skinner must have been blinded by that 
 
 partiality for his patron and friend, which is so apt 
 to lead the faculties astray, and warp the judgment, 
 when he boasts of the moderation of the Duke of Albe- 
 marle, sitting as one of the commissioners to try the 
 regicides. It is scarcely within the verge of possibi- 
 lity, that he could have forgotten himself, or that he 
 could conceive that in history it would not be recorded, 
 that Monk, though not guilty of the precise crime for 
 which they were to be tried, had waded to his 
 dukedom through bloodshed, duplicity, and crimes. 
 Truly it is said, that he knew more of the guilt and 
 practices of the criminals than most of those upon 
 the bench ; for he had been a participator with some 
 of them. He was too young and insignificant at the 
 death of Charles the First to have been placed in the 
 situation of one of his judges ; but he afterwards rose 
 into eminence under Cromwell, the author of that 
 tragedy, assisted him assiduously in his misdeeds, both 
 in the cabinet and the field, and probably became the 
 restorer of monarchy, only because he was disap- 
 pointed in his hope of succeeding to the Protector- 
 ate on the abdication of ^Richard. He had recently 
 acted with some of those who were brought before him 
 for trial, and his crimes deserved the same punish- 
 ment which he unblushingly concurred in inflicting 
 upon theirs. To his duplicity of conduct may be 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 81 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 principally attributed the destruction of his friends, 
 who were prevented, by their confidence in him, from - 
 taking measures to secure themselves; for though he 
 entered England with his army on the 2d of Janu- 
 ary, ] 659-60, yet he did not make even the confi- 
 dential servants of the King acquainted with his in- c i«'St. Pap.™ 
 tentions to serve him, till about the middle of March, 
 1659-60;* and on 13th February, had written to Sir 
 Arthur Haslerigg that a commonwealth was the desire 
 of his soul. Misled by Monk's assurances, and relying 
 upon his support, the commonwealth party, headed 
 by Bradshaw, Haslerigg, Vane, and Scott, counted upon ib. p. 4 i 3 . 
 the assistance of the army ; but he secretly made his 
 peace with the King, and became a lord commissioner 
 to try some of them at least whom he had a few 
 weeks before acted with, and promised to support. 
 But his infamy does not end here; for before the 
 13th of May he was consulted upon the intended Bill 
 for indemnity, and actually marked out the culprits he 
 afterwards sat as a judge to try ; for out of the 
 number of delinquents, he " was content that about 
 f six be excepted for that horrid murder of his ma- 
 " jesty, and made remarkable in their execution." 
 
 * Sir John Greenvill reached the King on the 26th March, 1660, 
 with Monk's proposals to restore him without conditions, before the 
 
 ' * fk n *TA$t 
 
 proposers to bring him in upon the Articles of the Isle of Wight 
 arrived, and he shewed their letter to Sir John, and laughed at it. 
 Kennett's Hist. Reg. p. 97. This letter must have been sent by the 
 Junto mentioned, ante page 39. 
 
 M 
 
82 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 Hutch. Menu 
 p. 37a. 
 
 Monk's betray- 
 ing spirit. 
 
 Lud. Mem. 
 f. 41*. 
 
 And Mrs. Hutchinson has described his conduct in the 
 House of Commons during .the progress of the Bill, 
 in the following words : " Monk after all his great 
 " professions now sat still, and had not one word to 
 " interpose for any person, but was as forward to set 
 H vengeance on foot as any man." The latter part of 
 the passage in Skinner proves that he had the 
 power to save, for he preserved to Sir Arthur Ha- 
 slerigg both his life and estates. In the trial of . 
 the regicides, Monk was not a mere tranquil spec- 
 tator; he was both prosecutor and judge. And 
 his sitting upon the bench, under such circum- 
 stances, without a single instance of interfering for 
 mercy to any of the culprits, even for those, as Scott 
 and Hacker, with whom he had lived in habits of in- 
 timacy and friendship, proves that his treachery was 
 in strict consistency with other parts of his character. 
 Why then should it be improbable that he should 
 betray Argyle, when he had betrayed so many others? 
 Ludlow records a remarkable instance of his possessing 
 a betraying spirit ; Lieutenant Colonel Hacker had raised 
 a regiment for the Parliament, in the command of 
 which he continued till he was taken into custody, 
 having indiscreetly trusted to Monk's promises of full 
 indemnity. When he came to London, he visited 
 Monk, and was received with all the appearances of 
 friendship and affection. But the next day he was 
 seized, examined, and sent to the Tower, He was one 
 
MR. fox's historical work. S# 
 
 of the prisoners brought before the commissioners to section 
 be tried ; was convicted and executed. - 
 
 Can any human mind contemplate Monk selecting 
 this victim, and sitting on this trial, without feelings 
 of indignation ? and yet because he did not aggravate 
 the crime against him, his chaplain makes it a subject 
 of applause, and holds him up to admiration, and Dr. 
 Campbell and Mr. Rose refer to his conduct as presump- 
 tive proof that his mind was too honourable to have 
 betrayed the letters of Argyle. Mrs. Hutchinson has 
 preserved another trait connected with these trials, cha- 
 racteristic of the heart of Monk, of which she was 
 herself an eye witness ; after describing the per- 
 secution to which the prisoners were subjected, she Hutch. Mem; 
 says " I cannot forget one passage that I saw, 
 " 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 had 
 f 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 bondage, 
 ** as no story can parallel the inhumanity of. " But 
 Monk's barbarism did not end here, for she declined to 
 mention, that he afterwards sat as a judge to try them. 
 
 m 2 
 
84 ' A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section The last source of panegyric from the pen of Skinner, 
 , is Monk's generous way of forgiving injuries, by saving 
 
 JStSsfrAr- tne n ^ e an d estate of Sir Arthur Haslerigg by owning 
 thurnasierigg. a promisc made to him, (which Dr. Campbell doubts 
 
 was ever made) when no man among them had more 
 maliciously exposed or traduced him. The topic se- 
 lected for encomium may be added to the long list of 
 proofs of Monk's infamy and baseness. He is praised 
 for saving a man from the punishment due to crimes, 
 to the commission of which he had himself contributed, 
 and the advantage from which he had largely reaped ; 
 and this praise is enhanced by the circumstance of 
 the culprit having abused and traduced him, as fore- 
 seeing the treachery and inconsistency of his future 
 conduct. In any other case it might be remarked that - 
 there was nothing remarkably generous in keeping a 
 promise he had made; but perhaps it is mentioned 
 as a solitary instance of fidelity in the performance 
 of his engagements. In the case of Colonel Hacker 
 we have seen, that he was not scrupulously exact 
 upon all occasions. But there is a gross misrepresen- 
 tation, or a paltry quibble in Skinner's statement, for 
 that Sir Arthur Haslerigg who was a staunch repub- 
 lican, had opposed Monk's proceedings upon many 
 occasions, before and after Richard's death, may be 
 very true ; but after the republican interest in the Par- 
 liament had extinguished the hopes of Lambert, Monk 
 thought fit to conciliate it. Being a perfect master 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 85 
 
 in .dissimulation, he first gained the confidence of Sir section- 
 Arthur Haslerigg, and persuaded him that he was a 
 repablican, prevailed upon him to vouch for his prin- 
 ciples to his friends, and continued to delude him, and 
 them, till finding there was no chance of obtaining 
 the reins of Government, nor even the command of 
 the army, he threw off the mask and avowed nimself LudL Mem . p< 
 the decided friend of royalty and the King. To Sir 365. 
 Arthur's credulity and exertions, Monk owed the success 
 of his enterprise, and as Sir Arthur had prudently made a 
 ' stipulation for his safety, in case of a change, the condition 
 of his continuing faithful to Monk, he would have been 
 not only one of the most ungrateful, but one of the most 
 wicked of men, if he had broken his promise under such 
 circumstances ; but the performance of it had no resem- 
 blance to a generous way of forgiving injuries, It 
 is stated that Sir Arthur Haslerigg s interest was likely 
 to continue, Monk being his friend, in' a letter from Clan iH - p " 593 ' 
 Lord Mordaunt, dated 31st October, 1659; and on the ib, P .66o. ' 
 26th January, 15C9-60 he writes, " Had Monk stood 
 " right the House had shifted for themselves this day ; 
 " but Sir Arthur Haslerigg quitted Lambert, and closed 
 " with Monk." On 3d February their connection is 
 thus described : " Haslerigg will submit to ruin, as ib. P .666. 
 " Salway and Fleetwood have done, if the House pur- 
 « sue this conspiracy. Monk being to him as Au- 
 " gustus to Antony, of a mastering genius, nor will 
 m he ever hate him less, or brook his presence better ; 
 
80 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 " but their parallels neither in good or ill will appear 
 il Roman." 
 
 It appears that Monk and Sir Arthur lived upon 
 terms of the greatest intimacy and friendship, and 
 when Sir Arthur began to be alarmed at the approach- 
 ing storm, and feel apprehensions for his own safety, 
 Monk endeavoured to make him easy, by promising 
 fs a p S 7 t 4o Pap ' mm protection, for in a letter of the 7th of May, 1660, 
 we find this passage : — " About two months since, 
 ■" Sir Arthur Haslerigg discoursing with General Monk 
 " of the turn of the times, and the danger of his own 
 ic head, the General told him he would secure it for 
 " two-pence ; and about two days since, Haslerigg sent 
 " him a letter with two-pence in it, to remember him 
 " of his promise, which Monk saith he will make 
 " good." He did make it good, and we have no dis- 
 position to deprive him of the credit of the act, or ex- 
 amine his motives for it ; it is sufficient at present to 
 observe, that it is not of the same description with 
 that, for which Skinner applauds him. 
 
 Recapitulation Having examined and commented upon the evidence 
 of proofs. p ro( Juced by Mr. Rose, than which " it is. hardly pos- 
 Roic, p.a6. " sible," he says, "to conceive that stronger could be 
 *■* formed in any case, to establish a negative," we 
 now safely assert, that Mr. Fox had fully in- 
 formed himself upon the subject before he wrote, and 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 87 
 
 was amply justified in the condemnation of Monk, and SEC [ ION 
 
 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 
 u had fallen into the hands of one, than whom a baser 
 " could not be found in its lowest ranks." The trans- 
 actions between him and Argyle for a certain period 
 of time, was such as must, naturally if not necessarily, 
 have led them into an epistolary correspondence, and 
 it was in exact conformity with Monk's character and 
 conduct to the regicides, that he should betray the 
 letters written to him, in order to destroy a man, 
 whom he had in the latter part of his command in 
 Scotland, both feared and hated. If the fact of the 
 production of these letters had stood merely on the 
 testimony of Bishop Burnet, we have seen that nothing Bum.i.p. i» 5 . 
 has been produced by Mr. Rose and Dr. Campbell to 
 impeach it ; on the contrary an inquiry into the au- 
 thorities and documents, they have cited, strongly con- 
 firm it. But as before observed it is a surprising 
 instance of Mr. Rose's indolence, that he should 
 state the question to depend now, as it did in Dr. 
 Campbell's time, on the Bishop's authority solely. 
 But that authority is, in itself, no light one. Burnet 
 was almost eighteen years of age at the time of Argyle's 
 trial, he was never an unobserving spectator of public 
 events ; he was probably at Edinburgh, and for some 
 years afterwards remained in Scotland, with ample 
 
88 
 
 A VINDICATION OP 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 Baillie, ii. p. 
 4JX- 
 
 Cun.i. p 13. 
 
 means of information, respecting events which had taken 
 place so recently. Baillie seems also to hr.ve been upon 
 the spot, and expressly confirms the testimony of Bur- 
 net. To these must be added Cunningham, who 
 writing, as a person perfectly acquainted with the cir- 
 cumstances of the transaction, 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 Scot- 
 land, and brought to trial ; and that he was condemned 
 chiefly by his discoveries. We may now ask where is 
 the improbability of this story, when related of such 
 a man ? and what ground there is for not giving credit 
 to a fact attested by three witnesses of veracity, each 
 writing at a distance, and separate from each other ? In 
 this instance, Bishop Bur-net, is so confirmed that no 
 reasonable being, who will attend to the subject, can 
 doubt of the fact, he relates, being true ; and we shall 
 hereafter prove, that the general imputation against his 
 accuracy, made by Mr. Rose, is totally without founda- 
 tion. If 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. Burnet has 
 shewn some forbearance in his account of this trial, 
 for he only charges upon Monk, the having searched 
 for and sent the letters of Argyle, but Cunningham 
 states that he was the instigator of the prosecution, 
 
I. 
 
 MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 80. 
 
 and Baillie that he sent the letters, when in the course section 
 of it, he apprehended that the life of Argyle was ■ 
 likely to be saved, that the King might not reprieve 
 him. Burnet says, the letters were sent by an express 
 and came to the Earl of Middleton, when probation 
 was closed on both sides, and the Lords were engaged 
 in the debate, notwithstanding which, contrary to the 
 forms of justice, he ordered them to be read, and they 
 silenced all further debate, for it could not then be 
 pretended that his compliance was feigned, or extorted 
 from him. Argyle's friends went away, and he was 
 found guilty. The circumstances here mentioned, of 
 the letters not arriving till after probation was closed,, 
 explain satisfactorily why they are not noticed in any 
 of the printed accounts of the trial, or proceedings. 
 
 consti- 
 
 The next passage in the Historical Work, which has Mai0 f t 
 provoked the displeasure of Mr. Rose, is that, in which fec&m.mie^g 
 the reign of Charles the Second is described, as " the ° x P ' 2 °" 
 " sera of good laws and bad government, ' and Mr. 
 Fox says, " the abolition of the Court of Wards, 
 u the repeal of the Writ de Heretico Comburendo, the 
 " Triennial Parliament Bill, the establishment of the rights 
 " of the House of Commons in regard to impeach- 
 " ment, the expiration of the Licence Act, and above 
 i{ all, the glorious statute of Habeas Corpus have, there- 
 " fore induced a writer of great eminence to fix the 
 " year lO/Q, as the period in which our constitution 
 
 N 
 
$0 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 I. 
 
 te 
 
 it 
 
 section " had arrived at its greatest theoretical perfection ; but he 
 owns in a short note upon the passage alluded to, that 
 the times immediately following were times of great 
 practical oppression. What a field for meditation does 
 this short observation from such a man furnish! 
 What reflections does it not suggest to a thinking mind 
 upon the inefficacy of human laws, and the imperfec- 
 tion of human constitutions ! We are called from the 
 contemplation of the progress of our constitution, and 
 " our attention fixed with the most minute accuracy to a 
 '* particular point when it is said to have risen to its 
 " utmost perfection. Here we are then at the best mo- 
 " ment of the best constitution that ever human wisdom 
 " framed. What follows? a time of oppression and mis- 
 " ery, not arising from external or accidental causes, 
 " such as war, pestilence or famine, nor even from any 
 " such alterations of the laws as might be supposed to 
 " impair this boasted perfection, but from a corrupt and 
 " wicked administration which all the so much ad- 
 •" mired checks of the constitution were not able to 
 " prevent. How vain then, how idle, how presumptu- 
 " ous is the opinion that laws can do every thing ! 
 *' and how weak and pernicious the maxim founded 
 " upon it, that measures, not men, are to be attended to !" 
 
 If an apology for so long a quotation be deemed 
 necessary, the manner in which this passage has been 
 tortured and misrepresented affords one. The reader 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 91 
 
 has now the whole before him, and may judge for section 
 
 himself, as we advance in the argument, whether it 
 
 lias been treated with candour or not, 
 
 Mr. Fox might conceive himself to be fully justified in 
 speaking thus highly of a particular aera, by the authority 
 of so respectable a name as that of Mr. Justice Blackstone. 
 Mr. Rose admits that in his Observations, he has taken 
 advantage of the learning of that judge, but allowing for all 
 die deference due to him, claims the right of examining and Rose, P .*7. 
 canvassing " any dictum of his." It is ludicrous that, in 
 justification of his taking this liberty, he should think it 
 necessary to tell us in a note that Lord Coke, " one of the 
 " very highest, legal and constitutional authorities," has 
 lately been found inaccurate in two points, noticed in his 
 report on the public records. No apology, surely, can be 
 necessary for canvassing any opinion presented to the pub- 
 lic. Sir Edward Coke no doubt has made many blunders, 
 and this note gives us the interesting information that 
 Mr. Rose claims the merit of having detected two of 
 them. With regard to the first, if there is any error at 
 all, it happens that Mr. Prynne anticipated the discovery 
 150 years ago, and it is probable Mr. Rose was not 
 ignorant of it, for he had the book before him ; and with 
 regard to the second, he seems not to have understood Sir 
 Edward Coke for the statute he quotes to prove the mistake, 
 unfortunately, is irrelative to the point in dispute.* 
 
 * The substance of the second proposition of Sir Edward Coke, 
 to which Mr. Rose has rashly given the epithet of inaccurate is, that 
 
 N2 
 
93 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 I am not sure that the expression, " theoretical per- 
 Theoretica , " fection," incorrectly used in Mr. Justice Blackstone's 
 
 perfection ex- notCj may not foyQ \ ec \ fofa Mr Fqx an( J Mj . RoSe 
 
 into an error; for they both seem to have understood 
 it to mean utmost theoretical perfection, beyond 
 which it was impossible for human wisdom to go; 
 but that was not the meaning of the learned judge 
 himself. He asserts, and thinks he has demon- 
 
 Report of Re- 
 cords, p. 45. 
 
 lieft. viii. 
 p. 20. b. 
 
 ©«►, Lit. p. 98. 
 
 " if an Act mentions only that the King enacts, and the Lords assent, 
 " without naming the Commons, the omission cannot be supplied by any 
 " intendment." And Mr. Rose, in order to shew Sir Edward Coke is 
 not correct, cites the Stat. 1 Ed. 6, against exporting horses, which, 
 although in it the Lords are not mentioned as assenting, yet has always 
 been considered as a valid Act of Parliament. It runs thus, " for 
 " remedy whereof be it therefore enacted by our Sovereign Lord the 
 " King, and by the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, 
 lt and by the Authority of the same" &c. Here is a proof that a little 
 learning is a dangerous thing, for this Act of Parliament has no relation 
 whatever to Sir Edward Coke's position, which is perfectly correct, 
 and has been confirmed and settled by solemn decisions. A passage 
 from another of Sir Edward Coke's works will ejtplain the mistake, into 
 which Mr. Rose has fallen : " If" says he, " an Act of Parliament be 
 " penned by assent of the King, and of the Lords Spiritual and Tem- 
 ' ' poral, and of the Commons, or it is enacted by Authority of Parliament, 
 " it is a good Act." So the Statute of 1 Ed. 6, above mentioned, 
 being enacted by the Authority of Parliament, which it could not be, if 
 the Commons had not assented ; and this appearing upon the record 
 itself, and not by intendment, it falls within the last mentioned rule, 
 and is consistently with the original proposition of Sir Edward Coke, 
 as quoted by Mr. Rose, a good Act of Parliament. The Statute of Quid 
 Emptores is a still stronger instance, for in it the King alone speaks, 
 Dominus Rex in Parliament suo, ttc. ad instantiam Magnatum Regni 
 sui concessit , &c. yet the words Rex in Parliament suo, &c. it being 
 an ancient Statute, have been held to be equivalent to Dominus Rex 
 authoritate Parliamenti concessit. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. ©3 
 
 strated that the constitution had arrived at its full sec tion 
 vigour, and the true balance between liberty and pre- ===; 
 
 i Com. iv. p, 435, 
 
 rogative was happily established by law, in the reign 44°- 
 of Charles the Second ; and adds, " What seems in- 
 
 ' contestible is this, that by the law, as it then stood, 
 
 ' (notwithstanding some invidious, nay, dangerous 
 
 ' branches of the prerogative have since been lopped 
 
 ' off, and the rest more clearly defined) the people had 
 
 ' as large a portion of real liberty, as is consistent with 
 
 ' a state of society, and sufficient power, residing in 
 
 * their own hands, to assert and preserve that liberty, 
 1 if invaded by the royal prerogative. For which I 
 1 need but appeal to the memorable catastrophe of 
 
 • the next reign," The following note is subjoined. 
 ' The point of time at which I w r ould chuse to fix 
 1 this theoretical perfection of our public law is the 
 •' year 1O79, after the Habeas Corpus act and that for 
 ' licensing the press had expired ; though the years 
 - which immediately followed it were times of great 
 
 ?-' practical oppression." The theoretical perfection men- 
 tioned in the note, is made expressly to refer to the 
 circumstances stated in the text, ; but Blackstone was 
 aware, that it still admitted of improvement, and 
 alludes to certain very proper diminutions and restraints 
 of the prerogative, which have been made since. 
 
 It is observable, that out of the circumstances enu- 
 merated by the judge, Mr. Fox has selected only 
 
9* A VINDICATION Of 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 four, which he supposed to be of the greatest im- 
 portance, and to them, has added two, which the 
 judge had omitted to notice, yet Mr. Rose, with that 
 precise correctness, which can be obtained only from 
 official accuracy, has considered all six, as first ad- 
 duced by the learned judge, and then adopted by 
 Mr. Fox, and accordingly has examined each sepa- 
 rately. 
 
 Abolition of the Whether Mr. Rose's history of wardships be correct 
 
 Courtof Wards, . . . . , ' _ 
 
 or not, it is not necessary to inquire. And as he does 
 not object to the statute by which they were abo- 
 lished, being reckoned among those^ which tended to the 
 theoretical perfection of the constitution, he might 
 have spared the information, that it relieved the great 
 landholders from a very oppressive burden. But 
 the statement that, for it, a valuable consideration 
 was paid by the grant of a perpetual excise, and 
 that the question in favour of the commutation 
 was carried by the friends of Government, by a majority 
 of only two, is not correct. 
 
 joum,viii.p.4 5 , The original compensation intended to be settled on 
 the King, his heirs and successors, in lieu of the profits 
 arising to the Crown from the Court of Wards and 
 Liveries, and tenures by Capite and by Knight's service, 
 was 100,000/. per annum, to be charged on all lands ; and 
 a select committee had actually proceeded to fix the 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. Q5 
 
 apportionment of it upon the different counties.* section 
 
 This compensation was afterwards changed ; no specific 
 
 sum was to be paid to the Crown by way of annuity, Journ ... 
 but, in consideration of the King giving up purveyance, l86 * l8 7- 
 as well as the profits above mentioned, it was finally 
 resolved on the 2 1st of November, 1O60, that there 
 should be settled on the Crown one moiety only of a 
 perpetual excise, on certain articles, and after the previous 
 question negatived, this motion passed without a division. 
 An attempt was made to settle the other moiety on the 
 King for life, as part of l,200,oool. granted before, and 
 negatived by the opponents of Government by a majority 
 of two, 151 to 149, which must be the division, to 
 which Mr. Rose has alluded. With the Journal before 
 him how can such a mistake be accounted for ? he 
 takes the proper pains to inform himself; the entry is 
 a short one, yet in the attempt to transfer its substance to 
 another piece of paper, something totally dissimilar to 
 the original is produced. 
 
 Mr. Rose next observes of the Writ de Heretico EcLST 
 Comlurendo, that it " had been a dead letter for more rendo ' 
 " than a century, and that there was not the remotest 
 
 * This curious paper, which shews the relative importance of the 
 counties to each other at that time, is preserved in vol. VIII. p. 178 of 
 the Journals, and a list of the officers of the Court of Wards and 
 Liveries, with the value of their offices, and the compensation for th©. 
 abolition of each is at p. 21.0, 
 
©6 , A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section « ehance of its ever being revived." The first of these 
 observations is not accurate, for it had been put in ex- 
 
 49' P ecution in 1 612, the ninth of James the First, when 
 
 p.6a,64. two Arians, Bartholomew Legate, and one Wightman 
 were burnt, the former in Smithfield, and the latter at 
 Litchfield. The second is a matter of speculation, Mr. 
 Rose, more than a century after this Writ was taken 
 away, in the spirit of a tranquil philosopher, may 
 think its removal of no consequence ; but probably the 
 prospect of a popish successor, and the violence of 
 those times might h;.ve induced the protestants in the 
 reign of Charles the Second, to form a different opinion 
 of the prospect of this Writ being brought again into use. 
 Blackstone evidently considered its abolition as an im- 
 portant accession to the liberty of the subject, " For in 
 com.iv.p.49- " one and the same reign," says he, " our lands were 
 " delivered from the slavery of military tenures, our 
 " bodies from arbitrary imprisonment by the Habeas 
 <c Corpus Act, and our minds from the tyranny of super- 
 " stitious bigotry, by demolishing this last badge of 
 " persecution in the English Law." 
 
 Bin forTrienni- The Triennial Parliament Bill, Mr. Rose says, " was 
 iKjK*"* 3 " a most extraordinary measure for exultation," and 
 gives as a reason, that by an Act passed in the fourth 
 year alter the restoration, a law made in. the Long 
 Parliament, enacting most effectual provisions, that could 
 not be defeated, or evaded by the crown, or its ministers, 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 07 
 
 to ensure the meeting of a Parliament, and the continu- 
 ance of its sitting once in three years, at the least, had 
 been repealed ; and in 1679, that repealing law was in 
 force, simply enacting, that, the sitting of Parliament 
 should not be intermitted or discontinued more than 
 three years, without one compulsory clause to give it 
 effect, and therefore occasionally violated. 
 
 Mr. Rose, having settled in his own mind, that 
 Mr. Fox was attached to republican principles, and a 
 hater of monarchy, fancies he sees a democratic tenden- 
 cy in every observation in the Historical Work. This 
 groundless prejudice leads him into perpetual mistakes, 
 and clouds almost every transient gleam of candour. 
 Happily for Mr. Fox upon this occasion, he and Mr. 
 Justice Blackstone must take their fate together ; they 
 both agree that the repeal of the Act, passed by the 
 Long Parliament, was an amendment of our law. Mr. 
 Fox entertained no principles hostile to the form of 
 Government under which he lived ; he was a friend to 
 a limited monarchy, and this is a direct proof of it, 
 though Mr. Rose did not make the discovery. The peo- 
 ple have their rights and the King his prerogative, and 
 one branch of that prerogative is, the power of as- 
 sembling the Parliament. Mr. Fox conceived that to 
 deprive the King of that power, in any case, was 
 an improper and dangerous restriction, and that its 
 repeal was necessary to establish what Mr. Justice 
 
 SECTION 
 
 I. 
 
08 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section Blackstone denominated, the true balance between 
 
 ~ '■ — liberty and prerogative. To that balance Mr. Fox was 
 
 a zealous friend, and the reader has seen how Mr. Rose, 
 hitherto, has failed in every effort to impute re- 
 publican sentiments to him ; and he will have to 
 remark a similar failure in every other attempt of 
 the same kind, throughout the Observations. What 
 were the grounds of Mr. Justice Blackstone's opinions, 
 he has stated in the following passage, which the 
 reader will recollect must be taken as the language 
 of Mr. Fox also, who, as Mr. Rose contends, has 
 adopted, in this instance, the opinion of the learned 
 judge. Alluding to the act passed by the Long Par- 
 bi. com. i. p. liament, he says. " But this, if ever put in practice, 
 " would have been liable to all the inconveniences 
 " I have just now stated." (viz. such as would arise 
 if the time of assembling the Parliament was left 
 to itself, and not to the King.) " And the Act itself 
 " was esteemed so highly detrimental and injurious 
 " to the royal prerogative, that it was repealed by 
 " Stat. xvi. Car, II. c. 1." The opinion of Lord 
 Somers, whom Mr. Rose professes to admire, and 
 the Whigs, who were most zealous for the Revolution, 
 did not differ from that of Mr. Fox, and it was 
 not thought right, at that time, to restore this law 
 to the Statute Book. Perhaps the reader may now 
 see Rote, p. 30. entertain a doubt whether Mr. Rose by so highly 
 applauding this statute, " derogatory to the King's 
 " rights," has not exhibited some proof of his having 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. QQ 
 
 more of a republican spirit, and being less zealously sec tion 
 attached to monarchy, than either Mr. Fox, or Mr. 
 
 ' ', . Mr. Rose more 
 
 Justice Blacks tone. democratic than 
 
 Mr. Fox, 
 
 " The establishing of the right of the House of/ 
 
 ■r-i • i • i >> •»/!- -r» Right of the 
 
 " Commons, in regard to impeachment, Mr. Rose commons as to 
 
 Impeachments. 
 
 remarks, is not easy to be understood ; and that he did 
 not understand it is very clear, ff That right " he says, 
 " it is conceived, had never been disputed," errone- Rose,p * 3t 
 ously assuming that Mr. Fox was speaking of the 
 general right of the Commons to impeach; but Mr. 
 Fox is alluding to the right of the House to proceed 
 in an impeachment, notwithstanding the culprit should 
 have been pardoned by the Crown after the proceedings 
 were commenced, and had pleaded such pardon in bar. 
 Nobody acquainted with the proceedings against Lord 
 Danby in this very year, can hesitate about the mean- 
 ing of Mr. Fox's words. The King pardoned Lord 
 Danby, putting the Great Seal to the grant with his 
 own hand. Lord Danby was, however, compelled to 
 appear to the impeachment against him, for fear of a 
 Bill of Attainder, and pleaded his pardon, and the 
 Commons denied its validity, and passed a vote that a 
 pardon is not pleadable in bar of an impeachment. 
 In the result, Danby was saved, but the Commons 
 gained such advantage by the contest that the right 
 they contended .for was not likely to be again disputed, 
 and therefore, in one sense of the word, may be said 
 
 o 2 
 
100 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section t0 jj aye k een t j ien established, especially as so soon 
 
 — afterwards it was sanctioned by the Legislature.* This 
 
 right claimed by the Crown in the case of Lord Danby, 
 does not appear to have been attempted to be exercised 
 in any former instance, and the resistance to this in- 
 novation was absolutely necessary, for if this right 
 appertained to the Crown, impeachments of its mi- 
 nisters or favourites might always be rendered nugatory. 
 The Commons renewed the vote, that a pardon is not 
 pleadable in bar to an impeachment in lOSy, and a 
 few years afterwards their claim was, as before men- 
 iaandi 3 w 3 . tioned, established by an Act of Parliament. The 
 
 C. 2. 8. 3. . _ J 
 
 Bi.com. iv.p. r ight of the King to pardon after conviction was 
 never disputed, and in 1715, he reprieved several times, 
 and at last pardoned three of the six rebels, Lords 
 who had been impeached and attainted. 
 
 The expiration of the Act preventing the publica- 
 
 * In the ensuing- year, when the Duke of York was sent into Scot- 
 land, he wished to have had a pardon for his protection, in case the 
 House of Commons should take any steps against him in his absence . 
 and it seems that the Earl of Anglesea, then Lord Privy Seal, and 
 many others of the Council, advised the King to comply with the Duke's 
 request, but the ground stated for that advice was not the validity of 
 the pardon ; but that if the Duke should be impeached, or a Bill to 
 attaint him brought in, the pardon being disputed would be a good 
 excuse for dissolving the Parliament, which would then appear to be 
 done, not in maintenance of Popery, but the prerogative. The King, 
 however, at this time, was so highly exasperated against his brother, 
 that he would not consent. Minutes of the Earl of Anglesea at the 
 Council, 15th October, 1680. Dal. Mem. ii. 328. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 101 
 
 tion of books without a licence, is the next particular section 
 mentioned by Mr. Fox, as contributing to make 
 
 the reign of Charles the Second the aera of good laws. th* Lken"i° g 
 And is, Mr. Rose says, " the most extraordinary of RoS ep. 3a . 
 " the whole." But it is not more extraordinary than 
 his comment upon it, for he contents himself 
 with agreeing with Mr. Fox, that the " Act itself 
 " was unquestionably a great restraint on the freedom 
 " of the press, " but observes, that it was merely tem- 
 porary, and had been suffered to expire. From its 
 expiration till the end of the reign of Charles the 
 Second, the press was under no legislative restraint, 
 and surely this was also a circumstance conducing to 
 the theoretical perfection of our constitution, unless 
 Mr. Rose should be of opinion that the liberty of free 
 discussion through the medium of the press, is, in 
 itself, a grievance. Possibly this observation is founded 
 upon a misapprehension of the meaning of the word 
 " laws, ' : which Mr. Rose would explain to mean 
 statutes only, we may then account for this instance 
 as he calls it, being denominated the most extraor- 
 dinary of the whole ; for how, he might say, can any 
 Statute that is expired and no longer existing, make 
 any of those good ones, which entitled this aera to be 
 so distinguished, But Mr. Fox does not use these words 
 synonimously, he does not speak of an aera of good 
 statutes only, but of good laws generally. The re- 
 pealing of all the statutes now in force would not 
 
102 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section leave us without laws. And the expiration of an im- 
 
 provident statute did not render the remaining laws 
 
 less deserving of applause, than they would have been 
 if it had never been enacted. 
 
 Habeas Corpus Even the Habeas Corpus Act> because mentioned by 
 Mr. Fox, must have its comment; of its importance 
 to the liberty of the subject, Mr.; Rose is fully sen- 
 sible, but we are told, to prove that there is something 
 improper in Mr. Fox's alluding to it, that it had its 
 
 Rose p. 32. origin in a former reign. He however admits, that 
 "- the Act passed in 1679 greatly extended the remedy, 
 " and made it effectual ;" and this is all that is neces- 
 sary for the justification of Mr. Fox, for it can be of 
 no importance in what reign it originated, if in the 
 year he alludes to, it was brought into its most per- 
 fect state. 
 
 Mr. Rose's Mr. Rose then proceeds to comment upon other 
 
 comments con- . . ... . 
 
 sidered. parts of the passage, which he gives by piecemeal, 
 
 but which we have copied entire from the Historical 
 Work, so far as he has animadverted upon it. The 
 manner in which he has separated it into such por- 
 tions as best suited his purpose, must have been adopted 
 without much inattention, for a wilful departure from 
 candour is not here imputed. Mr. Fox begins by stating 
 the result of his own consideration of the reign of Charles 
 the Second to be, that it was f* the sera of good laws and 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 103 
 
 " bad government." Mr. Justice Blackstone in his section 
 Commentaries has enumerated a variety of Statutes — — — — — 
 which had been made, and circumstances which ex- 
 isted in that reign, tending to fix the true ba- 
 lance between liberty and prerogative, and happily 
 giving, as he thought, * a theoretical perfection" to 
 our laws at a certain period of it. Mr. Fox states 
 these particulars, on which he presumed the judge's 
 opinion must have been principally founded; and upon 
 a remark, that this period of perfection was immedi- 
 ately followed by times of great practical oppression, 
 without giving any opinion himself, says, " what a 
 " field for meditation does this short observation from 
 " such a man furnish;" and in pursuing the re- 
 flections which naturally arose in his mind, he says, 
 " Here we are then at the best moment of the best 
 re constitution ever human wisdom framed. What fol- 
 '•' lows," &c. Mr. Fox does not give this as his own 
 description, but that of Blackstone ; and therefore upon 
 his view of the political state of the country the 
 subsequent reflections are founded. 
 
 The reader will recollect that Mr. Justice Black- 
 stone, in the passage already cited, has stated that, after 
 this period of theoretical perfection, " some invidious, 
 " nay, dangerous branches of the prerogative" have 
 since been lopped off, and the rest more clearly de- 
 
A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section £ n ed, Mr. Rose fixing upon the words of the note, 
 ■ and not regarding the exception, which the judge 
 
 had made in the text, proceeds to object to this 
 aera of theoretical perfection being properly chosen, 
 because imperfections still remain in our constitution. 
 With this position the learned judge would certainly 
 have agreed ; and when Mr. Rose tells us, that in the 
 very next year the House of Commons, aware that there 
 s> were such imperfections, attempted to remedy them and 
 
 failed, the judge would have joined with Mr. Rose in 
 regretting, that any improvements, which were then sug- 
 gested, should have been postponed to a future pe- 
 riod. 
 
 Throughout his Observations on this part of Mr. 
 Fox's book, Mr. Rose has mistaken the object and 
 course of reasoning of the author. Many other instan- 
 ces of similar misapprehension have been pointed out 
 already, and many others will occur in the course 
 of our examination of ' his work. No intentional de- 
 viation from the strict line of rectitude is imputed, 
 but a stronger series of proofs cannot be required to 
 manifest the inferiority of his reasoning powers to those 
 of Mr. Fox, which he has himself so candidly ac- 
 knowledged. Mr. Fox's course of argument is this: 
 at this time, so many circumstances had concurred 
 to improve our law, that a great authority, Mr. 
 Justice Blacks tone is induced to denominate it 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 105 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 the period at which our constitution attained its great- 
 est theoretical perfection ; and yet, by the acknow- 
 ledgement of all men, and the admission of Black- 
 stone himself, this period is followed by times of great 
 practical oppression. If then a period of laws so good, 
 as to induce a judicious and most able writer to fix upon 
 it as a period of theoretical perfection, be followed by 
 times of practical oppression, how vain then, how 
 idle, how presumptuous the opinion, that laws can do 
 every thing, &c. To this passage Mr. Rose objects, 
 that this was not a period of perfection in our con- 
 stitution, but it is the point, at which an eminent writer 
 fixes that perfection, which is all that Mr. Fox states, 
 and all that is necessary for his argument to be ad- 
 mitted. Mr. Rose then proceeds triumphantly to sug- 
 gest, that chiefly through the dependence of the judges 
 upon the Crown, coupled with the defect of not holding 
 Parliaments frequently, a time of oppression and misery 
 did succeed the period so often mentioned. But he 
 forgets that this suggestion, so far from being the con- 
 futation, is the evidence and proof of the justice of 
 Mr. Fox's observation. 
 
 Mr. Rose takes an opportunity of descanting upon importance of 
 
 * * •> D xr Judges being 
 
 the importance of judges being independent of the ' ride P endCRt - 
 Crown, and of shewing that instances had occurred in 
 the reigns of Charles the First and Second, of removals 
 
106 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 I. 
 
 of* judges to answer the purposes of the court.* Of 
 the extreme importance of persons in judicial situations 
 being perfectly independent, and free from influence, 
 it is impossible to have too high an opinion. That 
 independence is the source of security, confidence, and 
 happiness to all. While it preserves the great liberty of 
 the whole mass of the people, it protects each individual 
 n the enjoyment of 'his property, his family, his liberty, 
 his life, in short, of all that is dear to man. The general 
 persuasion of the independent and honourable conduct 
 of the judges in this country, has inspired even the lowest 
 classes of its people with strong feelings of personal 
 consequence, and independence. The poorest labourer 
 knows full well that the hand of oppression cannot 
 be laid upon him, without incurring the penalties of 
 laws, which make no distinction of persons, and are 
 administered with the strictest impartiality. This has 
 
 * These instances, few in number, are thrown together in a very 
 slovenly manner, and as our historians in general seem not to be aware 
 of the extent to which the prerogative was exercised in the removal of 
 judges, a list of most of those who were displaced at different times 
 will be given in the Appendix, but is not offered as perfectly correct. 
 The public have to acknowledge its obligation to Mr: Rose, for a 
 note, stating, from the records, the tenure by which the judges held 
 their offices, previously to the concluding part of the reign of Charles the 
 Second ; although a doubt arises, as will be pointed out hereafter in the 
 Appendix, whether the information there given is to be implicity relied 
 upon. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 107 
 
 given to our Government stability and strength; and section 
 
 enabled this island' to resist with success the utmost — 
 
 exertions of a gigantic power, straining every nerve 
 to destroy its happiness. The people spontaneously, 
 and cheerfully rally round the standard of a Govern- 
 ment, under which, notwithstanding all its imperfec- 
 tions, its subjects are individually possessed of more 
 happiness, and liberty, than ever fell to the lot of any 
 other nation upon the face of the earth. 
 
 The time of oppression and misery, which follow- 
 ed, not, as Mr. Rose states, " the asra selected by" 
 Mr. Fox, but " the period of theoretical perfection," 
 pointed out by Mr. Justice Blackstone, Mr. Rose thinks 
 is to be attributed to two causes, the want of an effec- Rose, p.j6. 
 tual provision " to guard against long intervals of Par- 
 " liament, and to secure the independence of the 
 " judges." 
 
 He is not yet satisfied with the repeal of that " very Mr. Rose again 
 " effectual" Act, as he terms it, passed by the Long Par- delator/ "o* 
 liament, which Mr. Justice Blackstone and Mr. Fox rights. 
 
 . i lb. p. 30. 
 
 conceived, with the legislature which repealed it, to be 
 derogatory to the rights of the Crown. He is so zea- 
 lous a friend to the frequent meeting of Parliaments, 
 that to secure that blessing to the people, he would 
 trench deep into the royal prerogative, and after a default 
 on the part of the King, even allow the members to as- 
 
 p 2 
 
)08 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section semble without his summons. This, as has been ob- 
 — served before, Mr* Fox disapproved of. 
 
 After he has set up his own hypothesis he combats 
 Mr. Fox's, that the time of oppression and misery 
 above alluded to, was owing to a corrupt and wicked 
 administration, and says the question between them 
 is answered by experience, referred to by Mr. Fox 
 himself. Now in what manner this answer is to be 
 inferred is left to the reader to discover, for certainly 
 the passage does not seem immediately to apply to 
 nose, p. 3 6. the subject. But Mr. Rose shall speak for himself, 
 these are his words, &. for in another part of his work 
 " when he compares the culpable proceedings of Lord 
 " Godolphin and Xord Churchill in the reign of James 
 " the Second with their meritorious conduct in the 
 *< reign of Queen Anne, he asks, * Is the difference 
 " to be attributed to any superiority of genius in the 
 " prince whom they served in the latter period of their 
 '{ lives ? Queen Anne's capacity seems to have been 
 " inferior, even to her father's. Did they enjoy in a 
 <e greater degree her favour and confidence ? The very 
 "'reverse is the fact. But in one case they were the 
 " tools of a King plotting against his people, in the 
 " other the minister of a free Government, acting 
 " upon enlarged principles, and with energies which no 
 " state that is not in some degree republican, can 
 " supply.' " Upon this passage Mr. Rose most wisely 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 10Q 
 
 observes, " It must be admitted that since the judges section 
 
 " have held their offices during good behaviour, no — ■ 
 
 " such oppression and miseiy as complained of have 
 " happened." Here Mr. Rose has abandoned his re- 
 publican argument in favour of a more effectual pro- 
 vision for the frequent meeting of Parliament, and leaves 
 his reader to account for the melioration of modern 
 times, solely by the judges holding their offices quam 
 diu se bene gesserint. 
 
 But let us examine how the passage just cited, and oppression un. 
 
 . der good laws, 
 
 the facts there alluded to, support this wild hypothesis. anJ bad minis *' 
 There is a little inaccuracy in the introduction to the 
 quotation, and Mr. Fox's argument loses by the altera- 
 tion ; for he does not compare the culpable proceedings 
 of Lord Godolphin, and Lord Churchill in the reign 
 of James the Second, with their meritorious conduct 
 in the reign of Queen Anne; these expressions are too 
 general, fully to express his meaning. He is con- 
 trasting the meanness of their conduct, and the mea- 
 sures they were engaged in, in the former reign, with 
 their greatness in the latter. " How little," says he, 
 - do they appear in one instance, how great in the 
 ' other! And the investigation, of the cause to which 
 " this is principally owing will produce a most use- 
 " ful lesson. Is the difference, &c." And the para- 
 graph, after Mr. Roes's citation, goes on " how forcibly 
 " roust the contemplation of these men, in such 
 
110 A VINDICATION OP 
 
 section « opposite situations, teach persons engaged in a poli- 
 
 • " tical life, that a free and popular government is 
 
 " desirable not only for the public good, but for their 
 " own greatness and consideration, for every object 
 " of generous ambition. " Now in the name of won- 
 der what can this observation have to do with judges 
 enjoying their offices quam diu se bene gesserint ! 
 Whether these noble Lords, in the characters of ministers 
 of the Crown, appear little or great must depend upon 
 other causes, besides the independence of the judges, 
 and Mr. Fox traces the difference to the alteration, 
 which had taken place in the form of government. 
 As ministers before the Revolution, they were tools 
 of a King, plotting against his people ; but after that 
 event, they were ministers of a free government, acting 
 upon enlarged principles and with encreased energies. 
 
 Mr. Fox not We have now to notice some more general remarks, 
 
 correctly stated 
 
 as to abuses of ' m w hich Mr. Rose manifests the same misapprehen- 
 
 monarchy. 
 
 sion of the sentiments of Mr. Fox, which we have 
 had occasion to notice, and lament so often before. 
 He assumes, from the passages recently cited, that 
 
 Rose p. 38. there existed in the bosom of Mr. Fox, " a disposition 
 " to think, that the best laws cannot afford security 
 " to the people, under a monarchical government. ' 
 
 lb. P . 40. And concludes this section in full persuasion that one 
 of the leading positions of Mr. Fox is, that " in a 
 " monarchy the force of the legislative provisions 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 11] 
 
 " against despotism is easily overpowered by the am- section 
 " bition of the monarch, and the subserviency of his — — — 
 " ministers." To this charge, so repeatedly urged, the 
 answer is easy, and conclusive, and Mr. Rose is not jus- 
 tified in making it ; for the passages cited, contain no 
 such sentiments as here stated. The time of oppres- 
 sion and misery, which followed Mr. Justice Black- 
 stone's period of theoretical perfection, is imputed by 
 Mr. Fox, " to a corrupt and wicked administration, 
 " which all the so-much-admired checks of the con- 
 " stitution were not able to prevent," and then he 
 draws this conclusion. " How vain then, how idle, 
 " how presumptuous is the opinion, that laws can do 
 " every thing, and how weak and pernicious the 
 " maxim founded upon it, that measures not men are 
 " to be attended to." That laws alone cannot 
 afford security is no where stated to arise from the 
 government being monarchical. Mr. Fox's observation 
 is a general one applicable to all forms of government ; 
 that the best laws cannot afford security, when the 
 execution of them is placed in the hands of corrupt, 
 and wicked men. A political truism, which few will 
 be inclined to dispute. 
 
 Mr. Rose insinuates that Mr. Fox had not examined charge of want 
 
 . . . . . of attention in 
 
 the respective periods, mentioned in this section, with Mr. Fox, not 
 
 • • • t i • i • • found ed. 
 
 proper attention, and with the impartiality, which it is 
 the essence of historical discussions to preserve, but 
 
12 A VINDICATION OF, &C. 
 
 section we shall dismiss the subject, perfectly satisfied that Mr, 
 - Fox will not be found deficient in either of these 
 
 essential requisites ; and deeply regretting that Mr. Rose's 
 efforts to be candid, impartial, and accurate should, 
 contrary to his best intentions, have been so uniformly 
 counteracted by the magic spell of party prejudice. 
 
SECTION THE SECOND. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Mr. Rose disputes where Mr. Fox's Work begins. — Treachery of Charles 
 the Second to his Ministers. — Mr. Rose only gives an Abstract of the 
 Treaty of 1670. — How far Clarendon privy to Charles receiving money 
 from France. 
 
 a2 
 
SECTION THE SECOND. 
 
 SECTION 
 II. 
 
 I>* the portion of Mr. Fox's Work, noticed in this Section, 
 Mr. Rose has discovered little to blame, and much to 
 approve; and we shall now proceed to examine, whether Mr. Rwcdu- 
 
 *■ * *■ putes where 
 
 the tew animadversions he has made, are well founded or Mr -. Fo *' sWork 
 
 " begins. 
 
 not. His first observation is, that " The Historical Part R 0S ep. 4 i. 
 
 " of Mr. Fox's Work, though classed with the prefatory 
 
 " reflections under the title of Introduction, begins at the 
 
 " Restoration." To this, it is only necessary to answer, 
 
 that Mr. Fox himself must be supposed to know best, 
 
 where he meant his work should begin, and in a private 
 
 letter he writes, "the death of Charles the Second is the Fox »p- xvii - 
 
 " period, from which I commence my History, though 
 
 " in my Introduction I take a pretty full view of his 
 
 " reign.'" 
 
 Mr. Rose is well satisfied with the historian, till thev Treachery of 
 
 ' " Chaile? to hit 
 
 are arrived at the year 1670, and approves of the ««"«««•• 
 
118 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 II. 
 
 Fox, p. a j. 
 
 character given of the ministry, known by the name 
 of the Cabal. But he objects to Mr. Fox's assertion, 
 that " the King kept from them the real state of his 
 " connection with France ; and from some of them at 
 " least, the secret of what he was pleased to call his 
 " religion," and to his not deciding whether the motive 
 for this conduct in Charles was his habitual treachery, 
 or an apprehension that his ministers " might demand 
 " for themselves some share of the French money, which 
 " he was unwilling to give them." Mr. Rose, in a note, 
 remarks, that this is an extraordinary alternative, for, from 
 a variety of letters from Barillon to Lewis found in 
 Dalrymple, and one of them printed in the Appendix 
 to the Historical Work, it is evident " that Charles's 
 s< ministers were fully apprized of his money transactions 
 " with Lewis." Mr. Rose is guilty here of a little 
 anacronism, for Barillon did not come over to England, 
 as ambassador, till 167 7 , and the letters, here alluded to, 
 were written after that period, and of course long after 
 the Cabal had been dismissed. It remains for Mr. Rose 
 to shew how Mr. Fox's observations upon the ministers 
 of 1670 can be affected by letters, written concerning 
 others who were in power, seven years at least after- 
 wards. 
 
 Rose, p. 4a; But to return, Mr. Rose says, first, that, for this 
 
 charge of treachery, on the part of the King, there is no 
 authority quoted, and there is no probability of its 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 11# 
 
 being well founded. As to authorities, we learn from 
 a Letter in the Preface, that Mr. Fox regarded his 
 Introduction, including the period down to the death 
 of Charles the Second, " rather as a discussion, alluding 
 " to known facts, than a minute inquiry into disputed 
 " points," and he might think himself justified in 
 assuming this concealment to be a known fact, after 
 both Dalrjmple, and Macpherson had produced abun- 
 dant authorities to prove it. 
 
 That the charge is improbable, becomes next the 
 task of Mr. Rose to prove, and to do this, he has recourse 
 to that same inconsistent course of argument, which he 
 adopts upon many other occasions. The clause in the 
 treaty itself, stipulating that it should be kept secret until 
 a fit time should occur to put it into execution, does not, 
 as he observes, prove that it was to be concealed from 
 any of Charles's confidential servants, for though all the 
 ministers had been informed of its contents, that clause 
 might properly have continued to make a part. Its object 
 was to secure the concealment of the treaty from 
 others, not from those, who were in the confidence 
 of the King, or already acquainted with it. 
 
 That the King did not conceal the secret of his reli- 
 gion from some of his ministers at least, is attempted to 
 be proved by Mr. Rose in this curious manner. He cites, 
 but for the purpose only of combating it, the assertion of 
 
 SECTION 
 
 ir. 
 
 Fox, xv. 
 
 Ro e, p. 42. 
 
120 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section Dalrymple, •* that the treaty was unknown to the pro- 
 
 testant ministers;" this, he says, is not correct, because 
 
 Lord Arlington was one of the English commissioners, 
 who negotiated and signed it, and he was a professed 
 Protestant, though a concealed Catholic. Dalrymple was 
 well aware of the religious faith of Arlington, when he 
 made the above assertion; and because he was a concealed 
 Catholic, and as such trusted with the secret, classed 
 him with the avowed professors of his religion, and 
 excluded him from the number of Protestant ministers. 
 
 Rose, p . 43. " To one of his ministers therefore," adds Mr. Rose, 
 
 triumphantly, " the whole of this treaty was perfectly well 
 " known." We will go further, and admit that it was 
 known to two of them, Arlington a concealed, and Clifford 
 an avowed Catholic, and their names, with those of Arundel, 
 and Sir Robert Bellings, also Catholics, are signed as com- 
 
 ib.p.ji. missioners to the abstract of the treaty, which Mr. Rose 
 himself has published. The reference he makes to the 
 treaty, he says, " establishes beyond all controversy, 
 *' that Mr. Fox's charge against the King, and his 
 " ministers, of mutual treachery towards each other, is 
 " not founded." Here Mr. Rose does not correctly state 
 the before mentioned passage in Mr. Fox's book : for it 
 does not contain a charge of mutual treachery, but of 
 treachery, only on the part of the King, towards his 
 ministers, in concealing, from some of them, the secret 
 of his religion, 
 
MR. FOX*S HISTORICAL WORK. 121 
 
 Mr. Rose, not very consistently, admits that the Duke section 
 
 of Buckingham was not in the secret ; but forgetful ' 
 
 of his prudent engagement never to contend with Mr. RoseInt -* lT - 
 Fox in argument, when he agreed with him in fact, 
 will not allow that he was excluded for either of the 
 reasons suggested, and informs us that, in a letter from 
 Charles to the Duchess of Orleans, his timidity was 
 assigned as a reason; and in one to Lewis, that he 
 could not keep a secret. The first of these reasons the 
 reader may have some difficulty to discover in the letter 
 alluded to, and the validity of the second it is not 
 material at present to discuss. 
 
 The reader may now, upon the abstract of the treaty 
 produced by Mr. Rose, and the admissions made by 
 him, judge for himself whether Mr. Fox's assertion is 
 not substantially verified. It appears that to Clifford, 
 and Arlington, the one an avowed, the other a concealed 
 Catholic, the full extent of the Treaty was known, for 
 they negotiated it ; and that it was kept from the know- 
 ledge of Buckingham, a Protestant. But Mr. Rose has 
 not attempted to prove, that either Lauderdale, or 
 Ashley, who were also members of the Cabal, and both 
 Protestants, were ever consulted. On the contrary, Da , #MemJi 
 in Colbert's letter of the 25th of August, 1670, cited p- 8 ^ 
 
 Rose, p. 43. 
 
 bv Mr. Rose, it is stated, that Charles had proposed 
 the Traite Simule, which should be a repetition of 
 the former one, in all things, except the article re- 
 lative to the Ring's declaring himself a Catholic ; and 
 
 R 
 
122 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 II. 
 
 that the Protestant ministers, Buckingham, Ashley 
 - Cooper, and Lauderdale should be brought to be par- 
 ties to it. Buckingham went over to France to nego- 
 tiate it there, and Lauderdale, Ashley Cooper, and the 
 Duke of York, were appointed commissioners to con- 
 duct it here, with M. Colbert the French Ambassa- 
 dor. These latter signed the Treaty in June 1671 
 without there being, as Dalrymple observes, the least 
 reason to believe the Protestant commissioners knew of 
 the former Treaty made by the Popish ones. The bare 
 execution of the Traite' Simule, with the knowledge, 
 and under the direction of the Protestant ministers, is 
 a pretty strong proof of their ignorance of a Treaty, 
 concerning most of the subjects mentioned in it, having 
 been executed only the year before, and remaining 
 then in force. 
 
 Mr. Roee only 
 
 givesanab- Before the Treaty of 1670 is dismissed from notice, 
 
 »tract of the J 
 
 Treaty of 1670. it may be proper to mention, that Mr. Rose describes 
 it, as " an object of high importance," which has not 
 been seen by any of our historians, nor its whole con- 
 tents hitherto published ; he has, therefore, favour- 
 ed the public with a very correct abstract of it, ex- 
 cept the second article, concerning the change of the 
 religion of Charles, which is copied, verbatim. A 
 complete copy is, according to Mr. Rose, still a deside- 
 ratum, and as he charges Mr. Fox with culpable negli- 
 gence for not applying for information in various quarters, 
 
MR. fox's historical work. 12; 
 
 it may be asked, why Mr. Rose should content himself section 
 
 with an abstract only of this precious paper? he had — 
 
 seen the original in 1781, and therefore knew of its 
 existence ; he was acquainted with the noble Lord, 
 who not only possessed it, but condescended with his 
 own hand to make the abstract ; Why then did he 
 not request a copy ? He cannot be charged hcc, as he 
 charges Mr. Fox, with not seeking out materials, but he 
 appears not to have taken the trouble to possess him- 
 self of such, as he had discovered, and lay within his 
 grasp. 
 
 Rose, p. 5(8 
 
 Mr. Rose then concurs with Mr. Fox, in the expedi- 
 ency of the Bill of Exclusion, but should find it difficult 
 to agree with him in his reasoning upon it. However, as 
 no specific objections are stated, it is not necessary to 
 enter into the argument. 
 
 The following passage in Mr. Fox's book has been clarendon not 
 made the subject of animadversion, " Clarendon is said Fngmoneyfrom 
 " to have been privy to the King's receiving money 
 " from Lewis the Fourteenth, but what proofs exist of 
 " the charge, (for a very heavy charge it is,) I know not." 
 Mr. Rose speaking of Charles's obtaining money from i b ;d. 
 France, states it to have arisen from the excess of his 
 private expenses, and a desire to have a fund for cor- 
 rupt purposes at home, and alluding to this passage in 
 the Historical Work, says, " the practice began very 
 
 r 2 
 
124 A VINDICATION OP 
 
 section tt soon after the Restoration, under the management of 
 
 " the Earl of Clarendon, whom Mr. Fox considers as 
 
 " quite innocent of it ." And supposes if he had seen 
 the reference in Sir John Dalrymple's book to the Cla- 
 rendon Papers, he could not have formed that opinion, 
 those papers being ready of access. And in a note, in 
 Rose p. 141,142 another place, he returns to the charge, and affects 
 again to doubt, whether Mr. Fox ever read the letters 
 published by Sir John Dalrymple, for if he had he 
 must have " been aware of that author's reference to 
 " the Clarendon State Papers to support a fact, which 
 " Mr. Fox considers, as utterly unsupported." The 
 truth is, that Mr. Rose is guilty of an unintentional, but 
 gross perversion of the words of Mr. Fox, as the reader 
 will see by comparing the passages above cited. Mr. 
 Fox says, he knows not what are the proofs ; and this 
 ignorance is tortured, first into a belief of the innocence 
 of the party, and then into a declaration that there exists 
 no evidence of the charge. 
 
 The charge against Mr. Fox consists of two parts, 
 1st. That he has not examined proofs, to which he might 
 easily have had access. 2dly. That he has formed an 
 erroneous opinion of Clarendon's* innocence. To the 
 first the answer is easy and decisive. It has been 
 observed before, that Mr. Fox's History does not begin 
 till the reign of James the Second, and that his intro- 
 ductory chapter was intended to be, rather an allusion 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 125 
 
 to known facts, than a minute inquiry into disputed section 
 
 points. The guilt of Clarendon, he was aware, was 
 
 not a known fact, but to be considered as a point, which 
 might be disputed. He therefore, according to the plan 
 he had laid down for himself, only mentions the impu- 
 tation, but avoids entering into a discussion of the evi- 
 dence, by which it was supposed to be supported. In 
 doing this he delivers no opinion whatever, and as Dal- 
 rymple had originally, if not solely, made the charge, 
 it is scarcely to be supposed that he could, as Mr< 
 Rose observes, have been ignorant of the reference 
 alluded to. 
 
 To the second, the answer is not less conclusive, Rose, p. st- 
 the Clarendon Papers, Mr. Rose says, " clearly prove 
 " that the Chancellor and his son were the active and 
 " sole agents in money transactions with the French 
 " minister here, at this early period." At the time 
 when Dalrymple wrote, these papers had not been 
 published, and he might not have seen them himself, 
 and probably cited them from the information of others. 
 But Mr. Rose has no such excuse, the papers have 
 been published many years, Mr. Rose has read them, 
 and in his Observations not only quotes the particular 
 letters, but copies the passages, which he conceives 
 to prove the proposition he has laid down, as well 
 as that of Dalrymple, who says, * In an evil hour ^ ltMem - '• p- 
 ** for Charles the Second, Clarendon had taught him in 
 
tt 
 tt 
 
 126 A VINDICATION OP 
 
 SECTION tt t jj e yer y £ rs(; y earg Q £ hig rei g n tQ rece ^ ve mone j 
 
 " from France, unknown to his people." 
 
 ciar.iii.st. The substance of the State Papers may be stated in 
 
 Pap. Supplem. *• J 
 
 p- l a few words. In March, 1G61, Bastide, the French 
 
 minister, in an interview with Lord Clarendon, offered 
 him by virtue of orders from his Court, as a present 
 for himself, the sum of lo,oool. On the J 7th April, 
 
 ib.p.iv, in a letter from Bastide was inclosed a slip of paper, 
 offering that or a larger sum, beginning in this manner. 
 If your Lordship hath occasion, for the furthering 
 or promoting the King of England's, and your own 
 " interest, at the next Parliament, or for any other 
 
 i hc u end, &c." On the next day, Clarendon, in a letter 
 
 to Bastide in consequence of that inclosure, stated 
 
 that the temper of the Parliament was expected to be 
 
 friendly, but the asking of money was intended to be 
 
 deferred, till some other things of greater importance 
 
 had been obtained, and in consequence the King might be 
 
 in some difficulty, and then asked, " do you believe if the 
 
 " King desires it, that the King of France will lend him 
 
 ?' 5o,ooo for ten or twelve months, in which time it shall 
 
 " be punctually repaid," and if such a proposition was 
 
 unseasonable he undertook to prevent its being made. 
 
 ib. P .xi. After this, Clarendon endeavoured to procure from France 
 
 some pecuniary assistance for the war of Portugal, which 
 
 he says Charles was unable alone to defray. In answer, 
 
 Oth August, 1 06 1 , Bastide says " the King of England may 
 
lb. p. xii. 
 
 lb. p. xiv. 
 
 lb, p.xxiii. 
 xxiv. 
 
 MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 12? 
 
 " be sure of 1,800,000 French livres or 2,000,000 for section 
 '* these two or three years," and in that month the latter 
 sum had been agreed upon. No part of this sum was 
 ever paid, and the affairs of Portugal, and the King's 
 necessities becoming urgent, Clarendon negotiated the 
 sale of Dunkirk to France, which there is some reason 
 to suspect was a measure he neither proposed nor approv- 
 ed of. However, as minister, he conducted the negotia- 
 tion, and in September, 1662, it was settled, that Charles 
 was to receive 5,000,000 of livres. It is to be observed 
 here, that no son of the Earl of Clarendon is men- 
 tioned to have taken any part in these negotiations,* 
 and therefore Mr. Rose is mistaken when he asserts, 
 that " the Chancellor, and his son " were agents in 
 them. Whatever praise, or blame is connected with 
 them belongs exclusively to Clarendon himself. 
 
 The first negotiation appears to have been for a loan 
 of 5o,oool. ; the second for assistance in the war in 
 favour of Portugal, the nature of which is not parti- 
 cularly explained, but seems to have been for a subsidy, 
 rather than a loan ; and, the third, for the sale of Dunkirk. 
 The plan of this work does not make it requisite to 
 enter here into a defence of the conduct of the Earl 
 of Clarendon, in all or any of these transactions ; but 
 it may be proper to add a few remarks in support 
 of an observation made by Mr. Fox, that his adminis- 
 
 « His eldest Son was trusted with the secret, and wrote a letter in 
 cipher for his father. Clar. St. Pap. Supp. iii. p. ii. 
 
128 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 II. 
 
 tration was less exceptionable by far, than any of those, 
 which succeeded it. There is no evidence that any 
 money was received by Clarendon, or through any 
 measures advised by him, till the price of Dunkirk was 
 paid. Nor in the application he originally made, or 
 the negotiations founded upon it, did he condescend 
 to degrade himself, his King, or his country, by making 
 any concessions, or propositions inconsistent with the 
 honour of any of them : Louis the Fourteenth was not 
 to direct, or be admitted to any participation in the 
 internal government, or domestic concerns of Eng- 
 land ; Charles was not to become the pensioner of a 
 foreign power. The Earl of Clarendon, from any 
 thing appearing in the State Papers, would have been 
 shocked, and in as strong terms, as Mr. Rose has 
 used, might, if not restrained by a consideration of 
 respect for monarchy, have expressed his detestation of 
 the " debasing conduct," of the " profligacy of the 
 " monarch," submitting to such base practices : and his 
 deep indignation at the " infamy" attending them. — To 
 the charge of having negotiated, first a loan, and then 
 a subsidy for his Sovereign, and when he failed in 
 both, of consenting to and negotiating the sale of 
 Dunkirk to relieve him from embarrassment, Clarendon 
 must plead guilty ; but proofs are yet wanting, that he 
 was the agent in any money transactions, which were 
 inconsistent with the national honour, unless the sale 
 of Dunkirk, to which resort was had at last, may be 
 
Mr. fox's historical work. 12© 
 
 deemed one. His refusal of the proffered bribe of France sect k>n 
 
 forms a pleasing contrast with the infamous conduct 
 
 of some subsequent ministers, who made no scruple 
 to receive money from that power. 
 
 The cautious and just manner, in which Mr. Fox 
 alludes to the report of Clarendon's having been privy to 
 the King's receiving money from Lewis, does equal credit 
 to his candour, and sagacity. If the political atmos- 
 phere, to which Mr. Rose ascribes such powerful effects, 
 and by which he is so often influenced himself, had 
 really infected Mr. Fox's ingenuous mind, would an 
 extraordinary, and in Mr. Rose's judgment an over 
 scrupulous tenderness for Clarendon's reputation have 
 been one of the symptoms of such contagion? It would 
 have been rather an act of justice than of candour, if 
 Mr. Rose, when he noticed Mr. Fox's doubt of GHareHr 
 don's guilt, had stated that the testimony of such a 
 writer, biassed, as he has insinuated he was, afforded a 
 strong presumption of the innocence of the party ; or, if 
 that innocence were questionable, as Mr. Rose seems to 
 imagine, that the easy belief of Mr. Fox in the truth of it 
 was incontrovertible evidence of the candour, with which 
 he examined the character of those persons, from whose 
 political principles he most widely differed, and of 
 whose political conduct he could not approve. 
 
 s 
 
ISO A VINDICATION OF, &C. 
 
 section We shall not attend Mr. Rose in his inquiry into 
 ____- — — the extent, to which the corrupt intercourse of the 
 King, and his ministers with France was carried after 
 Clarendon's disgrace, because he has been anticipated 
 by Dalrymple, whose argument, and arrangement of 
 proofs Mr. Rose has contented himself with following, 
 and adopting. But, as the Observer and Historian are 
 at last agreed, we shall pass over ten pages, chiefly 
 occupied with extracts from Correspondence, and con- 
 gratulate the reader upon his having arrived at the end 
 of the section. Our congratulations may also be extended 
 to Mr. Rose, upon there being " so little ground for 
 Rose, p. 67. " any difference of opinion, as to render it unnecessary 
 " to call the public attention to" any thing, said by 
 Mr. Fox, " of the arbitrary and oppressive measures," 
 during the remainder of the reign of Charles the Second. 
 Indeed they could scarcely be described by any person 
 in expressions more strong, or less respectful to Kings, 
 than those to which we have before made allusion, 
 and in which Mr. Rose has thought fit to declare his 
 abhorrence and indignation of them. 
 
SECTION THE THIRD. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 To be Independent of Parliaments the Object of James's Connection 
 with France. — The Establishment of the Catholic Religion not his 
 Primary Object. — A Complete Toleration all he intended at first — 
 Proved bv his Acts in England, Scotland and Ireland — And by the 
 French Correspondence. — His absurd Conduct when Duke of York, if 
 Bigotry his ruling Passion. — Partial to the Episcopalians in Scot- 
 land, and enforced a Test in their favour. — His Confidential Advisers 
 were Protestants. — Argument from the removal of Queensberry. — 
 James, as King, expected Support from the Episcopalians. — His Ob- 
 ject compatible with the Preservation of the Established Church. — 
 During the League, the Protestants of France, on the side of Arbitrary 
 Power. — The Religious Zeal of Lewis the Fourteenth subservient 
 to the Love of Power. — Mr. Fox's System affords a more instructive 
 Lesson to Kings, and Subjects. — The Desire and Abuse of Power 
 natural to Kings, as well as other Men. — Some Principles, and Ex- 
 pressions of Mr. Rose disrespectful to Royalty. 
 

\ 
 
 SECTION THE THIRD. 
 
 After having occupied so many pages in the consi- section 
 deration, and refutation of Objections in 1 general of a I!I ' 
 nature, so trivial, as hardly to have been deserving of Motive for 
 
 O James's con- 
 
 notice, the reader may not be displeased to be arrived £ ectionwith 
 
 L France, to be 
 
 at the Commencement of Mr. Fox's History, and the p a d r if a endent of 
 accession of James the Second. Here, for the first time, 
 we find Mr. Rose disputing upon a question of great 
 general importance, and conducting the combat with more 
 of impartiality, and candour, than he has hitherto ex- 
 hibited. 
 
 i 
 The proposition, to which he objects is, that, in Fox »p 102 - 
 James the immediate specific motive to a connection 
 with France, " was the same as that of his brother, 
 
136 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section « the desire of rendering himself independent of Par- 
 
 —. " liament, and absolute, not that of establishing popery 
 
 " in England, which was considered as a more remote 
 " contingency." 
 
 Rose p. 74. Mr. Rose begins by making some observations to 
 
 vindicate the two brothers from having had the desire 
 of rendering themselves independent of Parliament. 
 The substance of his argument is, that it was more 
 likely to have been the intention of James, to " make 
 " Parliaments subservient to him, than to attempt to 
 " govern without them." It may be remarked that 
 Mr. Fox's observation was not that these brothers 
 attempted to govern altogether without Parliaments, 
 but that they had the desire to render themselves in- 
 dependent of them, and absolute : and Mr. Rose admits 
 that for nearly four years, Charles, at the con- 
 clusion of hi§; life, manifested no disposition to call 
 one, even when his necessities must have compelled 
 him, if he had lived only a few months longer. 
 Charles, however, in his applications for money fre- 
 quently alludes to the possible, and even probable, 
 necessity of calling a Parliament, notwithstanding any 
 aids he might receive from France : and the very compre- 
 hensive logic of Mr. Rose collects from this circumstance, 
 not only that Charles, but James also, intended to make 
 Parliaments subservient to him, rather than to govern 
 altogether without them. It may, in the first place, be 
 
MR. FOXS HISTORICAL WORK. 13/ 
 
 observed, that Mr. Rose's reasoning, if it was as satis- S£ ction 
 
 factory and conclusive, as it is loose, and unfounded, ~ 
 
 would admit the substance of Mr. Fox's proposition, 
 and be a confirmation of, rather than an answer to the 
 statement it is intended to confute. A King, who 
 makes Parliaments subservient to his will, renders him- 
 self independent of them. He may, for the sake of state, 
 of convenience, or of hypocrisy, chuse to preserve the 
 appearance of a Parliament, but the moment he becomes 
 its master, and its proceedings are governed by his plea- 
 sure, he is independent of it. Mr. Rose, therefore seems 
 not to have attended to the signification of the words 
 used by Mr. Fox, when he construes, " the desire of 
 " rendering himself independent of Parliament," to mean, 
 that he desired to rule entirely without one. But, 
 if we concede to him that these expressions are synoni- 
 mous, and that the desire of the two brothers, mentioned 
 by Mr. Fox, was, in substance, that they might rule 
 without a Parliament, we may express our surprise, 
 that Mr. Rose should feel any objection to the propo- 
 sition so understood ; for referring to page 62, of the 
 Observations, the reader will find him adopting the 
 sentiment in the fullest terms. " We shall reserve," 
 says he, " for separate consideration the advances, made 
 " for enabling the King to govern without Parlia- 
 <c ments, as relating equally to the reign of James 
 " the Second" Between Mr. Rose when delivering 
 
 T 
 
138 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 HI. 
 
 this opinion, and Mr. Fox, as he understands him, there 
 is no ground for dispute. Why he expressed a different 
 opinion afterwards, unless for the double pleasure of 
 contradicting Mr. Fox, and himself, it may not be easy 
 to explain. 
 
 Mr. Rose is pleased to say, that the assertion of 
 Mr, Fox is " contrary to the clearest evidence before 
 " us," and as far as it is possible to collect his mean- 
 ing, it seems that the clear evidence to which he alludes, 
 consists of the actual necessities of Charles, and his 
 frequent expressions of apprehension, that they would 
 compel him to resort to a Parliament. Does Mr. Rose 
 then, mean to say that a man's apprehension of being 
 obliged to do a thing is a clearer proof of his wish to 
 do it, than his wilful and voluntary omission of it, 
 when in his power, is evidence of his design to avoid 
 it? Charles for four years persisted in his resolution 
 not to call a Parliament. He might have been com- 
 pelled to call one, and he might have foreseen that he 
 could not avoid it, but the very manner, in which 
 he speaks of the possibility of that necessity, evinces 
 his averseness to resort to the measure, and the fact 
 of no Parliament being assembled for so long a time, 
 affords a presumption, that he had taken effec- 
 tual precautions for avoiding the occurrence of that 
 necessity. We forbear to pursue the argument further 
 at present, it will be resumed hereafter. 
 
MR. FOl's HISTORICAL WORK. 13{) 
 
 Mr. Rose next proceeds, in opposition to Mr. Fox, section 
 to lav down a proposition, which he says is clear, that 
 
 J r ''r-% The establish- 
 
 James's conduct after he came to the Crown, shews mem of the 
 
 Catholic Reli- 
 
 in the exercise of that power, which he was so eager § ion > not the 
 
 *• ° first with of 
 
 to obtain '* the w r ish nearest his heart, was the esta- i ame8 - 
 
 Rose, p. 74. 
 
 " blishment of the Catholic religion in this country." 
 He begins his proofs by contrasting the conduct of the 
 two brothers during the reign of Charles ; he shews 
 that Charles was personally indifferent upon the sub- 
 ject, and aware of the danger of the attempt; that 
 he entertained great apprehensions of the consequences 
 of his brother's conversion, and was most anxiously 
 desirous that he should take the Protestant Tests, and 
 return to the Established Church. These facts prove 
 that Charles had nothing of the zeal of a Martyr about 
 him, and preferred his own ease to any other considera- 
 tion ; and that the Duke of York possessed a greater 
 violence of temper, a prouder spirit, and a more obsti- 
 nate disposition ; but we are yet to learn, whether they 
 were not both principally actuated by the same object, 
 the love of power. 
 
 In discussing this subject the author is in some respect 
 an impartial inquirer. When Mr. Fox was writing this 
 part of his w r ork, he did me the honour, occasion- 
 ally to mention in conversation, the manner, in which 
 particular parts of our history had impressed his mind. 
 And upon the point, now in dispute I ventured to differ 
 
 T 2 
 
140 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section from him, conceiving with historians of all parties, that 
 
 . » the principal motive, which actuated James's public 
 
 conduct, was the establishment of the Catholic religion 
 in his dominions, and that he was to be considered, 
 rather as a bigot, than a tyrant ; we conversed, and cor- 
 responded upon the subject. But I am not ashamed 
 to avow my having now become a convert to his opinion, 
 and my conviction that in the ambition, not the bigotry 
 of James ; in secular, not religious objects must be sought 
 the master spring of his conduct, immediately after he 
 succeeded to the throne. The correspondence of Bar- 
 rillon, and his master, published in the Appendix to the 
 Historical Work, surprised me, for I had expected it 
 would have furnished the most ample confirmation 
 of the opinion so generally entertained, but on the con- 
 trary, an examination of the documents at first gave me 
 reason to doubt, whether it was well founded, and at 
 last compelled me to abandon it altogether. That the 
 fair result of the correspondence, has not been mis- 
 taken, I am satisfied, because Mr, Rose's extracts, which 
 will now be discussed in detail; and may be presumed to 
 contain the strongest passages in favour of his hypo- 
 thesis, form a compact and uniform body of evidence 
 to overthrow it. 
 
 This is certainly a question of great importance for 
 the true understanding of '' the most interesting period 
 " of our history," Mr, Rose has treated it, as a novelty, 
 
MR. FOX ? S HISTORICAL WORK. 141 
 
 in contradiction to his assertion, that Mr. Fox had not section 
 
 brought into view one new historical fact of any impor- 
 
 tance, or thrown an additional gleam of light on 
 any constitutional point whatever. The remainder of 
 this section will be occupied with the examination of 
 the extracts and arguments, comprising his third sec- 
 tion, reserving to a future part of this work a more 
 general and enlarged discussion of the subject. 
 
 s acces- 
 
 Mr. Rose, as has been already mentioned, begins his James 
 observations on the reign of James, in great apparent slon popu!ar ' 
 good humour with Mr. Fox, and concurs with him 
 afterwards in what has never been disputed, that 
 James's accession to the Crown was attended with a ° se ' p " 
 degree of popularity, which surprised him, as much 
 as it has puzzled historians to account for. He ex- 
 pected resistance, but met none; he laid his account 
 for sedition and tumult, but was received not only 
 with respect, but acclamations ; and had he been pos- 
 sessed of a more benevolent heart, or had he not 
 imbibed prejudices, which prevented him from taking 
 advantage of his situation, might in all probability 
 have trampled upon the liberties of his people, without 
 diminishing the stability, or power of the throne-. 
 " What a prospect of success," exclaims Mr. Rose, 
 " was here opened to him of establishing a power great 
 '* as he could wish, but with power alone he could R se,i>. z\. 
 
142 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SE m!° N " not ^e conte nt, except that power should enable 
 
 • " him to establish the Catholic worship throughout 
 
 " his dominions." 
 
 a complete to- Mr. Rose acknowledges that James's conduct became 
 
 leration of Ca- D 
 
 contempTadol 11 more bold, as he felt his power increase, and observes 
 Rose meS 8 ^ at tne I* ar li am ent having not shewn much concern, 
 or jealousy at the King's having gone publicly to 
 mass, or at the disclosure of his brother having died 
 a Catholic, " he thought he might take measures of 
 " a much more decisive nature." And it is upon 
 contemplation of these measures, and the evidence from 
 the French correspondence, that Mr. Rose finds it im- 
 possible to agree with Mr. Fox, and takes upon him- 
 self to prove that the earliest intention of James, 
 " after his accession, was to go much further than 
 to obtain merely a toleration for his own religion." 
 
 Ib. p. 84. 
 
 t( 
 
 It may be suspected that Mr. Rose has misunder- 
 stood the meaning of the expression, used by Mr. 
 fox, P . 78. p ox> w jj savs ^ tc j t j s fry no m eans certain that he 
 
 " had yet thought of obtaining for it" (i. e. the 
 Catholic religion) " any thing more than a complete 
 *' toleration." For Mr. Rose drops the word complete 
 when he states the proposition he means to disprove. 
 Mr. Fox is speaking of a toleration of religious opinions, 
 unattended with any civil tests, or disqualifications. 
 Mr. Rose may have in contemplation a toleration of 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 143 
 
 SECTION 
 III. 
 
 a more confined nature, and much of his argu- 
 ment will, then, be irrelevant to the subject in dis- 
 
 pute. This observation applies most strongly to the 
 
 first proof produced, namely, the determination of 
 
 James to dispense with the penal laws, and give 
 
 commissions in the army to Catholic officers ; for 
 
 the suspension of those laws was necessary in order 
 
 to render the toleration of Catholics complete ; and 
 
 therefore without militating against the opinion of 
 
 Mr. Fox, it may be conceded, that this was one of 
 
 the objects of James at his accession to the throne. 
 
 This renders it unnecessary to examine the acts in £ c j^[ a J n a d m and 
 
 England, or Scotland, enumerated by Mr. Rose; their Scotlan(1, 
 
 tendency being to shew, that James was struggling 
 
 only for a complete toleration for the Catholics, and 
 
 that Mr. Fox is perfectly correct in what he has 
 
 stated. 
 
 * 
 
 With respect to the transactions of the King in inland. 
 Ireland, which took place before the Revolution, the 
 same answer may be given ; for not one of those 
 manifested a will to change the established religion of 
 the country. Mr. Rose seems not to be aware of 
 this distinction, or not to have recollected that the 
 intention of James, immediately after his accession, can- 
 not be inferred, from measures, to which he fruit- 
 lessly had recourse after his abdication, to extricate 
 himself from difficulties, and replace himself upon the 
 
144 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section throne. The period, to which Mr. Fox's observation 
 — more particularly alludes, is between James's acces- 
 sion, and the execution of Monmouth, after which, 
 intoxicated with success, it may be admitted, that 
 he extended his views to objects, which he had not 
 ventured to contemplate before. 
 
 Bariiion s cor- With these short remarks, we shall dismiss the 
 
 respondence 
 
 h r a d V oni Ja kT s consideration of the conduct of the King in England, 
 £a a tio°n mplete Scotland, and Ireland, and the numerous facts de- 
 Rose jP .98. tailed by Mr. Rose, upon which, as he says, " The 
 " proof that James's principal object was the firm 
 " establishment of his own religion throughout his 
 " dominions, might safely be rested," and proceed to 
 the correspondence of Bariiion, upon which it seems 
 both the contending parties principally rely. Mr. Fox 
 however only refers to it generally; Mr. Rose cites 
 passages out of several letters, which he supposes to 
 contradict Mr. Fox's general inference, and it will* 
 therefore, be most convenient to examine the import 
 of Mr. Rose's quotations, presuming that if they fail 
 to shew its fallacy, Mr. Fox's hypothesis is well 
 founded. But it may be necessary first to observe, that 
 Mr. Rose seems to be misled in the judgment, he has 
 formed of the effect of this correspondence, by his 
 not having attended to the meaning of the French 
 word " etablissement." A system of religion is de- 
 nominated an " establishment," or " an established 
 
MR. FOx's HISTORICAL WORK. 145 
 
 rt church," when it is selected by the governing power, section 
 
 declared to be the religion of the state, and endowed - 
 
 with exclusive privileges, and revenues, but a tolera- 
 tion, also may be said to be established when it is se- 
 cured by the legal exercise of the King's prerogative, 
 or an act of the legislative power. And in the course 
 of our examination of the correspondence, it will be 
 apparent that the establishment alluded to on all sides, 
 with reference to the Catholic religion, was not the 
 substitution of it for the national church, but a com« 
 plete toleration for its professors.* 
 
 The first letter, of the 19th February, 1685, cited Row, P . <>*. 
 by Mr. Rose, would be alone decisive. It was written 
 immediately after Barillon's first interview with James 
 upon the death of his brother, and James is stated to 
 have said, that " he knew well that he should never 
 " be in safety, unless liberty of conscience for them 
 
 * In this manner the French verb " etablir" was used in the Histoiredc 
 articles agreed upon at Flex in 1580, between the Duke of Anjou, ^ J e jJ* antcs ' 
 and the King of Navarre, and deputies of the reformed religion. «• 
 By the 6th article, the selection of a place, " pour y etablir l'ex- 
 <l ercise de leur dite religion," was submitted under certain con- 
 ditions to the King. And section the ninth of the Edict of Nantes Ibt p 66# 
 begins thus. " Nous permettons aussi a ceux de la dite religion, faire 
 « et continuer l'exercise d'icelles en toutes les villes et lieux de notre 
 
 * obeissance, ou il etoit par eux etabli, & rait publiquement, par 
 
 * plusieur? et di verses fois en l'annee," &c. 
 
 U 
 
146 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section « should be fully established in England, that it was 
 
 _™_ « to that he meant wholly to apply himself, as soon 
 
 " as he should see a possibility." James had not, at 
 this time, courage to pledge himself to obtain, or even 
 to attempt to obtain liberty of conscience for the Ca- 
 tholics, he doubted the possibility of compassing it, but 
 he was perfectly assured that it was a step necessary 
 for his own safety. Does he feel the love of the Ca- 
 tholic religion as the first motive of action ? as the 
 governing principle of his mind ? No such thing, his 
 own safety was next his heart, and a toleration of 
 the Catholics so far as to allow them the free ex- 
 ercise of their religion, only an expedient for secur- 
 ing it. 
 
 Rose, p. 99 . \ n a letter, (from which Mr. Rose has made two 
 
 short extracts), dated 5th March, a few days after 
 
 fox, Ap P . xiiv. J am es had gone for the first time publicly to mass, 
 Barillon says, that some persons were so discontented 
 with the King's having taken that step, as to have 
 entertained great suspicions of what was to happen in 
 future, and feared that a design was formed to ruin 
 the Protestant religion, and tolerate only the Catholic; 
 but this he treats as a project so difficult in the execu- 
 tion, not to say impossible, that sensible people have 
 no apprehensions of it. Having dismissed that sup- 
 position as too wild, he describes the King and his 
 ministers as exerting themselves to convince reasonable 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. . 14? 
 
 people, that his intention was to govern according to section 
 
 the laws, and to attempt nothing against the safety - 
 
 of the Protestant religion, provided Parliament would 
 grant him the revenue absolutely necessary to carry 
 on the Government, and it was supposed that the 
 Parliament would consent that all persecution against 
 Catholics should cease, so that they might live in quiet. 
 He afterwards writes, that it is almost agreed by both 
 parties, that the penal laws against Catholics shall be 
 abolished, and none shall be prosecuted for exercising 
 their religion in their own houses ; and there was even 
 no doubt, but the Catholic Lords would be allowed to sit 
 in Parliament. Barillon having thus stated a limited 
 toleration to be the object of James, observes (but Mr. 
 Rose has omitted the paragraph) that the great difficulty 
 was as to military and civil officers, but he hoped 
 some expedient might be found, and mentions one, 
 which had been already suggested, that the Catholics 
 might be capable of holding some offices in the House- 
 hold of the King, provided neither jurisdiction, nor com- 
 mand was annexed to them. At this time, then, we 
 are assured, by the papers produced by Mr. Rose, that 
 a limited toleration was hoped for, and a complete 
 one in contemplation, but the Protestant Church 
 was to remain, undisturbed, the established religion of 
 the country. From the parts of the foregoing letters, 
 cited by Mr. Rose, he however draws a different con- 
 clusion, and considers them, as proofs that the esta* 
 
 u 2 
 
A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section blishment of the Catholic religion, on the ruins of 
 — the Church of England, was the object of the King. 
 
 Mr. Rose then quotes passages from a variety of 
 Rose, p. ioo. letters, as H the authority of Lewis himself, for his 
 " having explained that it was for the establishment of 
 et the Catholic religion alone, * that he gave the largest 
 " sums to James. " What Mr. Rose means by " the 
 " largest sums "* paid by Lewis to James baffles all 
 conjecture, for including the arrears of the ancient sub- 
 sidies due to Charles, Barillon never pretended to have 
 paid him more than 800,000 livres. The first letter 
 quoted is dated 24th April, 1685, but unfortunately the 
 words of the French King are, " the establishment of 
 
 * It ■ is not clear that Mr. Rose is justified by the text of the letter 
 quoted, in using- this word and making Lewis confine his intended pre- 
 sent to the purpose of religion only; for Lewis directs Barillon not 
 to part with the balance of 1,600,000 of livres in his hands, except 
 upon two emergencies, in case the King should be obliged to (casser) 
 to break up the Parliament, then " ou quil trouve d'ailleurs de si 
 " fortes oppositions a 1'etablissement d ? un libre exercise de la religion 
 " Catholique, qu'il soit oblige d'employer ses armes contre ses pro- 
 " pres sujets." In either one or the other of the cases specified, Ba- 
 rillon would have had power to lay out the money, but it was not 
 restricted solely to the latter, for in case no attempts had been made in 
 favour of the Catholic religion, and the Parliament had been refrac- 
 tory about promoting supplies, or any other thing not connected with 
 religion, the money might have been disbursed. The word " d'ailleurs," 
 perhaps, is a material word, but Mr. Rose has omitted it entirely hx 
 Ms translation, 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 14<| 
 
 M a free exercise of the Catholic relisriori' that is of section 
 
 a limited toleration for it. Here it is evident, as sug- 
 
 gested before, that Mr. Rose from his ignorance of the 
 French language, has not understood the true import 
 of these expressions, for he has translated the passage 
 in a note verbally right, but given its substance in the 
 text wrong ; a nearly similar expression is found in an 
 extract, from a subsequent letter of Barillon, dated the Rose, p. iqi. 
 30th of April, in which he mentions " the establish- 
 " ment of a free exercise in favour of the Catholic 
 " religion." These expressions evidently allude to a 
 toleration to be sanctioned by the Parliament, which 
 was then sitting, and from which Barillon in his before 
 mentioned letter of the 5th March, had encouraged 
 Lewis to hope it might be obtained, at least under 
 some restrictions. 
 
 It is observable, that Barillon, in the last cited letter Rosc.p.wt 
 (of the 30th April), when pressing Lewis to permit 
 him to advance money to James, undertakes that it 
 shall have a good effect, and be a decisive stroke '• for 
 " what your Majesty has besides* at heart, that is to 
 " say, for the establishment of a free exercise, in 
 
 * Mr. Rose renders " d'avantage a coeur," by the words " most at 
 heart," but it may be doubted whether the word " besides/' as in the 
 text, is not the right translation, at all events Mr. Rose's translation, 
 is not correct, and the word " more" should be substituted for the 
 word " most." 
 
ISO A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section « f aV our of the Catholic religion." In this letter, Ba- 
 
 rillon seems to have been perfectly acquainted with 
 
 the secret views of his master, and from this period, 
 the Catholic religion becomes a more prominent feature 
 in the correspondence, and its toleration an understood 
 object of all parties. 
 
 Rose, p. ioi. On the gth of May, Lewis, as quoted by Mr. Rose, 
 profiting by the hints of Barillon, sets up his zeal for 
 the increase of their religion, as " the principal, or 
 " more properly speaking the sole and only motive, 
 " which obliges him with so much promptitude to 
 " remit so large a sum of money as that of two mil- 
 '* lions to assist the King of England with, in his most 
 " pressing wants;" and afterwards he writes, <e I have 
 " so good an opinion of the firmness of the King of 
 " England in the profession he makes of the Catholic 
 " religion, as to be fully' persuaded he will employ 
 " all his authority to establish the free exercise of it." 
 He seems however to doubt of the warmth of James's 
 zeal when he adds " without its being necessary to 
 " excite him to it *, by a premature distribution of 
 
 * Mr. Rose's translation of the words " de l'y exciter," is certainly 
 incorrect, he renders them by the words " to have recourse to," by 
 which the sense of the passage is materially changed, and the doubt 
 insinuated of James not being sufficiently warm in the cause of religion, 
 entirely lost. 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 151 
 
 SECTION 
 III. 
 
 " money which ought not to be employed if the Par- 
 
 " liament grants the same revenue, as the King of ■ 
 
 " England enjoyed, and consents also to the Esta- 
 '* blishment of the free exercise of our religion ;" in 
 a subsequent part of the letter, Lewis speaks in more 
 general terms of the obstacles, which may occur to 
 " the establishment of the Catholic religion," but it 
 cannot be necessary to enter into arguments to prove, 
 that the last expression must be understood, so as to 
 render it consistent with the former part of the same 
 letter, and to signify the establishment of the free 
 exercise only of that religion. 
 
 On the 15 th of June, the Money Bill having; passed Rosc >p-"4 
 
 . . FoxApp. p. 
 
 on the 30th of May preceding, Lewis is still more ex- xc »- 
 plicit, and Mr. Rose probably would not have cited the 
 letter, if he had been aware of its contents ; after stating 
 a variety of reasons to excuse himself from advancing to 
 James more money than the arrears of former subsidies, 
 Lewis adds, u - there now remains only, as well for 
 " my satisfaction as for his, to obtain the repeal of 
 " the penal laws in favour of the Catholics, and the 
 " free exercise of our religion in all his states" 
 which he reminds Barillon was the principal motive, 
 which had induced him to remit so expeditiously such 
 considerable sums. And as his Parliament seemed so 
 well disposed, as through affection or fear to refuse 
 James nothing, he wished him to profit by it, and obtain 
 
152 A VINDICATION OP 
 
 section what " he desires in favour of our religion :" this is 
 
 — speaking plainly, and it is surprising that Mr. Rose 
 
 should mistake the meaning of this Letter, or that if 
 he understood it, he could have cited it to prove, that 
 it was for the Establishment of the Catholic religion 
 alone, that Lewis gave the largest sums to James. What 
 James desired in favour of the Catholic religion must 
 necessarily relate to what had been mentioned in a 
 former part of the Letter, as the only thing remaining 
 for the satisfaction of both monarchs, that is to say, a 
 toleration for the Catholics, and that, the penal laws 
 being repealed, they should have the free exercise of 
 their religion. 
 
 Rose,p.io6; l n a letter, dated on the 13th of July, cited by Mr. 
 Rose, Lewis pleased with the ample grants of the 
 Parliament, and assuming that James will find no 
 obstacle whatever, to the " re-establishment of the 
 " Catholic religion when he shall be willing to un- 
 " dertake it, after he shall have completely dissipated 
 " the few remaining of those who have revolted," writes 
 " I have thought proper to have returned the funds, 
 " which I have caused to be remitted to you to 
 " support, in case of need, the designs which this 
 " prince might be willing to form in favour of our 
 " religion." It has been observed before that, in the 
 correspondence of Barillon, the expression, " the Ca- 
 '* tholic religion" is used occasionally to signify the 
 

 CSV!. 
 
 im. fox's HISTORICAL WORK. 158 
 
 bare " exercise" of it, and that a toleration sanctioned SE< ^ ON 
 
 by law was the only establishment alluded to. The 
 
 word " re-establishment" must therefore be used in 
 the same manner, not meaning the restoration of the 
 Catholic religion to all the exclusive privileges, and 
 power, of an established church, but to the public ex- 
 ercise of its worship only. If it were possible for a 
 doubt to remain as to the meaning of this expression, Fox,Ap P , ?t 
 a letter of Lewis dated generally, August, 1085, would ~ 
 effectually remove it. The letter is written in high 
 spirits, upon his having received intelligence of Mon- 
 mouth's execution, and he has these words, " 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 Catho- 
 
 * This application of the word " retablir" was well known in 
 France at the time when Barillon wrote, being found in most of Hfstoire de 
 the edicts of pacification with the Hugonots ; thus in one of Charles vol. I. App. p»* 
 the Ninth, made in the year 1570, the third section runs thus: — 9 " 
 M Ordonnons que la religion Catholique & Romaine sera remise, 
 ** & retablie en tous les lieux," &c. " ou l'exercise d'icelie a ete 
 " intermis, pour y etre librement & paisiblement exerce sans aucun 
 " trouble ou empechement sur les peines sus-dites." This provi 
 sion is confirmed in the edicts of Henry the Third in 1577, and 
 in the articles agreed upon in 1580, by the Duke of Anjou for the Ib - P« *9j 
 King, and the King of Navarre, assisted by deputies of the re- 
 formed religion, to be laid before the King for his approbation. 
 In the edict of Nantes, in 1598, complaints are mentioned, " de 
 *' re que, l'exercise de la religion Catholique n'etoit pas universel- 
 
 X 
 
154 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section tt |j c re iigion,* which will strongly engage all those 
 " who make profession of it in his kingdom, to serve 
 " him more faithfully, and more submissively than 
 '* any other of his subjects." 
 
 Rose, p. 107. 
 
 In a letter of July l6thf Barillon describes the great 
 dissatisfaction of the English King, and his ministers at 
 the supplies, which had been promised at the com- 
 mencement of his reign, being withheld in the press- 
 ing emergency, in which James was then placed. 
 Sunderland is made to say, that the King his master 
 had nothing so much at heart as to establish the Catholic 
 religion ; nor according to good sense and right reason 
 could he have any other object, because without it he 
 could never be in security, but always exposed to the 
 indiscreet zeal of those, who should 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 pleinement etabli." Mr. Rose 
 has translated " till it shall be completely established," 
 and marked it with Italics, as being a material passage 
 
 Histoire de " lenient retabli, comme il est porte par les edits cy devant faits," 
 VoL 1? App!p? an ^ m tn6 te ntn section occur these words, " pourra semblablement 
 6 »- " le dit exercise etre etabli, & retabli en toutes les villes, & 
 
 ,p ' ° " places ou il a ete etabli, ou du etre," &c. 
 
 * The words are, " il sera facile au Roi d'Angleterre & aussi 
 " u^ile a la surete de son regne qu'au repos de son conscience de 
 " retablir l'exercise de la religion Catholique," &c. 
 
 t In Mr. Rose's work the 8th is inserted instead of the 16th, by 
 an error, it may be presumed, of the press. 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 155 
 
 to support his hypothesis. We might attribute to him section 
 
 an improper bias in making this incorrect translation, 
 
 with much greater appearance of reason, than he has 
 charged Mr. Fox with acting under one, when, he 
 is supposed to have mistranslated a doubtful passage, 
 so as to weaken the argument it was intended to 
 support. In the present instance, the omission of the 
 word " more" changes the sense of the passage ; for 
 a religion, which is only partially tolerated, may be 
 more fully tolerated, that is some more restraints may 
 be removed, or privileges granted, without the toler- 
 ation being complete. But if a religion be established, 
 its exclusive rights leave its friends nothing further to 
 wish for, in its favour. Sunderland is stated to have 
 urged the French minister to explain himself, and 
 make it known that the King his master would ho- 
 nestly assist the King of England in " establishing 
 " the Catholic religion firmly here." These words, 
 which occur for the second time in this letter, must 
 signify as in other parts of the correspondence, estab- 
 lishing the free exercise of that religion, not the re- 
 ligion itself. 
 
 Mr. Rose's extracts conclude with one, from a letter, Rosc » re- 
 written by Lewis to Barillon, dated 26th July, which 
 manifests the disposition of the French King, and the 
 object of his wishes ; he says " you may declare 
 " plainly, that I have spared nothing to afford you 
 
 x 2 
 
150 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section « means of assisting the King of England, when I 
 
 ■ — " had reason to apprehend, that the Catholic religion, 
 
 <f of which he makes profession, served only for a 
 t* pretext for the factious to excite great troubles in 
 H his kingdom, and to prevent his enjoying the re- 
 " venues, which expired on the death of the late King." 
 The declaration, hereby authorised to be made, did 
 not pretend that the establishment of the Catholic 
 religion, or a toleration of it ever had been the object, 
 for which the French King had made an offer of his 
 treasure to James, but the security of his crown, and 
 the enjoyment of those revenues, which his predeces- 
 sor had been in the receipt of. So long therefore, 
 and so long only, as the Catholic religion was a dan- 
 gerous pretext for the factious to use, Lewis declared 
 himself ready to disburse his money to counteract 
 them. And after the royal revenue was settled, and 
 the favourable disposition of the Parliament was appa- 
 rent, he announced his resolution to make no ad- 
 vances, 
 
 James's first From this short review of the passages in the French 
 
 object was not * ° 
 
 fteCathoiicre- Correspondence, which Mr. Rose has selected, it appears, 
 that he has not succeeded better by the production of 
 them, than by his reference to James's proceedings 
 in England, Scotland, and Ireland. They all confirm 
 Mr. Fox's assertion, that the primary object of his reign, 
 at least until the defeat of Monmouth, was not the 
 Establishment of the Catholic religion, and that during 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 157 
 
 SECTION 
 III. 
 
 Fox, p. 376. 
 
 that period, James never had in view more than a 
 complete toleration of it. Mr. Fox has observed that 
 after the execution of Monmouth, he was probably 
 inspired with the design of taking more decided steps 
 in favour of the Popish religion and its professors, and it 
 is not improbable if his reign had been lengthened, 
 that as his throne became more secure, and his 
 power increased, he might have extended his efforts 
 to the completion of objects, which, when he first 
 succeeded his brother, he had not the courage to 
 think of. 
 
 Mr. Rose then proceeds to answer the train of rea- General policy 
 
 soning by which Mr. Fox has endeavoured to shew, 
 First, what were the maxims of policy, and temper 
 and disposition of James, in matters in which his bi- 
 gotry to the Catholie religion had no share ; and secondly, 
 that Popery was not always his primary object. But 
 Mr. Rose, with his usual display of official accuracy, 
 totally mistakes the facts and arguments, which he is 
 determined to controvert. Mr. Fox explains the policy, 
 temper, and disposition of James from the complacency, 
 with which he looked back to the share he had had 
 in the affairs of Scotland, when acting in his brother's 
 life time, as the Regent of that country, joined to the 
 general approbation he expressed of the conduct of the 
 Government there ; but Mr. Rose is so bewildered in 
 the murky atmosphere of party, as to suppose, and 
 argue upon the supposition, that the facts mentioned 
 
 of James. 
 Fox, p. i»3. 
 
158 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section by Mr. Fox took place after James ascended the throne, 
 and by a strange anachronism, that all the persons con- 
 cerned in them acted as his servants, and none of them 
 as his brother's. The manner, in which Mr. Rose has 
 expressed himself is sufficiently obscure, but the fol- 
 lowing is presumed to be a fair statement of his ar- 
 gument. 
 
 Absurd conduct 
 
 of James as ,. ■ «_ . - i i • 
 
 Duke of York, Mr. Fox in a most powerful and masterly style points 
 
 if Bigotry his *■ J J \ 
 
 passion. ou t the extreme absurdity of James's conduct, if the 
 
 ox, P . 1.3. Establishment of his religion was the object of his pur- 
 suit, when in his brother's reign he was entrusted with 
 the Government of Scotland, and by the most cruel, 
 and rigorous measures sought to establish the Epis- 
 copalian, upon the ruin of the Presbyterian form of 
 worship, and to compel the people to take a test, 
 the refusal of which imposed disabilities upon Catholics, 
 and which he himself could not take. Mr. Rose 
 Rose, P . na. g^ ves Dut a f a j nt ^ ea f ]y[ r# Fox's argument, when 
 
 he thus describes its amount ; " Mr. Fox however 
 " insists much on the partiality of James to the Pro- 
 " testant Episcopalians, and on the test in their favour, 
 " asa proof that he had not in the beginning of his 
 " reign a design to establish Popery on the ruins of 
 " their Church, conceiving that a contrary opinion 
 " would be the height of absurdity." 
 
 «f c m Episcopaii fc ° The argument so stated consists of two parts, First, 
 und. 0f Scot " that James was partial to the Protestant Episcopalians ; 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 150 
 
 and Secondly, that he enforced a test in their favour, section 
 
 To the first, Mr. Rose replies, that it is no uncom- 
 
 mon thing for bodies of men, as well as individuals, 
 to promote measures which have been ruinous to them- 
 selves. This is certainly true, and he might have added 
 that it will continue to be no uncommon thing, so long 
 as the world endures. But the question is, not whether 
 the measures, promoted by James, were ruinous to him* 
 but whether he promoted them with a design that 
 they should be so. Mr. Fox collects his intention 
 from his acts, and justly argues that he could not have 
 the object, Mr. Rose attributes to him, in view, because 
 his conduct was destructive of it. 
 
 To the second, Mr. Rose's answer is, that the test Ja ™' enforCed 
 
 * a Protestant 
 
 was disposed of by him, as far as his power extended, Test " 
 in a few months after his accession ; and in the first 
 year of his reign his speech left no doubt upon the 
 point, and if there could have remained any, the ap- 
 pointment of Papists to civil and military offices must 
 have effectually removed it. Here Mr. Rose has cer- ^, n R 9? e mi «* 
 
 J takes the argu= 
 
 tainly misunderstood the argument he is endeavouring 
 to answer, for Mr. Fox is not contending that the test 
 was to be relied upon, as a protection to the Established 
 Church of Scotland, nor inquiring what James did 
 afterwards when he became King, or said to the two 
 houses of the English Parliament, or how he acted in 
 the distribution of offices. The argument is confined 
 
 ment. 
 
l6@ A VINDICATION 01? 
 
 section £ t jje conduct of James, when Duke of York in the 
 — — — — Government of Scotland. 
 
 James was commissioned to assist and support the 
 Episcopalian Establishment, and enforce a test, which 
 no Catholic could take, in order to exclude the Pres- 
 byterians ; and this not to make room for the Catholic 
 religion, but to secure the Throne against the designs 
 of the Presbyterians, who were dreaded, as Repub- 
 licans. 
 
 From the manner, in which he executed these orders, 
 Mr, Fox draws an inference in favour of his view of 
 James's designs when King. It is argued that in his con- 
 duct in Scotland he evinced a zeal and intolerant spirit 
 which could not arise from his attachment to the Ca- 
 tholic religion, for it did not tend to promote it, nor 
 to the tenets of the Church, in support of which it 
 was practised, for James was not of that Church ; Mr, 
 Fox concludes, therefore, that it could be attributed to 
 nothing, but that love of absolute power, that devotion 
 to arbitrary principles, to which all Princes are prone, 
 and which was a leading feature in the character of the 
 Stuart race. The violence he shewed, the persecution he 
 practised at the commencement of his reign, are not con- 
 clusive proofs of his being solely actuated by zeal for his 
 religious opinions, because at another period of his life, 
 and in a different situation he had shewn himself equally 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. lOl 
 
 SECTION 
 
 violent, and equally persecuting in maintenance of ar- SEC I [ l 1 
 bitrary government, when that government was inti- 
 mately connected with, and directed by a faith, which 
 he did not profess, but which he abhorred. At that 
 period of his life, bigotry was only a secondary pas- 
 sion in his heart ; the necessary consequence of his 
 acts being to postpone, if not to render impracticable, 
 the introduction of the Catholic religion. It is no 
 answer, therefore to say, as Mr. Rose does, that he 
 might have acted foolishly in promoting these mea- 
 sures ; the charge is, that he knew the object for which 
 his brother sent him, and eagerly sought to effect it ; 
 and that this he could not have done conscientiously, if 
 he had entertained the sentiments attributed to him. 
 Mr. Rose inadvertently, but certainly most inaccurately, 
 conceives Mr. Fox to be treating of the English Pro- 
 testant Episcopalians, and a test in their favour, instead 
 of the Scotch ; and to be arguing that James had not 
 in the beginning of his reign, a design to establish 
 Popery, when he was inquiring into his general sen- 
 timents from his conduct in a subordinate situation, 
 under a former King, for the purpose of exposing 
 the absurdity of the supposition of his having " thus 
 " early" conceived the intention of introducing Popery 
 on the destruction of the Protestant establishment. 
 
 Mr. Rose, continuing in the same mistake, treats S\d££Sf 
 with some degree of levity, an argument which it is measuresin 
 
 T 
 
102 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 III. 
 
 Scotland were 
 Protestants. 
 
 Rose, p. in. 
 
 Fox, p. 125. 
 
 Rose p. III. 
 
 tt 
 
 a 
 
 it 
 
 tt 
 
 n 
 
 manifest he does not understand. Mr. Fox says, " The 
 next important observation that occurs, and to which 
 even they who are most determined to believe that 
 this Prince had always Popery in view, and held 
 every other consideration as subordinate to that pri- 
 mary object, must nevertheless subscribe, is, that the 
 most confidential advisers, as well as the most furious 
 supporters, of the measures we have related, were 
 " not Roman Catholics. Lauderdale and Queensberry 
 " were both Protestants. There is no reasons there- 
 " fore, to impute any of James's violence afterwards 
 to the suggestions of his Catholic advisers, since 
 he who had been engaged in the series of measures 
 il above related, with Protestant counsellors and coad- 
 " jutors, and surely nothing to learn from Papists, 
 " (whether Priests, Jesuits, or others) in the science 
 i( of tyranny." The reasons produced by Mr. Rose 
 for thinking that little weight should be given to this 
 argument, if the evidence, already observed upon, should 
 have established his opinion that the establishment of 
 the Catholic religion, was the first object of James, 
 is expressed in the following words, "it is not very 
 " likely that much doubt will be raised on the point 
 " by Mr. Fox's observation, that two of the confi- 
 " dential advisers of this monarchy Lauderdale and 
 " Queensberry were Protestants, when it shall be re- 
 " collected what an entire subserviency James expe- 
 " rieneed from the former, in every measure of im- 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 16* 
 
 <( portance, during the long time he presided in theadmi- section 
 
 " nistration of Scotland: and that the latter was removed — - 
 
 " from his employment, because he would not become 
 
 " a Papist ; and especially if it is also considered how 
 
 " the whole of that administration was cojnposed" 
 
 In writing an answer to Mr. Rose's book a more Ro5^ keofMc ' 
 than common attention is requisite, for it often happens, 
 that it is more difficult to understand, and apply his 
 arguments than to encounter them. Some skilful Rhe- 
 toricians lay it down for a rule, always to change the 
 terms of a proposition, which is meant to be answered, 
 but Mr. Rose is not confined within such bounds, for, 
 without being conscious of it himself, he frequently mis- 
 takes the fact, on which the argument of his adversary is 
 founded, and changes not only the terms in which the 
 proposition is expressed, but the proposition itself; the 
 present discussion affords an instance. Mr. Fox makes 
 an observation arising from the Duke of Lauderdale 
 and the Earl of Queensberry* being the confidential 
 advisers of measures which had been pursued in the 
 reign of Charles the Second. Mr. Rose has mistaken 
 the facts, and has stated the observation to depend 
 upon these two noble Lords, being the confidential 
 advisers of James the Second, after he was King. Un- 
 fortunately it happens, that Lauderdale never could have 
 
 * He was made a Duke in the last year of Charles's reigq. 
 
 Y 2 
 
104 
 
 SECTION 
 III. 
 
 Mr. Fox's ar- 
 gument. 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 been his adviser, after he ascended the throne, for 
 he died in 1682, two years before. 
 
 Mr. Fox's argument founded upon the facts first men- 
 tioned, would be downright nonsense, if made to rest 
 upon Mr. Rose's statement. It is, that James's violence 
 after he came to the throne ought not to be imputed 
 to the suggestions of Catholic advisers, when he had 
 before so vigorously promoted measures of tyranny 
 with Protestant counsellors, and coadjutors. And to 
 this, Mr. Rose's arguments afford no answer, as we 
 shall now proceed to shew. 
 
 The first, drawn from the entire subserviency expe- 
 rienced from Lauderdale by James, when he was Duke 
 of York, through his long administration in Scotland, 
 is not very intelligible ; and where is that subserviency 
 recorded ? Lauderdale's administration ended when 
 James's began, but it cannot be doubted, surely, that 
 while, he was in power, and for some time afterwards, 
 he advised and supported the measures in question, and 
 that he lived and died a Protestant. 
 
 Mr. Rose still mistaking the facts, and i also mis- 
 understanding the argument of Mr. Fox, says that 
 Queensberry was removed from his employment, be- 
 cause he would not become a Papist. Mr. Rose here unin- 
 tentionally corroborates one part of Mr. Fox's statement. 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 
 
 tor he asserts that Queen sberry was a Protestant, and SE ™ 0N 
 a zealous one too, and admits the other, namely that "" 
 he promoted measures of tyranny. 
 
 "When we have ascertained that Mr. Fox is referring 
 to transactions in the reign of Charles, there cannot be 
 much strength in the third argument of Mr. Rose, arising 
 from the consideration of " how the whole of that 
 " administration was composed." The expression here 
 used leaves it doubtful to what administration Mr. 
 Rose intended to allude. But whether it was the com- 
 position of the administration, of which Queensberry 
 was the head in the reign of James the Second, or that 
 which was formed immediately after his dismissal, as, 
 from the quotation made from Mr. Laing's History may 
 be suspected, is not very material. The manner in which 
 either of those administrations was composed cannot affect 
 Mr. Fox's argument, and the act of a King, done for the 
 effecting a particular purpose, has no tendency to prove 
 that he had pursued the same object, when acting as the 
 servant of a former King, with the assistance of his 
 confidential advisers in the completion of a different 
 purpose. 
 
 Mr. Rose, having his mind filled with the particular Answer to Mr. 
 branch of the subject of which he is treating, has not tionsona^u?? 
 
 di rr • i i t> posed argu- 
 
 ed sufficiently to the course or argument pursued mentofMr. 
 
 Fox. 
 
 by Mr. Fox, but has taken for granted that every sen- 
 
166 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 III. 
 
 tence in this part of his book, and every fact mentioned 
 must have for its sole, and immediate object, the esta- 
 blishment of that opinion, which he was in the act of 
 controverting. The argument of Mr. Fox was, therefore, 
 misunderstood by him, and he supposes it to be that the 
 establishment of the Catholic religion was not the primary 
 object of James the Second, immediately after his accession 
 because his two confidential advisers Lauderdale and 
 Queensberry were Protestants. Mr. Rose never could 
 have fallen into so egregious a mistake, if he had given 
 himself time for reflection. For with respect to Lauderdale 
 he could be a member of no administration under James, 
 for he died before he succeeded the throne. And his 
 long and entire subserviency to James when Duke of 
 York, being experienced, if in fact it ever existed, in 
 favour of one Protestant church against another Protestant 
 church, does not afford the inference that he would have 
 been equally subservient, when the object in view was 
 the destruction of both these churches, and the establish 
 ment of the Catholic religion in their stead. 
 
 Argument 
 from the re- 
 moval of 
 Queensberry. 
 
 Mr. Rose is more fortunate in the mention of Queens- 
 berry, for he was a confidential adviser of James when upon 
 the throne; and his removal, because he would not become 
 a Papist, is urged by Mr. Rose as an argument to shew that 
 the first object of James was the establishment of his religion. 
 The character of Queensberry afforded a security to the 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. lO? 
 
 public that while he remained in power, nothing section 
 would be done injurious to the Protestant religion, or 
 
 tending to the destruction of his church. He had Fox ' p " I04 * 
 high notions of prerogative, but he would not consent 
 to go as commissioner to Scotland, until he had an 
 assurance from James himself, that there was no in- 
 tention of changing the established religion. And his 
 being afterwards dismissed, and a new administration 
 formed, consisting of Catholics only, tends to prove 
 that James at first, had no objects in view, which Pro- 
 testant advisers might not have supported, and that 
 when he determined to change his measures, it be- 
 came necessary to change his ministers also. The fact 
 is, that after James succeeded to the throne, he found 
 Queensberry complying and subservient as long as ar- 
 bitrary power was his object, but refractory when 
 Popery was his aim. One of two things, therefore, 
 must be admitted; either that James was deceiving 
 Queensberry at first, or that he entertained only those 
 designs to the promotion of which Queensberry was 
 happy, and ready to contribute, namely the establish- 
 ment of absolute power; and that when afterwards 
 James took up that of introducing the Catholic reli- 
 gion into Scotland, he lost the assistance of that mi- 
 nister. The question then is, which is the most pro- 
 bable ? which most consistent with the principles and 
 characters of the parties? Did James wilfully deceive 
 
16S 
 
 A VINDICATION Of 
 
 section Queensberry, or did he honestly change his mind af- 
 .___ terwards ? 
 
 James at first 
 expected aid 
 from the Epis- 
 copalians. 
 Rose, p. ng. 
 
 Fox, p, m, 
 
 Mr. Rose goes on to say, that James "certainly 
 " thought he could by management at first derive aid 
 " from the Episcopalians." Mr. Fox has made, in 
 effect, the same observation, if it is applied to James's 
 Episcopalian subjects in general; he certainly did, at 
 his accession, hope to derive aid, in his pursuit of 
 arbitrary power, from the Episcopalians; but when he 
 determined to take decisive steps in favour of the Ca- 
 tholic religion, they became alarmed for themselves, 
 and deserted him, and in return he treated them with 
 little tenderness. But how does this observation bear 
 upon the argument of Mr. Fox, drawn from his con- 
 duct to the Scotch Episcopalians, when as Duke of 
 York he was invested with the government of Scot- 
 land ? It has been observed before how improbable it is, 
 that in that situation he should have had in view the 
 promotion of the Catholic religion by enforcing the 
 test of a Protestant church. Besides his brother must 
 have been a party to the design, and on his brother 
 he must have depended for the success of so strange, 
 incoherent, and inconsistent a plot. But his brother, 
 he well knew, was fully apprized of the folly and 
 danger of such an attempt, and would not become a 
 party to it; and the only motive, which they could 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. I69 
 
 have, in common in promoting the sanguinary pro- section 
 
 ceedings alluded to, was their devotion to the cause, 
 
 as well as their love of the possession of arbitrary 
 power. This principle, and this principle only, could 
 have made a Catholic prince so zealous in enforcing 
 obedience to a Protestant hierarchy, and he did it, 
 not in the character of a Catholic, but a sovereign. 
 
 The notion, so ingeniously suggested by Mr. Rose, Established 
 that the Episcopalians might have encouraged him to likeiytogive 
 
 - . . . . r , . . . up their emo- 
 
 expect their co-operation, and that or their brethren ium*nti. 
 in England, in transferring their privileges and power 
 to his most favoured sect, is chimerical, and absurd 
 to the greatest degree. Such an uncommon instance 
 of disinterestedness in any body of clergy, whether 
 running into Arminian, Presbyterian, or any other 
 tenets, would have been without motive of either duty 
 or interest, and without example in history. James 
 might think that by enforcing their test, he might 
 inspire them with an affection for, or induce 
 them to yield a cheerful obedience to the arbitrary 
 power which supported them ; but he could not ex- 
 pect, that he could ever succeed in persuading them 
 to abandon their tenets, by forcing other men to pro- 
 fess them. 
 
 Mr. Rose then presents his readers with a letter R«se7p. "4 
 from Barillon to Lewis, written immediately after 
 
J70 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section James's accession (dated 26th February, 1685) in which 
 
 his own declaration, as Mr. Rose justly observes, shews 
 
 fox,A P p,p. piajjjiy^ w hat « he had in his mind from the hour of 
 , , *' his accession." The folio wing is a more correct and 
 
 James Bplan.a o 
 
 raSnofthe lc * li tera l translation of the passage, than Mr. Rose has 
 catholics. given. " This prince," (i. e. James) " explained to 
 " me fully his design respecting the Catholics, which 
 " is to establish them in an entire liberty of con- 
 " science and of exercise of the religion, which can- 
 •" not be done, but by time, and conducting affairs gra- 
 " dually to this end. The plan of his Britannic Ma- 
 " jesty is to accomplish it by the succour, and 
 " assistance of the episcopal party, which he regards 
 " as the royal party, and I do not see, that his de- 
 ff sign can go" (or operate) " to favour the noncon- 
 " formists, and Presbyterians, whom he regards as 
 " true republicans. This project must be accompanied 
 " with much prudence, and will receive great oppositions 
 " in its progress." This passage is decisive, and puts 
 an end to all Mr. Rose's reasoning at once. For it 
 proves that James, at this time, had formed no de- 
 sign hostile to the establishment, and all he hoped to 
 obtain, or meant to attempt was a full liberty of 
 conscience, and public worship to the Catholics. This 
 conversation manifests that James continued to hate 
 the Nonconformists, and Presbyterians, because he re- 
 garded them as republicans, and feared their power ; 
 but he relied upon the co-operation of the Episcopa- 
 
MR. FOXS HISTORICAL WORK. 171 
 
 Hans, whom he had been taught to consider as attached SE i™ 01f 
 to the monarch and his throne. It would have been — — — - 
 downright madness to have expected, even from zealous 
 friends, that they would surrender to the Catholics their 
 power, honours, and emoluments ; but he thought he 
 might rely upon their permitting to the Catholics, the 
 liberty he assumed for himself, of publicly worshipping 
 God in his own way, when the preservation of a tottering 
 monarchy seemed to require a hearty union of all its 
 adherents. At this crisis he was giving a full expla- 
 nation of his whole design, to Barillon, yet it is ob- 
 servable, that he had not, as yet, in contemplation even 
 a complete toleration ; for the liberty he then talked of 
 for the Catholics, extended only to the enjoyment of 
 their own worship, not the removal of tests, and dis- 
 qualifications. 
 
 So little does Mr. Rose understand the import of this 
 passage, and so little is he conscious of its importance, 
 that probably with intent to fix a charge of duplicity, or 
 inconsistency of conduct on James, he remarks that 
 this communication was made at the very time he was 
 telling his Privy Council, what he repeated a few months 
 afterwards to his Parliament, that he should make it 
 " his endeavour to preserve the Government in Church 
 f t and State, as it is now by law established." 
 
 Z 2 
 
172 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section i n this it is not easy to discover any inconsistency ; 
 
 at that time the Church of England was considered by 
 
 him, as his firmest support, and he declared to the Privy 
 
 Council, " I know the principles of the Church of 
 
 " England are for monarchy, and the members of it 
 
 " have shewn themselves good and loyal subjects, 
 
 " therefore I shall always take care to defend and sup- 
 
 chand.Deb.ii. " port it." But his sentiments were still more strongly 
 
 p. 169. r b J 
 
 expressed in his answer, made on the 23d of May to 
 
 the address of the House of Commons, that they would 
 stand by him with their lives and fortunes against Ar- 
 gyle, the King said, " I could expect no less from a 
 " House of Commons is composed, as (God be thanked) 
 ** you are : I rely on the assurances you have given 
 " me, which are the natural effects of monarchical 
 " church of England men. I shall stand by all such, and 
 " so supported have no reason to fear any rebels,or ene- 
 " mie's I now have, or may have." If Mr. Fox is right in 
 the supposition, that, at this period, the King had in con- 
 templation only a complete toleration of the Catholics, he 
 might have made and probably did make the declaration to 
 which Mr. Rose alludes, with an intention bona fide to 
 fulfil it. It will not, it cannot be contended in this coun- 
 try, that a Prince may not be the zealous protector and 
 friend of an established church, and yet the firm supporter 
 of a toleration for those of his subjects, who choose 
 to separate from it. In settling his own power, and 
 in the design to make himself absolute, James flattered 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 173 
 
 himself with the prospect of assistance from the mem- 
 bers of the establishment, and he was not disappointed, 
 for they supported him until they conceived their own 
 church to be in danger. 
 
 Before we dismiss this passage from consideration it 
 is worthy of remark, that Dalrymple has omitted it 
 in his collection from the French Correspondence. Mr. 
 Rose cannot, if he would be consistent, deny that it is 
 important, for he has cited it from the Appendix to Mr. 
 Fox's Work as being so, and his memory must have 
 strangely failed him, when, having thus borne testimony 
 to the usefulness of Mr. Fox's discoveries, and bene- 
 fited by them, he denies their being of any value, as 
 we shall find him doing in the next section, and in 
 other parts of his work. 
 
 Even after the execution of Argyle, when James's 
 power seemed to have attained its summit, he neither, 
 by word or deed, expressed a design, it might be said, 
 even a wish to obtain more for the Catholics than a 
 toleration. When he met the Parliament a second 
 time in November 1685, he declared the object of their 
 meeting to be, to enable him to keep up a larger stand- 
 ing army, on account of the inefficiency of the militia, 
 and told them that he had employed officers who had 
 not qualified according to the late tests, and that he 
 would not dismiss them. Finding the Parliament re- 
 
 SECTION 
 III. 
 
174 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section fractory, he prorogued it, and obtained a decision in a 
 
 _j court of law, in Sir Edward Hales's case, in favour of 
 
 his dispensing power ; and being determined to use it, 
 in 1087 dismissed from his councils the Earl of Ro- 
 chester, whose continuance in power had been a pledge 
 to the Church of England, that nothing would be 
 undertaken by the King materially to injure it. 
 James then became anxious to make proselytes ; 
 and issued a declaration of general indulgence sus- 
 pending, at once, all the penal laws against Noncon- 
 formists and Catholics. It may be recollected that 
 Charles had made a similar declaration, in 1 6f)2, and ano- 
 ther in 1672, but the remonstrances of his Parliament had 
 compelled him to recal them in both instances. He was 
 too prudent to try the experiment any more, and James, 
 who had been displeased with his brother's conduct, 
 adopted a bolder one, and shewed so much favour to the 
 Catholics, and their religion, as to alarm his Protestant 
 subjects, he closetted, and endeavoured to prevail upon 
 the Members of the Parliament to promise to consent 
 to the repeal of all tests, and penal statutes, but being 
 disappointed, dissolved the Parliament, and resolved to 
 call a new one. The experiment did not succeed, for not 
 being able to manage the elections, so as to secure a 
 majority favourable to his design,, the writs of sum- 
 mons were never sent out. In 1 088, he issued another 
 declaration of indulgence, nearly the same as the for- 
 mer, with an order that it should be read in all the 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 1/5 
 
 churches, immediately after divine service. This order se <Jtion 
 
 occasioned the trial of the seven bishops for seditious 
 
 conduct in presenting a petition against it, and was he im- 
 mediate cause of the revolution. As far as the object 
 of the two royal brothers can be traced down to a 
 particular point in James's reign, they both wished 
 for a toleration for the Catholics and no more, and it 
 may be doubted whether the proceedings, even of the 
 latter part of James's reign, pointed to any further 
 object. That, if the declaration of indulgence had been 
 quietly submitted to James might have proceeded to 
 further extremities against his good friends the mem- 
 bers of the Church of England is a matter of specu- 
 lation, which it is unnecessary to discuss. But that 
 in his own opinion, he had done nothing to justify 
 their desertion, and was not conscious that he deserved 
 it may be argued from his telling Henry Earl of Cla- 
 rendon, on the 24th September, after the Bishops had been ciar. Diary p. 
 
 66. 
 
 tried, that the Dutch were coming to invade England, 
 and saying " now, my Lord, I shall see what the Church 
 1 of England men will do." And on the 23d of Ib#p# 9l , 
 November, the same Earl of Clarendon relates, that 
 he waited upon the Queen who discoursed very 
 freely of public affairs, and said, "how much the 
 " King" was misunderstood by his people, that he in- 
 " tended nothing but a general liberty of conscience, 
 " which he wondered could be opposed. That he 
 " always, intended to support the religion established, 
 
*?0 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section « being weU satisfied of the i ova i ty f t he Church of 
 — — — " England." 
 
 The MS. genealogy of the family of Lindsey, in 
 possession of the Earl of Balcarras, * is a great au- 
 thority upon this subject, and if James's most solemn 
 declarations are to be credited, there can be no doubt, 
 that his designs in favour of the Catholic religion never 
 extended to the destruction of the established church, 
 or beyond a toleration sanctioned by law. The MS. 
 says, " when he became King all his good qualities became 
 " defaced by a religion, so detestable to his subjects. — 
 " Yet he always protested, that he never meant to con- 
 " strain the minds of any, and that all he wanted was 
 *' toleration to his own religion. Certain it is, that 
 " some days before he died at St. Germains, he brought 
 " all the Foreign Ministers into his room, and all his 
 " subjects of any rank, who were there, took the Sacra- 
 " ment before them, and called the Almighty to wit- 
 " ness, that he never intended to alter the laws, or 
 " religion of his country, except that of toleration, for 
 " which he hoped for the concurrence of Parliament. "f 
 
 * For the loan of a MS. copy of this genealogy out of the A'aluable li- 
 brary at Hafod, the author has to make his acknowledgments to Thomas 
 Johnes, Esquire, who liberally communicates to others the stores of 
 knowledge^ which he knows so well how to make use of himself. 
 
 t A writer in the British Critic for 'September 1808, when review- 
 ing Mr. Fox's book, states that in the Scotch College at Paris was 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. Xfj 
 
 Having now proved that neither James, nor Lewis SE ^ 0N 
 
 had, in the early part of the reign at least, any thing ; 
 
 further in view, than a complete toleration for the the ob J e ^ of 
 
 *„ the Catholic*. 
 
 Catholic religion; it may be satisfactory to the reader 
 to remark that the hopes of the Catholics themselves, 
 and the wishes of some of them did not extend further. 
 For Barillon describes them, when the second Session cxxx'v. 
 of the Parliament was about to be held, as divided 
 among themselves, about the extent of the toleration, 
 which would content them. Some of the more rich 
 and respectable wished only for a repeal of the penal 
 laws, but the Jesuits, the most active of the Catholics, 
 and those in the confidence of the King were anxious 
 for the removal of the test also, but a complete tolera- 
 tion would have been satisfactory to all. 
 
 preserved a copy of a plan for James's future Government, in case 
 he should have been restored, authenticated by the signature of the 
 Queen, and intended to serve as instructions for his son after his 
 decease. The reviewer says that in 1777, he made an analysis of this 
 paper, from memory, immediately after repeated perusals, in which 
 we have this sentence, " If a toleration were to be established, he 
 " considered it as certain, that, in time, the people would be won 
 u over to the true religion; but he regarded the Protestants, as too 
 " enlightened to put themselves into that situation, without a force 
 " which should oblige them to it," and when he notices the admi- 
 nistration he should wish to have formed, he does not wholly exclude 
 Protestants. Even in these instructions the establishment of the Catholic 
 religion, does not appear to have been in the contemplation of James. 
 
 a a 
 
178 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 III. 
 
 Fox, p. 1 1 6. 
 
 Mr. Rose then observes, that Mr. Fox shews -great 
 ~ anxiety, that the events of James's reign " should not 
 
 Mr, Fox uni- ... 
 
 form in his opi- «« foe attributed exclusively to the particular character and 
 
 nion of James T s J •*• 
 
 Religion. " attachment of the Monarch, but rather that it should 
 
 " be considered as a part of that System, which had been 
 " pursued by all the Stuart Kings ;" and then stating, 
 that Mr. Fox was not " uniform in this opinion," copies 
 a passage of the Historical Work, leaving his readers 
 without any comment to discover, if they can, the want 
 of uniformity in opinion to which he alludes. This pas- 
 sage alledges, that while " James contented himself with 
 " absolute power in civil matters, and did not make 
 "use of his authority against the Church, every thing 
 " went smooth and easy," and that it is not necessary 
 to account for the satisfaction of the Parliament, and 
 people, at his asserting unlimited power, by any implied 
 compromise in favour of the religious constitution, for 
 the King rather fell in with the humour, of the prevailing 
 party, than offered any violence to it. Where the incon- 
 sistency between the two passages is, it would have been 
 charitable to have explained, for the sentiment in both 
 seems to be perfectly uniform. James is supposed to 
 have pursued the same system, as his three immediate 
 predecessors had done, but more fortunate than they had 
 been, both the Parliament and people were satisfied with 
 his assumption of unlimited power, and in asserting it, 
 he rather fell in with the humour of the prevailing party, 
 than offered any violence to it. The ease, with which 
 
MR. FOXS HISTORICAL WORK. 179 
 
 he attained that power, is also supposed to have led him section 
 
 to exercise it without apprehension or scruple, in a man 
 
 ner, which he had before thought would be hazardous in 
 the extreme, and even impracticable. To sustain this 
 opinion, three propositions must be made out; first, 
 that he aimed at arbitrary power ; second, that he ac- 
 quired it easily; and third, that he was by this cir- 
 cumstance induced to employ it for the promotion of his 
 favourite religion. To all these points Mr. Fox adverts 
 with his usual accuracy and well-known felicity of argu- 
 ment, but because he endeavours to account for the 
 second proposition by a description of the temper of the 
 public at that time, Mr. Rose very gravely concludes, that 
 he is mistaken, and persuades himself that a transcrip- 
 tion of the passage will prove him to be so. 
 
 We shall not detain the reader by discussing how far 
 the natural disposition of James, or the general popular 
 belief can be used as arguments on the side of the Ro8e tP-" 6 - 
 question supported by Mr. Rose. It is allowed by him 
 that it is safer to rely on authentic documents, and 
 undisputed historical facts. 
 
 Mr. Rose says, the hierarchy of Rome " must have In France the 
 
 J l Protestants on 
 
 been more favourable to the submission of the people thesid e of a» 
 
 * * bttrary power. 
 
 to arbitrary sway in civil concerns, than the plainer, Rose.p. 117. 
 and less pliant code of the reformed religion, parti- 
 
 a. a 2 
 
180 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section te cu i ar jy i n j ts Calvinistic form. Accordingly in all 
 " " countries, divided in point of religion (remarkably in 
 
 " France and Germany), the Catholics have generally 
 " ranged themselves on the side of absolute power, and 
 " the Protestants on that of freedom." That the nature 
 of the Protestant tenets, and discipline is, in general, 
 more favourable to civil liberty than those of the Ca- 
 tholics is readily acknowledged. But the political tenets 
 of these two parties, and the side, on which they have 
 respectively ranged themselves, have generally been the 
 effect of the peculiar circumstances, in which they have 
 been placed, rather than the result of the religious prin- 
 ciples they had adopted. The Protestants of England, as 
 we have shewn before in this Section, ranged themselves, 
 at the Reformation, on the side of absolute power ; and 
 Mr. Rose is peculiarly unfortunate in citing France as an 
 example ; for when was that country most divided in 
 point of religion ? at the time of the league. And 
 what were the respective tenets of the two sects on 
 the subject of Government at that time ? The Pro- 
 testants held the indefeasible right of the King to absolute 
 power, and the Duke of Guise, or at least his adherents, 
 asserted the right of the nation to choose a King, the 
 necessity of a government by the estates of the realm, 
 and the original right of the people, subject indeed 
 to the true religion and the Pope, as God's Vicegerent 
 on earth, to regulate their government. And, before. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 181 
 
 and after the murder of Henry the Third of France, section 
 
 a great number of pamphlets and essays were published — 
 
 by Jesuits and other Catholics of the most republican 
 tendency, and of the most violent nature, against both 
 the principle and practice of kingly power*. The 
 truth is, that men are governed by their passions, more 
 than by their reason, and in their zeal for their respec- 
 tive religions, both Catholics and Protestants forgot 
 the rational principles of liberty, and adopted those, 
 which they found most useful for the immediate sup- 
 port of their religious tenets. It happened that the 
 sovereign princes of Europe were Catholics, and most 
 of them continued to be so after the Reformation, their 
 subjects, therefore, after they had become Protestants, 
 endeavoured to justify their separation from the uni- 
 versal church, and maintain themselves in it by an 
 appeal from the divine right derived from the Pope, to 
 the human rights of the people ; the general creed 
 
 * The President Renault mentions as made in 1587, what he calls 
 '< Arrete etrange de la Sorbonne; que Von ponvoit oter le gouvernement 
 " aux princes que Von ne trouvoit pas tels quHls falloit, comme Vadminis- 
 " trulion an tuteur, quon azoit pour suspect." Abrege Chronologique, 
 ii. p. 573. A Decree of the Protestant University of Oxford, made 
 nearly 100 years afterwards, in 1683, affords a striking contrast ; the 
 third proposition, declared to be false, r seditious, and impious, was that, 
 " if lawful governors become tyrants, or govern otherwise than by the 
 " laws of God and man, they ought to do, they forfeit the right they 
 V had unto their government." 
 
182 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section f the Protestants, from this circumstance, became 
 
 ill* 
 
 more rational and more free than that of Jthe Catholics, 
 who for reasons of a contrary nature, thought them- 
 selves obliged to support their Sovereigns, in the most 
 absurd pretensions. 
 
 No proof James The next argument offered by Mr. Rose is, that "in 
 
 was guided by ". . - • - 
 
 religious zeai. " tracing the actions or James from his accession 
 
 Roic, p. 117. . 
 
 " downwards, we find numerous instances of his adopt- 
 " ing measures, to which he could be prompted only 
 " by his religious bigotry, because they were unfa- 
 " vourable to his arbitrary power." Here Mr. Rose 
 is strong in assertion, but weak in proof, for the only 
 specific evidence produced to support this general alle- 
 gation arises from his conduct in the last illness of 
 his brother, when he expressed great anxiety, that 
 he should breathe his last, in the bosom of the 
 Catholic Church, accompanied with the expres- 
 sion, that he would hazard every thing, rather 
 than not do his duty upon that occasion. Mr. 
 Rose, however, has further favoured us with two 
 general observations, — first, that from the commencement 
 of his reign, all his proceedings were calculated for 
 paving the way for the sovereign Pontiff to readmit 
 the English nation into the only true church, which 
 marked unequivocally his fixed and determined pur- 
 pose. Mr. Rose's authority however great, will not 
 alone command submission to his opinion in this 
 
 lb. p. 119. 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 13S 
 
 respect, and it may still be doubted that James had such section 
 
 fixed and determined purpose, or that all his pro 
 
 ceedings were directed to that end, notwithstanding 
 a long section of his book has been exhausted in the 
 fruitless attempt, to prove it. — Secondly, that he was 
 so bigoted to his religion, that in all his difficulties 
 he never conciliated his opponents, or retracted his 
 opinions, and uniformly spoke of his obligation of 
 conscience, ** as paramount to every object of in- 
 '* terest or ambition, or of any compliance to obtain 
 * them." That he was bigoted in a high degree to 
 his religion, that he did not conciliate his opponents 
 or retract his opinions, we may readily admit, but that 
 he uniformly spoke of his obligation of conscience being 
 paramount to every object of interest, or ambition, 
 remains to be proved. It has not yet been shewn, that 
 he was less zealous in pursuit of arbitrary power, than 
 attentive to the obligations of conscience; or that he 
 did not occasionally sacrifice the interests of his reli- 
 gion on the altar of ambition. 
 
 The next paragraph seems to have been introduced Lewi/s zeai for 
 for the purpose of destroying the whole effect of Mr. ™Vrft°tohV cr " 
 Rose's previous reasoning, for it shews that an inor- r osc , p . uo . 
 dinate love of power may be concealed under the 
 mask of zeal for religion, and that the professions of 
 Kings are not always to be trusted. It is remarked, 
 that " Lewis the Fourteenth, whose ambition was 
 
184 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SE m!° N " about to desolate a great part of Europe, whose 
 
 — " intolerance excited him to reduce to want and mi- 
 
 " sery a million of his subjects, was proud of what 
 i " he thought the spirit, as well as the title of the 
 " most Christian King/' Mr. Rose then observes, that 
 he reproved Barillon's suggestion that danger might at- 
 tend James's going publicly to mass, when it was ne- 
 cessary for " the ease of his conscience,' and expressed 
 his zeal for the orthodoxv of the church, which Mr. Rose 
 incorrectly states he hoped James would establish*, 
 and keep free from Jansenism, and adds the same 
 
 Fox, App. p. W. * The Letter begins by observing that there is great likelihood that 
 the King of England, who now makes so public a profession of the Catho- 
 lic religion, will soon ask from the Pope some bishops of that communion^ 
 and as it cannot be doubted that his Holiness will select them from the 
 Clergy of England, among whom Lewis had learnt there were some 
 who had embraced the doctrine of Jansenism, he ordered Barillon to 
 caution James upon the subject. In this passage Lewis makes no allu- 
 sion to the establishment of the Catholic Church, as is supposed in the 
 text, but assumes, that as the King makes public profession of its tenets, 
 he will be desirous that the Pope should send him some bishops ; and 
 what proves that the Protestant establishment was not to be over- 
 thrown, Lewis takes for granted that the Pope will select them from its 
 clergy. A toleration only for the Catholics was the wish of Lewis ; the 
 expectation of bishops being appointed does not imply that he had any 
 idea of an establishment for them. This is farther explained by the 
 transactions of the next year, when four Catholic bishops were publicly 
 consecrated in the royal chapel, and with the titles of Vicars Apos- 
 tolic, sent down into their respective districts to exercise the episcopal 
 functions; and the Catholics of England have ever since had their 
 bishops, even when their religion was not tolerated. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 185 
 
 religious zeal, indeed, pervades " the whole corres- sec ™n 
 
 " pondence with his ambassador here." We do not — ---• 
 
 deny the truth of these observations, and lament that 
 they are so well founded, but does he think he can 
 persuade his reader into a belief, that the ruling pas- 
 sion of Lewis the Fourteenth was not the love of power, 
 but of the Catholic Church ? And if this is not the 
 object of his reasoning, for what purpose is it intro- 
 duced ? From the hypocritical conduct of Lewis towards 
 James we cannot infer, that he was actuated purely 
 by religious zeal in all his efforts to increase his do- 
 minions and power. The faithful page of history 
 has left no doubt as to his ruling passion, and when 
 Mr. Rose shall have proved that Lewis, divested of 
 all ambition, was an honest bigot, pursuing singly, 
 at all risks to himself, and his subjects, the advance- 
 ment of the Catholic religion, he may entertain some 
 hopes of convincing the world from his example, that 
 James had the same principles, the same objects, and 
 the same ardour. But till that shall be done, the 
 example of Lewis, taken from his own statement, 
 affords one of the strongest arguments against him; 
 for in that prince we have an instance of a Catholic 
 monarch, professing great zeal for his religion, yet rarely, 
 if ever permitting it to be an obstacle to his pursuit 
 of power. The characters of the two princes in many 
 respects have a strong resemblance, and the question 
 
 s b 
 
A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 III. 
 
 is whether the transactions, which Mr. Rose supposes 
 to originate in honest bigotry, may not, as well as 
 the apparent religious zeal, which he has discerned 
 through the whole of Lewis's Correspondence, be 
 traced to another source, or at least be mingled 
 with it. 
 
 More general 
 objection an- 
 swered. 
 Rose, p. I3i. 
 
 Mr. Fox's sys- 
 tem affords a 
 :aiore imstruc- 
 tive lesson to 
 subjects. 
 
 Fox, p. iozj, 
 
 " If we are right," says Mr. Rose, " in the view 
 " we have taken of this subject, it must be admitted, 
 " that the truth of history should not be sacrificed 
 " for the sake of an instructive lesson." We cer- 
 tainly shall not withhold the admission; for the truth 
 of history ought not to be sacrificed for any considera- 
 tion, and we may add, the propriety of such sacrifice 
 cannot depend upon extrinsic circumstances, or be un- 
 justifiable only, because Mr. Rose is right in the view 
 he has taken of the subject. But, if it were per- 
 mitted to make the sacrifice for the sake of " an in- 
 " structive lesson," Mr. Rose in terms not very in- 
 telligible observes, " Mr. Fox's system does not seem 
 " to have any advantage." The reason given is ra- 
 ther extraordinary, but, as a wilful perversion of 
 the passage is not imputed, we must account for 
 the misunderstanding of it, in some other way. The 
 dreadful atmosphere of party, which so constantly 
 envelopes Mr. Rose, is the most charitable solution. 
 After reprobating the wish of the Tory historians " to 
 
mr. fox's historical work. is? 
 
 " induce us to attribute the violence of this reign to sec tion 
 
 * James's religion, which was peculiar to him," Mr. — 
 
 Fox observes that " if we consider it, as history will 
 
 u warrant us to do, as a part of that system, which 
 " had been pursued by all the Stuart Kings, as well 
 " prior as subsequent to the Restoration, the lesson 
 *' which it affords is very different, as well as far 
 " more instructive," and then proceeds to point out 
 the particulars in which the lesson is more instruc- 
 tive to Englishmen, if contests should unfortunately 
 arise with their sovereign. The observation is con- 
 fined entirely to the vices and conduct of Kings; 
 and the lesson is supposed to be instructive, not 
 to other Kings, but to persons, who may be go- 
 verned by them, and stand solely in the relation of 
 subjects. Mr. Rose however totally misconceives 
 the course of the argument, and endeavours to prove 
 Mr. Fox to be wrong by an observation, which has 
 no immediate connection with the question in dispute. 
 " Now," says he, " the lust of arbitrary power is Rom, p. w. 
 " a vice confined to Kings, which by persons in or- 
 
 * dinary life can be but little felt, or understood; 
 ■' whereas to bigotry and intolerance all ranks are 
 " subject, and their ill consequences are felt through 
 " all the stages of society." Mr. Rose must know 
 but little of mankind if he supposes the love of power 
 and of arbitrary power too, is a vice confined to 
 
 Bb 2 
 
188 A VINDICATION OT 
 
 section Kings. All men are formed of the same materials, 
 
 ■ — and influenced by the same passions, and the lust of 
 
 power belongs to every human beings however high 
 or low his situation may be. — But granting that Mr. 
 Rose's observation is well founded, and that a sub- 
 ject is debased by one vice fewer in number than 
 his sovereign : yet this would be no answer to the 
 passage quoted from Mr. Fox. A bigoted, and into- 
 lerant spirit may pervade all ranks, but it is rather 
 the accidental weakness of the individual, than a vice 
 incident to human nature : and at any rate is not 
 one to which the situation of a King is in general 
 more particularly exposed, nor against the prevalence of 
 which, it is the interest and duty of his subjects to be 
 continually on their guard. But the inordinate love of 
 power, a vice so natural to man, is always fostered and 
 encouraged in the sunshine of prosperity, and within the 
 circle of a crown. It is a vice, in favour of which 
 Kings are exposed to greater temptations than other 
 men, and it is therefore that, which they should be 
 seriously warned to avoid, and their subjects instructed 
 to observe with vigilance, and guard against with 
 jealousy. 
 
 A lesson, which puts subjects upon their guard, against 
 an inordinate love of power in their Sovereign, is likely to 
 be much more beneficial and salutary, than one which 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. I89 
 
 can direct their conduct only, when he brings their section 
 
 religion into danger. The lesson, alluded to, is not 
 
 pointed out, as Mr. Rose erroneously imagines, to persons 
 in ordinary life, for the regulation of their trans- 
 actions with each other, or to teach them individu- 
 ally humility in their temporal, or charity in their spiri- 
 tual concerns. 
 
 In the concluding paragraph of this section, Mr. Rose The desire and 
 does not differ in opinion from Mr. Fox, either as namraUokYn"* 
 to the love of power belonging to the three first Mo- 
 narchs of the Stuart race, or to James, but it is the 
 use only which the latter intended to make of it, which 
 is disputed, and even that, we are told perhaps so much 
 pains might not have been taken to establish, " had Rose)P . J2S , 
 " it not been for the deduction which Mr. Fox seems 
 " desirous of making from it ; namely, that the desire 
 " of power, and indeed of its abuse, is so natural to 
 " Kings, that it is needless to look for any motive 
 H beyond that general one, to account for such tyran- 
 " nical attempts in the Monarch, against the freedom 
 " of the people." Why Mr. Rose should be stimulated 
 to so long, and laborious an investigation to shew the 
 fallacy of that deduction, he does not inform his 
 readers; surely it cannot be, that merely because Mr. 
 Fox was desirous to make it, he was resolved to oppose 
 it. He cannot dispute that the desire of power is natural 
 
A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section to all men, and among others to Kings ; nor that power 
 — is liable to be abused wherever it is lodged, and more 
 
 in the hands of those, who from their situation are 
 exposed to stronger, and more numerous temptations 
 than others ; especially when they happen to be under 
 fewer restraints to keep them within proper bounds. 
 Whether, when tyrannical attempts are made against 
 the freedom of the people, any other motive besides this 
 general one ought to be sought for, must depend upon 
 the circumstances, under which they are made ; Mr. 
 Fox thinks it unnecessary, in the case of James, to make 
 any further inquiry, but Mr. Rose, conceives the Tory 
 writers have discovered another motive, and has entered 
 with more zeal than success, into the lists to defend 
 them. 
 
 principles and i n the introduction to this Work we ventured to 
 
 expressions of 
 
 !Se^ro°S" predict that principles more exceptionable, and ex- 
 pressions more offensive to royalty would be found in 
 Mr. Rose's Observations, than in any part of Mr. Fox's 
 Historical Work, and the concluding half sentence of 
 the section may be produced to prove the fulfilment of 
 
 Rose, p.m. the prediction. For there we find Mr. Rose boasting 
 that it is the pride and happiness of the subjects of 
 the British empire to reflect, that the energy of the con- 
 stitutional principles of our Government, and the natural 
 love of liberty in the country occasioned tyrannical 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 1Q1 
 
 attempts, against the freedom of the people to terminate section 
 
 " in the ruin of the prince, and in the more firm esta- 
 
 " blishment of the rights of the subject." Where 
 are the principles concerning monarchy developed in 
 Mr. Fox's book, at which any person avowing these prin- 
 ciples may be supposed to feel alarm? Let Mr. Fox 
 express his disapprobation of the execution of Charles 
 the First, though the manner of conducting his trial 
 was less exceptionable, than the proceedings against 
 Lord Strafford — Let him declare his admiration of the 
 talents of Cromwell, and his contempt of the baseness of 
 Monk — Let him state, that legislative provisions may be 
 overpowered by the ambition of a Monarch, and the 
 subserviency of his ministers — Let him charge Charles 
 the Second with concealing a treaty from some of his 
 ministers — and let him attribute to Kings in common 
 with all other men a natural love of power, and to their 
 situation unavoidable temptations to abuse it ; yet after 
 all, he has manifested no disposition to exult over the ruin 
 of a Prince, or make it his pride and happiness to con- 
 template the triumph of liberty, when attended by such 
 a sacrifice. 
 
SECTION THE FOURTH. 
 
 C C 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Connection between Charles the Second and Lewis the Fourteenth, 
 that the former might reign independent of Parliaments. — Mr. Fox 
 dissatisfied with Sir John Dalrymple. — Mr. Rose mistakes Lord 
 Holland's preface for Mr. Fox's book. — His further mistakes. — True 
 object of Mr. Rose's book. — Imposition of Macpherson. — Dis- 
 respectful language of Mr. Rose concerning" Monarchs. — How far 
 Barillon's letters valuable. — Bill for Preservation of the Person of 
 James the Second made material alterations in the Law con- 
 cerning Treasons. — Burnet's description of the Bill defended. — 
 History of the Bill. — Journals of Parliament not to be relied upon. 
 — Ralph inaccurate in his History. — Burnet again correct. — Ralph 
 again incorrect. — The Bill resembles a modern Statute. — Compari- 
 son of the Bill with the Statute of 36 Geo. 3. c.7. 
 
 C € 2 
 
SECTION THE FOURTH. 
 
 Mr. Rose thus explains the object of the fourth sec- section 
 tion of his work. " In the former sections we have ' 
 
 " ventured some remarks on those general points of Mr. Co ™i ction . 
 
 O r with France, in 
 
 " Fox*s narrative, and discussions, which appear rather ^^JontVf" 
 " to flow from a partial view of the subject, than to be Parliaments - 
 
 . , . Rose, p. 127, 
 
 " authorised by history, or by the documents from which 
 '* history is drawn. In this section is meant to be con- 
 " sidered his representation of particular circumstances 
 " in detail, with which he endeavours to support the 
 " system he has laid down." Here Mr. Rose has not 
 kept faith with his readers, for in this section, so far 
 from considering in detail particular circumstances, in 
 which Mr. Fox endeavours to support his system, he 
 enters into consideration of one assertion only of Mr. Fox, 
 " that the object of the supplies, furnished by Lewis to 
 "' the two brothers, was to prevent their calling Par- 
 ** liaments, and enabling them to govern altogether with- 
 
198 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 IV. 
 
 Object of 
 Charles. 
 
 " out the controul, or intervention of these assemblies." 
 We have already observed that Mr. Fox asserted that 
 the object of a connection with France was, that these 
 two Kings might reign independent of Parliament ; but 
 he does not any where say, that the object was to pre- 
 vent the calling of Parliaments altogether, or to avoid 
 the intervention of them, but to enable the King to go- 
 vern uncontrolled by them. Mr. Rose, wholly mistaking 
 the meaning of the observation of Mr. Fox, enters 
 into a laboured refutation of what had not been asserted, 
 and quotes so many extracts from Barillon's Letters, as 
 to ra.se an apprehension, that his readers may think 
 him tedious in his discussion whether the remittances 
 from France were intended to enable the King to go 
 vern without a Parliament, and whether they could have 
 been sufficient for that purpose. It is unnecessary to 
 examine separately each of these numerous extracts, or to 
 enter into any further argument respecting them, for they 
 have been answered already in the beginning of the third 
 section; but it may be observed in general, that they 
 manifest on the p.irt of Lewis a great desire, upon some 
 occasions, that a Parliament should not be assembled, and 
 upon others, that it should not be allowed to continue its 
 sittings, and that to obtain his wishes he did not scruple 
 to supply Charles occasionally vvi'h large sums of money. 
 Charles, who found his plan of arbitrary power coun- 
 teracted, and imagined his throne itself was: endangered 
 by the meeting of these assemblies, was not less desirous 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 19$ 
 
 than Lewis could be, that his actions might be exempted SEC ™ 0N 
 
 from their controul, and his prerogatives secured from their ' 
 
 interference. But he found, that the threat of calling a 
 Parliament stimulated the French King to fresh supplies, 
 or new subsidies, and therefore he did not chuse, in the 
 early part of his reign at least, that it should be supposed 
 he could by any possibility do entirely without them. 
 On the other hand, Lewis did not wish that Charles should object of 
 
 Lewis. 
 
 reign in tranquillity. From motives of policy he inclined 
 to the re-establishment of a monarchical system of go- 
 vernment in England, and that the exiled family should 
 be restored, but his intention was that it should hold the 
 sceptre in dependence upon him. The meeting of the 
 Parliaments might occasionally derange his plans, and 
 force its sovereign, reluctantly into measures hostile to 
 his views-. It is not surprising, therefore, that Lewis 
 should consider it as an important object to do entirely 
 without Parliaments, if possible, and look, with some 
 degree of anxiety and apprehension, to the times of their 
 assembling. The secret clue to these transactions be- connection 
 
 ° between them 
 
 tween the two princes, may be discovered by a reference explained, 
 to two letters in Barillon's correspondence, dated the 3d of 
 August, 1679, and the 3d of February, 1681, both cited by 
 Mr. Rose. But he has omitted the first part of the passage Dai. Mem. 
 
 . App. 2. p.288. 
 
 in the former one, which runs thus : " This prince 
 " answered me, that he did not doubt but your Majesty 
 " was displeased to see monarchy attacked so violently, 
 " as it is in England, and that it was not for your interest 
 
2°° A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section « it s i lou id be destroyed, but it was time/' &c. This 
 
 : ~ passage shews Charles was desirous that the ostensible ob- 
 ject of this negociation should be the preservation of mo- 
 Rose, P . 133. n archy in England. And he afterwards, in this conver- 
 sation with Barillon, asked the assistance of Lewis, in 
 order that, " He might not receive the law from his 
 " subjects," or as he also expressed it, that he might re- 
 establish his affairs, " and not any longer depend on the 
 " caprice of the House of Commons." Barillon was de- 
 sirous to know whether he designed to go on without a 
 Parliament, for a long time, or only to put off the session 
 by frequent prorogations, and Charles answered, that 
 he had already dissolved the Parliament, and " could 
 " still put off the meeting of a new one," but he 
 could not " engage, or promise to dispense altogether 
 " with Parliaments, because, he had no hopes that 
 " your Majesty would furnish the sums necessary for 
 " sustaining the expences of the state, and supporting 
 "him long, without the assistance of Parliament." 
 Charles seems to have satisfied Barillon, that it was abso- 
 lutely necessary he should call a Parliament, and Barillon 
 told him, that the meetings of Parliament always ap- 
 peared very dangerous, " and that it was difficult to 
 f* promise himself any thing from it favourable to his 
 ** interests, and that he would be always exposed 
 " to see the Parliament carry itself in every thing con- 
 >< trary to France, and perhaps force him to enter into 
 /« such measures himself." This negociation ended 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 201 
 
 without effect, for the intended treaty was never com- SE( ^ ON 
 
 pleated, owing to the requisition, on the part of France, ~~ 
 
 of an additional clause, to which Charles would not 
 submit. 
 
 In the conversation just mentioned, Barillon leaves no 
 doubt of the view, in whieh his master was accustomed 
 to contemplate the meetings of Parliament ; they were 
 always dangerous to the interest of both these kings, and 
 if he could have supplied Charles with money sufficient for 
 his necessities, it is pretty clear, that it would have been 
 accepted on the condition of his not summoning any. But 
 the above mentioned letter of the 3d of February, 1681, is 
 perfectly explicit, and destroys the baseless fabrick, which 
 Mr. Rose has been attempting to erect; for Barillon says, 
 " There remains only one difficulty, which is that of 
 " putting off for ever the sittings of the Parliament. 
 " I know very well it is a security which your Majesty 
 ** has reason to demand * but you promised me, in 1619, 
 " to consent that the Parliament should assemble when 
 *• the King of England should think it necessary for 
 " his own interests, provided that then the subsidies 
 " should cease." The embassador must be presumed 
 to be informed of the wishes of his Majesty, who pro- 
 bably had written to him upon the subject. He had 
 
 * " II reste seulement une difficult^, e'est celle d'eloigner pour R 
 " toujours la seance du Parlement. Je sgai bien que e'est une 
 u mrete que votre Majest6 a raison de demander, &c. 
 
 Dd 
 
202 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 IV. 
 
 shewn iiis wish in 16779, that none should be allowed 
 to assemble, by imposing, as a penalty, the loss of 
 the stipulated subsidies, if one should be called within 
 the time fixed. When this letter was written, his ob- 
 ject remained the same, but his anxiety had increased 
 so much, that he was not then inclined to be contented 
 with the compromise he had accepted upon the former 
 occasion; he would not be satisfied with keeping Par- 
 liaments in check, or postponing their assembling to 
 any definite time : the British Monarch was, for ever, 
 to prevent their meeting, in other words, be was thence- 
 forth to govern without them. 
 
 Mr. Fo* dis- 
 satisfied with 
 Sir J. Dal- 
 ryraple, 
 
 Rose, 140. 
 
 If proofs were wanting of Mr. Rose having written the 
 
 observations with a strong bias upon his mind, and of his 
 
 understanding being powerfully operated upon by that 
 
 atmosphere of party, in which he had so long lived,, his 
 
 remarks upon Mr. Fox's treatment of Dalrymple would 
 
 amply supply the defect. He says, " Those, who wish 
 
 •* to be more fully and particularly informed on the 
 
 " whole of the intercourse between the English and 
 
 " French Courts, during the reigns of Charles II, 
 
 " and James II, will not be disappointed in referring 
 
 i( to Dalrymple's Memoirs: for although there may be 
 
 tl ground for differing with that author on his reasoning, 
 
 *' there is no appearance of his having had any reluctance 
 
 " to the discovery of facts, or to the production of 
 
 " documents, by which they might be ascertained. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 803 
 
 " It is difficult therefore to understand on what foun- Si:c I 1 v I0N " 
 
 " dation Mr. Fox has stated that it was in consequence ~~ 
 
 " of his dissatisfaction at the manner, in which Mr. 
 " Macpherson, and Sir John Dalrymple had explained, 
 " and conducted their respective publications, that he 
 " was induced to consult their respective documents, and 
 " added, ' that the correspondence of Barillon did not 
 " disappoint his expectations : as he thought the ad- 
 " ditional information contained in those parts of it, 
 " which Sir John Dalrymple had omitted to extract, or 
 " to publish, so important that he procured copies of 
 " them all,' observing to one of his correspondents, 
 " ' my studies at Paris have been useful, beyond what 
 M I can describe.' " 
 
 In the beginning of this paragraph, Mr. Rose recom- 
 mends the Memoirs of Sir John Dalrymple, as containing 
 full information upon the whole intercourse between the 
 two Courts, with the manifest intention of diminishing 
 the merit of Mr. Fox, who had expressed his dissatis- 
 faction with the book, and had exercised his industry 
 to supply deficiencies, which as Mr. Rose contends do 
 not exist. He gives a reason for this recommendation, 
 which a strict logician might deny to be relevant to 
 the matter in dispute, for, though Dalrymple might 
 have no reluctance to the discovery of facts, or the 
 production of documents, it does not follow, that Mr. Fox 
 might not have discovered some facts, or produced some 
 
 Dd2 
 
204 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 IV. 
 
 documents, which had escaped the notice of Dalrymple ; 
 and it Is not surprising, that Mr. Fox should be displeased 
 with the manner, in which he explained, and conducted 
 his work* if, as Mr. Rose allows, there may be ground 
 for difference with that author, as to his reasoning upon 
 those facts. This may be added to the long list of 
 instances, already noticed, in which Mr. Rose first 
 declares he differs from Mr. Fox, and then proves that he 
 is right, and concludes at last with adopting his opinion. 
 
 Mr. Rose mis- 
 takes Lord 
 Holland's Pre- 
 face for Mr. 
 Fox's Work. 
 
 Rose, Int. 
 p. xiii. 
 
 Mr. Rose having thus answered himself, we might drop 
 the subject, but the charges and the manner in which they 
 are made by him, are deserving of a more minute exami- 
 nation. Mr. Rose says, in the paragraph last cited, that 
 " Mr. Fox has stated," &c. and refers his readers by an 
 asterisk, at the bottom of the page, to " Mr. Fox's Intro- 
 duction, p. 24." The statement here alluded to was made 
 not by Mr. Fox, but by the Editor of his work, Lord 
 Holland, and Mr. Rose has complimented him, upon 
 the manner in which he had executed his duty in that 
 capacity, and more than once cited the preface, or 
 address to the reader, as written by him. Why then 
 he should sometimes consider it as the performance of 
 Mr. Fox, and argue upon it as such, the reader may 
 account for with all the charity he can. In the present 
 instance, he not only treats Mr. Fox, as the author of that 
 preface, but cites it in the note, as if written by him, 
 and by the title of Introduction which is not given to it 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 
 
 205 
 
 /* SECTION 
 
 by its author. This may not be done for the purpose of rv. 
 confounding it with the first chapter, which is, called 
 Introductory, and sometimes by Mr. Fox himself the 
 Introduction, though it certainly may have that effect. 
 But what becomes of Mr. Rose's accuracy, when after 
 having read, and applauded the preface, as the work of 
 another person, he supposes Mr. Fox to be the author, and 
 a passage to be penned by him, in which he is described 
 as expressing to himself his own dissatisfaction with Dal- 
 rymple, and Macpherson. But the carelessness of Mr. 
 Rose does not end here, he goes on blundering as he 
 began, when he says, that Mr. Fox " added that the 
 '* correspondence did not disappoint his expectations;" 
 and it might be supposed that this was a continua- 
 tion of the former passage, from the manner in which 
 it is introduced, but in fact the two passages stand 
 in the preface, ten pages asunder. This addition, as well 
 as the former part of the quotation, was written by the 
 Editor of the work, and if taken as the production of 
 Mr. Fox, must be in the nature of a soliloquy, in which 
 he was addressing himself upon paper, and giving himself 
 an account of the great value of his own discoveries. 
 The fact is, that Lord Holland, having detailed Mr. Fox's 
 inducements to consult the original documents, says, 
 that the correspondence of Barillon did not disappoint 
 his expectations, and brings in proof of his (Lord Holland's) 
 assertion two sentences, one from a private letter, the 
 other from a conversation, in which Mr. Fox expressed 
 
206 
 
 SECTION 
 IV. 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 himself, concerning the usefulness of that correspondence, 
 in terms of high praise and delight. The testimony, thus 
 produced by Lord Holland, is conclusive of the fact, that 
 Mr. Fox was not disappointed. But, if there had been 
 reason for disappointment, Mr. Rose might have been 
 justified in proving, that Mr. Fox was unreasonable in 
 being pleased with his discoveries, but not in saying that 
 '« Mr. Fox states," what Lord Holland only had inferred; 
 and at any rate he does not exhibit any symptom of 
 being accustomed to more than common accuracy, when 
 he quotes Lord Holland's opinions and proofs as another 
 person's. 
 
 Rose, P . i4i. ^j r# R ose says, " it appears not to be quite consistent 
 " with justice to reproach him, " (i. e. Dairy mple) " with 
 " having omitted to extract, or publish important dispatches." 
 The words printed in italics are, in Mr. Rose's Observa- 
 tions, placed between inverted commas, as the words of 
 Mr. Fox, and then Mr. Rose thinks he refutes them, by 
 stating that the motives which he conjectures Mr. Fox 
 would have suggested for Sir John Dalrymple suppressing 
 them, could not have actuated him. In the first place, 
 the statement is Lord Holland's, not Mr. Fox's. In the 
 second, the fact of Sir John Dalrymple having omitted to 
 extract, or publish parts of a correspondence, to which he 
 had access, cannot be affected by a reference to his mo- 
 tives, but might properly be examined, by a comparison 
 of the originals with his extracts, and publications. And 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 
 
 207 
 
 lastly, the dispatches omitted may have been important, lv . 
 
 either in the view Mr. Rose supposes Mr. Fox to have 
 meant, or any other, though Sir John Dalrymple did not 
 omit them from any such motive, but through mere 
 accident, or any other cause. 
 
 Mr. Rose's 
 further mis- 
 take. 
 Rose, p. 141. 
 
 Mr. Rose still struggling, against the political bias of his 
 
 mind, to be impartial, and possibly enjoying a conscious 
 
 pride in believing himself to be so, next observes, that 
 
 " It certainly does not appear how these studies of Mr. Fox, 
 
 * and the industry of his friends in copying for him, were 
 
 " usefully employed, for on attentively comparing the 
 
 «' letters he has printed, with Sir John Dalrymple' s Ap- 
 
 " pendix, it will be difficult to find the discoveries alluded 
 
 " to. We are, therefore, to learn what foundation there is 
 
 '* for imputing to that author, an attempt at concealment, 
 
 ** respecting any part of the censurable conduct of James, 
 
 " by withholding a part of the correspondence of the year 
 
 " 1685, the zvhole of zohich is not published by Mr. Fox 
 
 " himself, who has omitted a very long letter of the 26th 
 
 " of March, 1685, printed by Dalrymple, " and in another 
 
 place, he says, " the researches of the latter were confined, Rose, P .i47, 
 
 " as already observed, to a part of the year 1685, whereas 
 
 " the Baronet applied his industry to every thing he could 
 
 " rind, from the year 1667, to the Revolution." It is 
 
 manifest that Mr. Rose underrates the labours of Mr. Fox, 
 
 and contradicts the positive assertion of Lord Holland, 
 
 when he states his researches to have been confined to a 
 
*os 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 IV. 
 
 Fox, Pref. 
 p. xxxiv. 
 
 p. xliv. 
 
 part only of the year 1685, for we are expressly informed 
 in the Preface, that he obtained copies of the most material 
 parts of the whole of Barillon's correspondence ; and as 
 Barillon continued embassador to the English Court till 
 the flight of James, the industry of Mr. Fox must have 
 been extended to the same period with that of the Baronet. 
 The reason, (for which the editor alone is responsible) 
 assigned in another place, why letters omitted by Sir John 
 Dalrymplehave been published, only " from the death of 
 " Charles II. to the prorogation of Parliament in 1685," 
 is, because those of a subsequent date have no relation to 
 the short period, which unfortunately is included in the 
 Historical Work, and probably because a publication of 
 all, would have swelled the appendix to an inconvenient 
 size. 
 
 xliii. 
 
 With his accustomed accuracy Mr. Rose makes it matter 
 of complaint, not only that letters, which had no reference 
 to the Historical Work were not published, but that a 
 long letter, dated the 26th of March, 1685, found in 
 Dalrymple, had not been re-printed in the appendix to 
 Mr. Fox's book. Here he must have forgotten that the 
 avowed object of that appendix was to supply the 
 omissions of Dalrymple, (with some few exceptions, among 
 which is included the letter of the 18th of February, 1685, 
 mentioned by Mr. Rose,) in Barillon's correspondence, 
 during the short period of time mentioned in the pre- 
 ceding paragraph, not to lay before the public, duplicates 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 209 
 
 of what had been already printed. Mr. Rose also falls into section 
 
 another mistake, for he is not contented with making Mr. • 
 
 Fox answerable for all the errors of the editor in the pre- 
 face, but actually speaks of his having printed the ap- 
 pendix of Barillon's Papers, which were not prepared for the 
 press till after his decease. If Mr. Rose had been always 
 officially correct, he might have attended to the passage in 
 the editor's preface, where he says, that he is indebted to Fo *ij]j ret * 
 Mr. Laing, among other things, for " the selection of the 
 •appendix." 
 
 But we may put an end to this part of the argument, by Mr. fo*>s a*- 
 
 i c l • i i ditions to Dal- 
 
 an appeal to tacts, winch cannot deceive. Mr. Rose is rympieim 
 well versed in calculations, and a reference to the letters P ° r 
 published by Dalrymple, and in the appendix to Mr. 
 Fox's Work, will shew at once, whether in fact the latter 
 has made any material acquisitions in number at least 
 The letters and extracts which precede the Appendix to 
 Mr. Fox's Work, amount in number to fifty-one, of which 
 one only (giving an account of the death of Charles II.) 
 is copied at length in Dalrymple, and seven others are 
 copied in part, * out of one of them only a single para- 
 graph ; besides which, there may be three or four 
 more trifling extracts, of two or three lines each, inter- 
 spersed in different parts of Dalrymple. If a comparison 
 should be made between the bulk of the respective pub- 
 
 » The most material of the republished documents are mentioned 
 •d a note to page xliii. of the preface to Mr. Fox's Work. 
 
 E e 
 
210 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section lotions, the correspondence in the appendix nearly fills 
 
 141 pages, of which, including the letter, giving an 
 
 account of Charles's death, Dalrymple has published not 
 quite 16, and Mr. Fox's editor not less than 121 pages;, 
 in other words, the letters, which the latter has pre- 
 sented to the public, occupy more than seven times 
 the space which those of Dalrymple take up. 
 
 Having shewn that the letters published with Mr. 
 Fox's Work, vastly exceed in number and quantity of 
 writing, those contained in Dalrymple's publication, it 
 remains to say a few words concerning the usefulness 
 of Mr. Fox's discoveries. It might be tedious to the 
 reader, to enter into a minute discussion of the merits 
 of every one of these letters, but two general observations 
 will suffice to prove, that Mr. Rose's ' assertion is not 
 well founded; first, that the correspondence between a 
 King and his embassadors, carrying on intrigues with the 
 Monarch, the ministers, and the legislature of a foreign 
 state, must be highly interesting to every person, who 
 wishes to understand its history, and form a clear idea 
 of the origin and progress of its political events, while 
 that correspondence was going on ; and 2dly, that Mr. Rose 
 himself has acknowledged the importance of Mr. Fox's 
 additions, by making very free use of them; we may 
 adduce as an instance, that for the single purpose of 
 shewing bigotry to be the prevailing motive of James 
 IL he has quoted no fewer than nine letters, not found 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 2l * 
 
 • i SECTION" 
 
 in Dalrymple, but supplied by the industry ot Mr. Fox. IV . 
 
 And upon another occasion has cited, " Mr. Fox's 
 " Appendix passim" which would not have been done, 
 if he had made no discoveries. 
 
 It mav be proper, for the better understanding of the Rose.intro- 
 
 , duction, p. ii. 
 
 ensuing paragraph, extracted from Mr. Rose's book, to 
 premise that in the publication of the Observations, he mTroS ° f 
 professes to have obeyed immediately the impulse of pri- book ' 
 vate friendship; but, as a secondary consideration, to have 
 had a hope of rendering some small service to his country. 
 His sole motive at first, he also says, was to disprove Mr. P- Ui - 
 Fox's representation of Sir Patrick Hume's conduct. Mr. 
 Rose, however, forgetting perhaps what he had written 
 in his introduction, says, in the body of his work, " it Rose 'P- 148 * 
 " is of little consequence to the object of this publication, 
 Ji whether Macpherson had recourse to the journal of 
 " King James, or to the historical narrative compiled 
 " from it, as there are only some general references 
 4< to the authorities produced by him." If Mr, Rose 
 means by " the object of this publication," the vin- 
 dication of Sir Patrick Hume, which was originally 
 his sole motive, it is true that this point may be of 
 little importance; but if we are to understand him, 
 x to have abandoned the vindication of Sir Patrick 
 Hume, as the principal object of his work, and 
 to avow, that the object of his publication is to correct 
 'he statements, and reflections of Mr. Fox, which before 
 
 e e 1 
 
212* A VINDICATION Of 
 
 section he described as only a secondary consideration, we 
 
 must beg leave to differ from him in opinion. In this- 
 
 part of his work,, he is discussing the justice of Mr. 
 Fox's complaint of Macpherson,. and Dalrymple, and 
 one of those complaints being, that, from the manner 
 in which the former refers to his authorities, there 
 is no knowing what he refers to, it is surely of 
 some importance to the illustration of the point, to- 
 ascertain to what authorities he had access. 
 
 imposition of j t \ s curious to observe the measured terms, in which 
 
 Macpherson. 
 
 Macpherson expresses himself in his preface, so that 
 from reading it, " one would have supposed," as Mr. 
 Fox properly says, that he had inspected King James's 
 original journal accurately, and taken all his extracts 
 from it. He narrates circumstances, which he intended 
 should mislead his readers, as they have misled Mr. Rose, 
 to give him credit for having consulted it. They 
 may infer it, from what he has said, but if his ex- 
 pressions are attended to, it wiil be found that he does 
 not assert it. 
 
 Mr. Fox, suspecting Macpherson's extracts, thought 
 it necessary, when at Paris in 1802, to make enquiries 
 about the MSS, which had belonged to the Scotch Col- 
 lege. Principal Gordon, and other persons belonging to 
 Fax Pref tne College,, gave him information. And afterwards,, 
 t>,xxvi. when making further researches, and before he had. 
 
Mr. fox's historical work. 213 
 
 used the authorities he had possessed himself of, he section 
 
 says in a private letter, that he had detected an impu- 
 
 dent imposture of Macpherson, and learnt from un- 
 doubted authority that he had never seen the original 
 journal of James the Second, from which he would 
 have it supposed he had made those extracts, but only 
 a narrative drawn up from that journal. Mr. Rose 
 shortly observes upon this, that "no proof is offered Rose, p. us. 
 " of these assertions;" but he perhaps does not re- 
 collect, that this statement is made in a private letter, 
 not in the historical work ; and Mr. Fox being satis- 
 fied in his own mind, and desirous to communicate that 
 satisfaction to his friend, might not think it necessary 
 to trouble him with proofs of the facts stated. But Mr. 
 Rose is rather precipitate, when he says boldly, " no 
 " proof is offered," for in the letter, Mr. Fox appeals 
 to the internal evidence of the extracts themselves, mani- 
 festly made not from a journal but from a narrative, cor- 
 roborated by the principal persons of the College, from 
 whom there is no room to doubt, that Mr. Fox ob- 
 tained the information, when he was upon the spot. 
 
 Mr. Rose, who is accustomed to official accuracy, 
 and had just found fault with Mr. Fox for the supposed 
 making of an assertion without proving it, asserts that 
 ** the papers by the common courtesy of the College 
 •* were accessible to any one who went to Paris." But he 
 
214 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 iv. brings no proof of the assertion, which we must suppose 
 
 " under the word I Papers,' to include both the Journal, 
 and the Narrative, unless his assertion that " Mr. Hume 
 " saw both, and has given a short sketch of the MS. 
 " of King James, as far as relates to the schemes in 
 " the alliance with France," may deserve that appella^ 
 tion. For this short sketch we are referred to a note, at 
 page four of the eighth volume of the History of England, 
 in which Mr. Hume certainly describes himself as, 
 through the urbanity and candour, of the principal of 
 the College, permitted to inspect the Memoirs of King 
 James written by himself, but, as he describes them 
 to be in Folio volumes, it is evident that he had not 
 access to the whole, even of the Memoirs, which,, in 
 fox, Pref. Mr. Fox's List, * are stated to have consisted of four 
 Volumes folio, and six Volumes Quarto, From the books 
 which he saw, he made some extracts, relating to the 
 first secret treaty of Charles II., but gives no sketch 
 of any other schemes, or alliances with France. Hume 
 only mentions having seen the Memoirs in folio, 
 written with James's own hand, so that he excludes 
 
 * We are told by the writer in the British Critic before cited, 
 that there was in the Scotch College at Paris, besides the papers 
 mentioned in this list, a box, or casket of most secret papers, 
 which, by direction of James himself, was not to be opened 
 until the expiration of a century from the time when it was 
 deposited there ; and also the copy of a plan for his future govern- 
 ment in case he should be restored, which has been mentioned 
 in a former note. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 215 
 
 all idea of his having seen the narrative, yet Mr. Rose section 
 boldly asserts that he saw both. But supposing it 
 
 Rose, p. 149. 
 
 to be proved, that Mr. Hume was admitted to a perusal 
 of the original Memoirs, it would be no proof that 
 every body else had the same privilege. Reduced to 
 the form of a syllogism, Mr. Rose's conclusive logic 
 would stand thus. Mr. Hume was admitted to see the 
 Memoirs of James II. — Mr. Hume was a man, — there- 
 fore all men were admitted to see them. But as Mr. 
 Hume obtained this inspection, only through the ur- 
 banity and candour of the principal, it should rather 
 seem that it was not an indulgence permitted indis- 
 criminately to every visitant. 
 
 With a lively burst of indignation, Mr. Rose turns £ isies pectfui 
 
 J O ' language of 
 
 to the contemplation of the conduct of Charles II. ^nc^n ff 
 and James II. respecting their connections with l " onafchs - 
 
 . . ° Rose, p. H3. 
 
 France. " Every native of Great Britain," says he, 
 
 " carrying on a clandestine correspondence with a 
 
 " foreign power, in matters touching the interests of 
 
 " Great Britain, is prima facie guilty of a great moral, 
 
 " a? well as political crime. If a subject, he is a 
 
 " traitor to his King and his Country; if a Monarchy 
 
 " lie is a traitor to the crown zv/iich he wears, and to 
 
 " the empire which he governs. There may by pos- 
 
 " sibility be circumstances to extenuate the former; 
 
 " there can be none to lessen our detestation of the 
 
 s * latter." Let the reader now compare these sentiments 
 
216 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section w ith those of Mr. Fox, respecting Charles I. and 
 
 — Charles II., which Mr. Rose has censured with so 
 
 much acrimony, in the earlier part of his work, 
 and then let him point out any passage in Mr. 
 Fox's Work, in which crowned heads are treated 
 with less ceremony, or more offensive language is 
 applied to them. If Mr. Fox is to be stigmatized, as 
 partial to a republican form of government, because 
 he justly gives to a restorer of monarchy, the. epithets 
 of mean and base, how much more deeply rooted, 
 it might be argued by Mr. Rose, must be the hatred 
 of monarchy in his breast, who can describe a King 
 as a great criminal, " a traitor" to his crown, and his 
 empire, and an object of unbounded and unpalliated 
 detestation. 
 
 how far Barii- In the next paragraph, Mr. Rose will probably dis- 
 
 lon's letters . .. /•"' " i"« 
 
 valuable. appoint the just expectations of his readers, for it 
 commences, as if intended to prove from the corres- 
 pondence of Barillon, that Charles and James were 
 the detestable traitors, he had just before described 
 them to be ; but the argument ends in a weak attempt, 
 to prove what had never been disputed, that the letters 
 alluded to, must be uniformly rejected or admitted; 
 not admitted against the King, and rejected against 
 his opponents ; and we are in a manner, not very easily 
 to be comprehended, led -into the discussion, of how 
 far the charges against Russell and Sidney, for having 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 217 
 
 received money from Barillon are substantiated. Against section 
 those, who have argued in defence of the characters — ■ ■ ■ 
 of those great men, that the letters themselves were 
 not authentic, Mr. Fox's expression (as taken from a 
 private letter, not from his Historical Work) is cited, 
 that *« They were worth their weight in gold ;" and 
 afterwards, Mr. Rose observes, that Mr. Fox could Rose, P . i.w. 
 hardly be aware, how Barillon's testimony " bore on 
 " the character of these two men, on whom he bestows 
 " great and just eulogiums, when thinking it useful 
 " in support of a position he wished to maintain, he 
 " appreciated the value of Barillon's Letters so highly 
 " as we have observed, and added that his studies at 
 " Paris ■ Had been useful beyond what he could 
 - describe.' " Little could Mr. Rose know of the mind 
 of Mr. Fox, if he supposed, that because he had 
 bestowed high encomiums, upon two great political 
 characters, he could be induced, wrongfully to depre- 
 ciate the moral worth of any other man, in order to 
 preserve to them a fame which they had not me- 
 rited ; and still less could he be acquainted with that 
 mind, if he conceived, that in order to support a position 
 he wished to maintain, he could be induced to appre- 
 ciate the value of any letters, beyond what in his 
 opinion justly belonged to them. If he had not 
 thought them highly valuable, no power on earth 
 could have influenced him to have said so. 
 
 Ff 
 
tl* A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section B u t though Barillon's Letters, as to their usefulness, 
 ■ stood high in the estimation of Mr. Fox, and he en- 
 
 tertained no doubt of their authenticity, yet it does not 
 follow, that he therefore thought them entitled to full 
 credit upon all subjects and upon all occasions ; and still 
 less that he had an exalted opinion of the moral 
 character of the writer. For instance, he might trust 
 the intelligence given to the French King in all points, 
 except those, in which it was the interest of his em- 
 bassador to deceive him. That Mr. Fox did suspect 
 the honesty of Barillon in money matters is most clear ; 
 and that he was persuaded that he had accumulated 
 a large fortune, during his residence here, is highly 
 probable. Mr. Rose, therefore, is not justified in 
 assuming that, because Mr. Fox said, that these let- 
 ters, " were worth their weight in gold," he believed 
 every word in them to be true. It would be sufficient 
 that he conceived they furnished in general, a very 
 valuable accession to our historical materials, and were 
 to be trusted in all cases, except those, in which 
 the writer might have an interest to deceive. Mr. Fox 
 has not applauded the minute accuracy of Barillort ; 
 Rose, p. 155. and it is admitted, that his general statements may be 
 relied upon. 
 
 b.u for pre- At the conclusion of this section, Mr. Rose manifests 
 
 servation of . . ..... 
 
 the pa-son of pretty strongly, that m writing his observations upon 
 the Historical Work, he had not been able to withstand 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 219 
 
 the influence of those party feelings, in which lie had section 
 been so long accustomed to indulge. For, in terms of _______ 
 
 displeasure, he reprobates the supposition of Mr. Fox, 
 
 that some measures, adopted in recent times, were of 
 
 a similar nature with the provisions in the Bill, for the 
 
 preservation of his Majesty's person, introduced into 
 
 the House of Commons, upon the news of Monmouth's 
 
 landing, and copied in the appendix to the Historical 
 
 Work. Here we shall follow the example of Mr. Rose, 
 
 who has purposely avoided entering into any discussion, 
 
 concerning the expediency of those measures. The 
 
 object of this work, is not a general defence of the 
 
 political conduct, or tenets of Mr. Fox; or the less 
 
 pleasant task of attacking those of his opponents. Mr. 
 
 Rose, however, in his rash zeal to support the measures 
 
 of his friend, thinks himself called upon to defend 
 
 the bill for the preservation of the person of James 
 
 II. and says, " The treasons defined by the bill, as Rose, P . 155. 
 
 " originally brought in, did not differ essentially from 
 
 *« those previously established by the laws of England." 
 
 And to prove this, he asserts, that " The substantive Materially at- 
 
 „'.'■''■". tered the law 
 
 " acts," as he expresses it, " of compassing, or una- concerning 
 f gining the death, or destruction, or bodily harm 
 M tending to the death or destruction, maim, wounding, or 
 t* imprisonment of the King ; or to deprive him of, or to 
 " depose him from the crown ; or to levy war against him, 
 " or to stir foreigners to invade the kingdom, are certainly 
 " treasons, within the most limited construction of the 25th 
 
 f f 2 
 
 treasons. 
 
220 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section t< Edward III." It is unnecessary to examine minutely, 
 " ' every branch of this most extraordinary proposition, 
 
 but for the satisfaction of the reader, we will select 
 one of the treasons included in the bill, and mentioned 
 by Mr. Rose, namely, the compassing to levy war 
 against the king, and examine, whether it was made 
 a substantive act of high treason, by the statute of the 
 25. Edward III. To prove the affirmative, Mr. Rose 
 relies on the authority of Lord Coke, and Mr. Justice 
 Blackstone, but it is clear, th^t he has not read the 
 passages he refers to in the works of either. The 
 lust. iff. P . 9. f orm er expressly says, " A compassing or conspiracy 
 '* to levy war is no treason, for there must be a levying 
 e«m.iv. p. 82. fS of war de facto" the latter, " a bare conspiracy to levy 
 '.' war, does not amount to this species of treason." 
 The statute of the 13. Elizabeth, was passed in order, 
 among other things, to obviate this supposed defect in 
 the law; and compassing to levy war, declared by 
 printing, writing, or advised speaking, was made high 
 treason, during the life of the Queen. The 13. Charles 
 II. was made to give a similar protection to the then 
 reigning Monarch. This latter statute was in force, 
 when Lord Russell was brought to trial, but the time 
 limited for prosecutions under it was expired; and 
 one great objection to his execution, which was founded 
 upon the statute of 25. Edward III., was, that he 
 was not attainted by direct evidence, of any of the 
 \ treasons enumerated in that statute, but upon the 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 221 
 
 proof of facts, which could only, by a forced construe- section 
 tion of the statute, be received to support the charge *. —— — — — 
 
 The earliest of the cases mentioned at Lord Russell's 
 trial, as authorities to support the proceedings against 
 him, was in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. And as 
 the trial of Lord Russell occasioned much discussion, 
 and excited a great ferment in the kingdom, it is not 
 surprising, that James should be anxious to introduce 
 a statute similar to that which had protected the person 
 and throne of his brother, and thereby put an end at 
 least during his life, to all those doubts, which had 
 been unfortunately so recently raised, or revived. The 
 temper of the Parliament, at his accession, was not 
 favourable to the design, but the moment of Monmouth's 
 invasion, when the standard of rebellion was raised, and 
 
 * The preamble of the act passed 1. W. & M. for annulling his 
 attainder, recites, that, "By undue, and illegal returns of jurors, 
 " having been refused his lawful challenges to the said jurors for 
 " want of freehold, and bj/ partial and unjust constructions of law, 
 *' wrongfully convicted, attainted, and executed of high treason," 
 &.c. And the Earl of Warrington, in his charge to the Grand Jury at the 
 Quarter Sessions of the county of Chester, 11th October, 1692, said that 
 in the debate upon this bill in the House of Lords, the Lords were 
 unanimously of opinion that a conspiracy to levy war is not treason, 
 unless the war be actually levied; " and upon that ground chiefly they 
 passed the bill;" he called it "a far-fetched opinion," and said it " pre- 
 " vailed in the late times, whereby several worthy men were mur- 
 " thered". — Collection of State Tracts, published in the reign of King 
 William III. Vol. II. p. 206. 
 
222 A VINDICATION OP 
 
 section the Parliament was stimulated with an uncommon 
 
 IV, 
 
 - degree of ardour in the royal cause, seemed propitious, 
 and this bill, for preservation of the person of the King, 
 was brought in. 
 
 We forbear to make any observations upon the trial 
 of Lord Russell, it has been alluded to, only to shew 
 that Mr. Rose must be mistaken, when he includes in 
 his general proposition an assertion, that the conspiring to 
 levy war against the King, is a substantive act of high 
 treason, within the statute of Edward III. Lord Coke 
 
 inst. ii. p. i4. was of opinion, that an offence, falling under one branch 
 of that statute, could not be made an overt act of a 
 
 sum. p. i3. different species of treason ; and Lord Hale, was, at 
 one period of his life, of the same opinion, but, after- 
 
 H.H.i.p.119. wards altered it, -so that at the time of Lord Russell's 
 trial, the principle was not, perhaps, considered as 
 
 cr.Law, settled. Mr. Justice Foster, however says, it is now 
 no longer to be doubted, and in daily experience, and 
 mentions, as an instance, that conspiring to levy war 
 is an overt act of compassing the King's death, under 
 certain limitations. The law, upon this subject, was 
 
 st.Tciv.p.626. clearly laid down by Lord Chief Justice Holt in Sir John 
 Friend's case, and has been uniformly adopted ever since, 
 particularly by Lord Mansfield in Lord George Gor- 
 don's trial, and Lord Chief Justice Eyre in Hardy's. 
 At the time, when the bill in question was brought 
 into the House of Commons, the construction of the sta- 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 223 
 
 tute of 25. Edward III. was the same, as in more section 
 recent times, and a war levied against the King, without ' 
 any design upon his person, or endangering it, for 
 example, where persons assembled, and acted with force 
 in opposition to some law, which they wished to have 
 repealed, or to remove inclosures, or to expel strangers, op 
 to pull down bawdy houses, was then, and is now treason, 
 but not conspiring to levy war for any of these purposes. 
 But if the jury find upon the evidence, that there is a pur- 
 pose and design, by levying war, to destroy the King, 
 or to depose him from his Throne, or restrain him, or 
 have any power over him, the conspiring to levy war, 
 for such purpose is now settled to be a compassing of the 
 King's death. Upon this subject, Lord Chief Justice 
 Holt says, " Now, because a man designs the death, 
 " deposition, or destruction of the King, and to that 
 " design, agrees, and consults to levy war, that that 
 " should not be high treason, if a war is not actually 
 " levied, is a very strange doctrine, and the contrary 
 44 has always been held to be law." 
 
 If, then, a bare conspiracy to levy war against the 
 King was not, in all cases, a substantive act of high 
 treason, the bill for the preservation of the person of 
 James II. as originally brought in, being intended 
 to make it one, did differ essentially from the previously 
 established law of England; and the assertion of Mr. 
 Rose has been hazarded without due consideration. The 
 
824 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 ■SECTioM 56t George III. c. 7. which we shall shew hereafter, 
 
 — was formed upon the same model, is in this respect 
 
 more defined, and limited in its provisions ; for that sta- 
 tute makes a conspiracy to levy war against the King, 
 a substantive act of high treason, not in all cases in- 
 discriminately, but only when the object is, by force or 
 constraint, to compel the King to change " his 
 " measures, or councils, or to put any force or restraint 
 " upon, or to intimidate, or overawe both Houses, or 
 " either House of Parliament." 
 
 The bill in question, was calculated to make other 
 material alterations in the law of England, respecting 
 treasons, which we will not trouble the reader with the 
 discussion of. But we may be allowed to ask, if it is 
 contended that it was not the object of the bill to make 
 any material alteration in the law, for what purpose 
 was it brought in ? and for what reason were some of 
 its provisions again discussed, and passed into an act, so 
 lately as in the year 1795? No man, though he has 
 made the law the study of his life, can be secure from 
 being sometimes mistaken. Mr. Rose, has boasted of the 
 detection of two blunders even in Lord Coke's work ; no 
 wonder then, that he himself, who never studied it as 
 a science, should fall into error. In the present instance, 
 Mr. Fox has stated the purport of the bill correctly, but 
 Rg Se p. H5. Mr. Rose, endeavouring to inculpate him, has clearly 
 shewn that he himself has not even a superficial know- 
 ledge of the subject. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 225 
 
 It is curious to observe the eagerness, with which section 
 
 Mr. Rose seeks for an opportunity of attacking Bishop — 
 
 Burnet; Mr. Fox having; stated, and proved, in a note, Bishop Bur- 
 
 A net's descrip- 
 
 that Ralph had unjustly accused Burnet of inaccuracy, tionofthewii 
 
 1 J J * defended. 
 
 concerning this bill for the preservation of his Majesty's R se, P . isg. 
 person, and government, Mr. Rose observes, that the 
 fault of inaccuracy " was justly imputable to both 
 '? these authors, but the latter has most to answer for. 
 " Burnet calls it, a bill for declaring treasons. Ralph 
 " says there was no such bill, Not finding the title 
 " in the journals, nor any such act among the sta- 
 " tutes, nor a syllable in the debates about it, it is 
 " not very surprising he should fall into the mistake 
 " he did." Mr. Rose surely does not mean to con- 
 tend that a mistake in the title of a bill, is a greater 
 inaccuracy, than an unfounded denial of its existence. 
 One person mistakes the name of a thing, another 
 positively denies a fact, yet according to this argu- 
 ment, the former would have most to answer for. The 
 apology made for Mr. Ralph is, however, worthy of fur- 
 ther observation. The statute book we put out of the 
 question, for, as this bill never was passed into a law, 
 it would be absurd to suppose that Ralph would seek 
 it there. And with respect to the Journals, Mr. Rose 
 must know that, strictly speaking, a bill has no title in 
 its early stages, and it is not uncommon for bills to be 
 described, in the Journals, while going through the 
 House, by names or titles different from those, which 
 
 G g 
 
226" A VINDICATION OP 
 
 section are ultimately given to them. The charge against 
 
 . Burnet amounts to no more than this, that he has 
 
 described a bill by its substance, and in his own words, 
 instead of copying the exact description given of it in 
 the Journals, which he might not have at hand to refer 
 to. That he has described it with sufficient precision 
 for all popular purposes can admit of little doubt, and 
 still less can there exist a doubt, that a reference to the 
 Journals, accompanied with a wish to find it there, must 
 necessarily have led Ralph to the discovery of this bill 
 for the preservation of the King's person, which was 
 the only one before that parliament, to which Burnet's 
 description could by possibility apply. Indeed he was 
 aware of that bill, but did not take the trouble to 
 examine its contents. Besides the number of bills 
 brought in during that session were so few in number, 
 that it would not have been a severe task upon his in- 
 dustry to have examined them all. The truth is, that 
 those statutes, which are of the greatest utility, or most 
 frequently cited in courts of justice, acquire popular 
 names, by which they are known, and cited, and which 
 almost supersede the use of their formal titles. We may 
 give as an instance, the Navigation Act, and two others, 
 which Mr. Rose himself has mentioned in his second 
 section, under the denominations of the Habeas Corpus 
 Act, and the Test Act. And what is remarkable, the 
 distinguishing words used by him make no part of the re- 
 gular titles annexed to them by the legislature, and inserted 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 227 
 
 in the statute book. If either Mr. Rose, or Mr. Ralph section 
 
 had known the years, in which these acts had respec- 
 
 lively passed, and the substance of their contents, would 
 they have experienced any considerable difficulty in disco- 
 vering the acts themselves ? But the description of the bill, 
 in Burnet, is more particular than Mr. Rose (who pro- an t e .p.tis. 
 bably did not refer to his book, but was satisfied with 
 what he found in Mr. Fox's note) is pleased to sup- 
 pose, for it is described as an act projected, " declaring Bum. i. P . e». 
 'J treasons during that reign, by which words were to be 
 * ( made treason." The result of this attack upon Burnet 
 is, that there can be no question, as between Ralph and 
 him, which has most to answer for. Ralph is admitted 
 by Mr. Rose to have been mistaken, and Burnet turns 
 out to be accurate. 
 
 Since the publication of Lord Lonsdale's Memoir, History of the 
 
 . Bill. 
 
 which Mr. Rose could not be unacquainted with, for 
 he has cited it, we are enabled to make out the history 
 of the proceedings on this bill, with a considerable de- 
 gree of precision. From the Journals, it appears that j0U "»' »• 
 on the 13th of June, 1685, the account of Monmouth's 
 landing, was communicated to the House of Commons, 
 and it was referred to the same committee, which had 
 been appointed to draw up an address, to prepare, 
 and bring in a bill, for preservation of his Majesty's 
 royal person, and government, and also a bill for the 
 attainder of the Duke of Monmouth. On the 15th in* 
 
 g g 2 
 
228 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section structions were given to the committee, to add a clause 
 
 declaring it high treason, for any person to assert the 
 
 p. 737. legitimacy of the Duke of Monmouth, or his title, or 
 
 ib. p. 74i. pretence to the crown. On the 19th, it was. read a first 
 and second time, and committed to a committee of the 
 whole House, and at that date, consisted we presume, of 
 the bill as it now stands in Mr. Fox's appendix, except 
 the fourth, fifth, and eighth clauses. On the 26th the 
 ib. p. 749, 750. bin was j n a committee of the whole House, and the 
 speaker having resumed the chair, a select committee, 
 consisting of Mr. Serjeant Maynard, Mr. Solicitor Gene- 
 ral, (Finch) Sir Christopher Musgrave, Sir John Lowther, 
 (afterwards Earl of Lonsdale, and author of the memoir) 
 Mr. North, Sir Thomas Meres, Sir Richard Temple, 
 Mr. Etherick, Mr. Tipping and Doctor Brady, and they or 
 any three of them were impowered, to prepare and bring 
 in a clause, to be added to the bill, that none should 
 move in either House of Parliament, for alteration of the 
 ]bid . succession of the crown in the right line. On the 27th 
 
 the clause was reported from the committee, and orde- 
 red to lie upon the table; and in the afternoon of the 
 same day, Sir Edward Herbert reported the bill from 
 the committee of the whole House, with some amend- 
 ments to be made, and a proviso to be added, which 
 were agreed to, and the proviso ordered to make part 
 of the bill. This proviso now makes the eighth clause 
 of the copy of the bill. On the 29th of June, the in- 
 grossed bill, after an amendment had been made at the 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 229 
 
 table, was passed, with the title of, " an Act for the section 
 
 " better preservation of his Majesty's person, and govern- — 
 
 " ment," and ordered to be carried up to the Lords, 
 
 which was done the next day. It was read a first time 
 
 in the Lords, on the 30th of June, and ordered to be read 
 
 a second time on the morrow; it does not appear to have 
 
 been read a second time, and on the 2nd of July, both 
 
 Houses adjourned to the 4th of August, by the King's ^' d p' 6° 8 "&'c. 
 
 orders, and the bill was heard of no more. 
 
 We shall have occasion to notice hereafter, when we Journals of 
 proceed to examine at length, the heavy charges made, not to be re - 
 
 _ lied upon. 
 
 against the veracity of Bishop Burnet, by Mr. Rose, how 
 little the Journals of the House of Commons, are to be 
 depended upon, in disputed questions, and here a re- 
 markable instance of inaccuracy occurs, for we have no 
 mention made of the introduction of two clauses, viz. the 
 fourth, and fifth, now standing as parts of the bill, and 
 mentioned, and their history given by Lord Lonsdale. In- 
 deed thc\Journal is so drawn up, as to preclude the suppo- 
 sition that they could have been added, after the bill was 
 first brought in. For the clause about Monmouth, which 
 was added before the bill was read a first time, is spe- 
 cifically mentioned, and that about the succession was 
 added by a committee, nominated for the sole propose, 
 as the Journal states, of drawing it up and bringing it 
 in, so that, they had no power to draw up, or propose 
 any other. Amendments, it is true, are mentioned to- have 
 
23P . A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section Deen m ade in the committee of the whole House, and 
 
 IV 
 
 - one amendment in the House itself, but provisoes, or fresh 
 clauses are not usually described as mere amendments, 
 and when it is said, that a committee reported one pro- 
 viso, it cannot be conceived, that two others reported 
 also by them, were either altogether omitted, or counted 
 only for amendments. 
 
 However confused or incorrect, the entries in the 
 Journals, concerning this bill may be, we are fortunately 
 possessed of an historical account of it, drawn up by the 
 first Earl of Lonsdale, of the authenticity of which there 
 can be no suspicion ; he was united with the Whigs, and 
 deservedly stood high in their confidence, he was not 
 only well acquainted with their general designs, and ad- 
 vised with upon all their measures, but he was also one 
 of the before-mentioned select committee, appointed in 
 the progress of this bill, and an attentive observer of 
 all that passed concerning it. As his memoir of the 
 reign of James II. is not in general circulation, * I shall 
 not scruple to make an extract of some length from it, 
 containing the history of this bill, in its passage through 
 LordLons- the House of Commons, he says, " The second thing, 
 P a 8&9! '" wherein they seemed to use caution was in a bill, 
 
 * It has been generously printed at the expence of the present 
 Earl of Lonsdale, and distributed to his friends; but not published 
 for sale, 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 2S1 
 
 " brought into the hous ffor the preservation of the section 
 
 " King's person, the meaning of which was to make • 
 
 " words treason. Against which it was objected, that 
 
 " the wisdom of our ancestors had always been testified 
 
 " in their caution in not admitting any such president; 
 
 " that words were easilie misconstrued, and easilie mis- 
 
 " understood; that before the statute of Edward III., it was 
 
 rt become a difficult matter to say what was treason, and 
 
 " what was not; that, therefore, that act was made, and was 
 
 '* thought a sufficient securitie against all treasons, and had 
 
 " well provided for the safetie of the King's person, and 
 
 " goverment, and had amply enough enumerated the se- 
 
 " verall sorts of treasons; and that if there were anie 
 
 " axtraordinarie case happened, there was a power 
 
 " lodged in the Parliament by that statute to judge of 
 
 " it. That it would onlie tend to the incouraging perju- 
 
 " rie, when men, either through corruption or revenge, 
 
 " might so easilie doe mischeif, and be so hardlie proved 
 
 " perjured. To this t'was answered, that men might as 
 
 " easilie swear to ffacts that were never done, as to words 
 
 " that were never spoke. To which it was replied, that that 
 
 " appeared otherways in holie writt in thecase of our Sa- 
 
 " viour, against whom the ffals witnesses said, that he had 
 
 u said, that he would destroy the temple, and in three day 
 
 '• would build it up again; whereas the words he spake 
 
 * : were, destroy this temple, and in three days I will rais 
 
 " it up again. Where the mistake of the temple fTor this 
 
 " temple, ffor he spoke of the temple of his bodie, and 
 
232 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 IV. 
 
 " the word build instead of the word rais made the 
 - " crime according to the Jewish Law. By which, 
 " t'was plain that everie speech not fitted to the capa- 
 " citie of the hearers, might easilie be subject to a 
 " criminall construction, that private ■conversation would 
 " become suspected, and therefore that the law did 
 " wiselie provide, that there should be an overt act 
 " to make a treason, which is the highest punishment 
 " in the law. Att last, becaus they would not totallie 
 " reject a matter, that had but the pretence of securing 
 " the King's person, they referred it to a comittee to 
 " draw up some provisoes to the bill, that might se- 
 " cure the subject as much as could be. I was one 
 " of that comittee, and there were two provisoes agreed 
 " upon. The one was, that no preaching or teaching 
 " against the errours of Rome, in defence of the pro- 
 " testant religion, should be construed to be within that 
 " act. The second was, that all informations within 
 *' that statute should be made within forty eight howers. 
 " With these two provisoes, the fforce of it was so 
 " mutilated, that it was not thought worth having; 
 " and so it died." This quotation makes it highly pro- 
 bable, that there is a mistake in the entries concerning 
 this bill, in the Journals of the House of Commons. 
 The noble Earl (then Sir John Lowther) could not be 
 mistaken in the fact, that two provisoes were agreed upon 
 in the committee, or in the description of the provisoes 
 themselves. The probability therefore is, that the com- 
 
 v 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 233 
 
 mittee had larger powers, than are mentioned in the section 
 
 Journals. And that it drew up and reported, not one 
 
 proviso, but three, all of which were afterwards adopted 
 by the House, and incorporated into the bill. 
 
 To return, Mr. Rose says, " On the main point, Ralph 
 
 . inaccurate. 
 
 'f however, Ralph was correct in asserting, that if any Ro 3e ,p. w, 
 " clause to the effect stated was offered, it was by way 
 " of supplement to the bill," and he gives a reason, 
 of which the reader will probably not easily see the 
 application, " because both the clauses, objected to 
 " by Mr. Fox, were certainly added to the bill, after 
 '• it was in the House of Commons." One of the 
 clauses objected to by Mr. Fox, namely, that respecting 
 Monmouth, was in the bill when presented to the 
 House, and read a first time ; the other clause, concern- 
 ing the succession, was certainly added afterwards. But 
 let it be granted, that both the clauses were added 
 after the bill was introduced, Mr. Rose has still to 
 shew, in what manner that fact can affect the passages 
 in Burnet, or prove that the clause, which Ralph alludes 
 to, was offered by way of supplement, i. e. as a clause 
 to be added after the bill was brought in. It happens, 
 that Mr. Rose, and Ralph are, here, both mistaken, 
 and Bishop Burnet perfectly right, for he speaks only 
 of the first clause in the bill, and that clause was un- 
 doubtedly in the original draft, and could in no sense 
 of the word be a supplement to it. He was writing 
 
234 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 IV. 
 
 correctly concerning an event with which he was perfectly 
 well acquainted, while Mr. Rose, and Mr. Ralph, from 
 a want of knowledge upon the subject, have been find- 
 ing fault without any reason. 
 
 Burnet again 
 correct. 
 
 Rose, p. 157. 
 
 But Mr. Rose has not yet finished with the Bishop, 
 he attacks him for stating, that the bill was opposed by 
 Serjeant Maynard, which he says " may be true, but 
 " no trace of a discussion can any where be found, and 
 " the serjeant was the member first named to bring in 
 " the clause" respecting the succession. The publication 
 of Lord Lonsdale's Memoir has removed all difficulty, 
 and demonstrated that the Bishop, even when he stands 
 alone, and unsupported by contemporary historians, is 
 deserving of credit For in the quotation made in a 
 former page, the noble historian not only informs us, 
 that the first clause was discussed in the House of Com- 
 mons, but also gives us the substance of the arguments 
 used on both sides. We are under still greater obliga- 
 tions to the noble author, for he accounts for a whig 
 being named first upon the committee, and for a mem- 
 ber, who had opposed the bill in its original form, taking 
 an active part in the introduction of the additional clauses. 
 It is not improbable that the whigs upon that committee, 
 were induced to consent to the resolutions concerning 
 the succession, by way of compromise, in order to obtain 
 other concessions, which ultimately occasioned the loss 
 of the bill altogether. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 23S 
 
 A stranee fatality seems to attend Mr. Rose, for when- section 
 
 7 IV. 
 
 ever he strenuously supports the correctness of any par- . — : 
 
 ticular author, upon a specific point, there is almost con- 
 stantly discovered some other instance of his being incor- 
 rect ; here Ralph in the passage, quoted by Mr. Rose, Ralph agaia 
 
 1 . inaccurate. 
 
 not only unjustly charges Burnet with inaccuracy, but 
 is guilty of that fault himself, when he says, that " this 
 " bill never reached the Lords," for it has been shewn, 
 that it not only reached the Lords, but was read a 
 first time in that House, on the 30th of June. "«^»p- 22». 
 
 The reader may recollect, Mr. Rose's remark, that Thebiiire. 
 
 ,. . i -. _ , _, . , ,, sembles a mo- 
 
 notning was said by Mr. Jbox to point out the resemblance demact 
 between certain measures, which had been adopted a Ro3e 'P- 155 ° 
 few years ago for the public safety, and the provisions 
 of this bill, notwithstanding he had a desire to impress 
 his readers with an opinion that they were of a similar 
 nature. Mr. Fox's supposed omission in this respect, 
 it seems, from the concluding paragraph of the section, 
 now under consideration, did not prevent Mr. Rose from 
 discovering the late acts of Parliament, to which allusion 
 was made. He was a joint Secretary to the Treasury, when 
 the administration, to which he was attached, introduced 
 them to the consideration of the legislature, he was a 
 member of the House of Commons, in which those 
 bills were warmly debated ; the duties of his office 
 required from him a constant attendance in that assembly, 
 and a steady attention to its proceedings ; and it is not 
 
 h h 2 
 
236 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section going too far to presume, that he must have voted in 
 
 favour of these measures of his friends, and was consulted 
 
 about them. As Clerk of the Parliament also, the copy of 
 the bill for preservation of the person and government of 
 James the second was in his custody, and his love for anti- 
 quities and history, justifies the supposition, that if attach- 
 ment to his party had not stimulated him to examine this 
 paper, he would not have permitted it to have remained 
 unexplored, or unproduced, if occasion called for it. 
 With some surprize, therefore, we find the following 
 paragraph in his book, "Mr. Fox has not told, us for 
 " which of our modern statutes this bill was used as a 
 " model, and it will be difficult for any one to shew such 
 " : an instance." We accept his challenge, and let the 
 impartial reader judge between us, whether there is no 
 resemblance between the bill in question, and the fol- 
 lowing statute ; and whether they are not of a similar 
 nature. The modern statute, we fix upon, is the 36. 
 George III. c. 7, which received the royal assent on the 
 18th of December, 1795, and is entitled, "an act for the 
 " safety and preservation of his Majesty's person, and 
 ". government, against treasonable, and seditious practices, 
 " and attempts." This act, when first introduced into the 
 House of Lords, where it originated, bore a much closer re- 
 semblance to the bill, so often mentioned, than it now does 
 as printed in the statute book. Several alterations were 
 made in both Houses, and in particular a provision confining 
 the power of instituting prosecutions to the King under his 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 237 
 
 sign manual, or to the privy council, by their order, sb JJIon 
 was omitted. But after all the alterations, it is impossible, —————— 
 
 in the present state of the act, to mistake the model from 
 which it was taken. And the only way, in which this 
 conclusion can be avoided is by resorting to the epicurean 
 hypothesis, and contending that the fortuitous concurrence 
 of atoms may occasi< oally produce at any distance of 
 time statutes, not only in their general scope, and design 
 resembling each other, but containing provisions not 
 varying in a single word. 
 
 Upon a reference to the statute book, and the copy of Comparison of 
 
 . . JTJ theBillwith 
 
 the bill, many passages not noticed here may be observed 36 Ge0 - : 
 in which the resemblance is exact, or easily traced. We 
 shall conclude this section with copying the material part 
 of the first clause of the act of Parliament, by which, 
 among other things, the compassing to levy war in certain 
 cases, and for a time limited, is, contrary to Mr. Rose's 
 assertion, made a substantive treason, in addition to those 
 mentioned in the 25. Edw. 3. The corresponding part of 
 the bill is placed in an opposite column; and the better 
 to direct the attention of the reader, the words which 
 appear to be copied from the bill, are printed in 
 Italics. 
 
 ,3. 
 
 I 
 
238 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 IV. 
 
 1 . Jac. 2. 
 
 A bill for the preservation 
 of the person and govern- 
 ment of his gracious Majesty 
 King James the Second. 
 
 By this bill it was intended 
 to have been enacted, 
 
 That if any person, or- per- 
 sons whatsoever, after the first 
 day of July, in the year of 
 our Lord one thousand six 
 hundred and eighty-five, 
 during the natural life of our 
 most gracious Sovraigne Lord 
 the King, (whom Almighty 
 God preserve, and bless with a 
 long and prosperous reign, 
 shall, within the realm, or 
 without, compass, imagine, 
 invent, devise, or intend death, 
 or destruction, or any bodily 
 harme, tending to the death, 
 or destruction, maim, or 
 wounding, imprisonmente, or 
 restraint of the person of the 
 same our Soveraignc Lord the 
 King, 
 
 36. Geo. 3, c. 7. 
 
 Ah act for safety and 
 preservation of his Majesty's 
 person and government a- 
 gainst treasonable and sedi- 
 tious practices and attempts. 
 
 By this act it was enacted, 
 
 That if any person, or per- 
 sons whatsoever, after the day 
 of passing this act, during 
 the natural life of our most 
 gracious Sovereign Lord the 
 King, ( zv horn Almighty God 
 preserve, and bless with a long 
 and prosperous reign,) and 
 untill the end of the next 
 session of Parliament, after a 
 demise of the Crown, shall, 
 within the realm, or xoithout, 
 compass, imagine, invent, de- 
 vise, or intend death, or des- 
 truction, or any bodily harm, 
 tending to the death, or destruc- 
 tion, maiming or wounding, 
 imprisonment, or restraint of 
 the person of the same our 
 Sovereign Lord the King, his 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 239 
 
 IV. 
 
 or to deprive, or depose him heirs, and successors, or to sectiok 
 from the stile-y honour, and deprive, or to depose him, or 
 kingly name of tfue imperiall them, from the style, tumour, 
 crowne of this realm, or of ox kingly name of the imperial 
 any other his Majesty's domi- crown of this realm, or of any 
 ?iio?is, or countries, or to levy other of his Majesty's domi- 
 war against his Majesty within nions, or countries, or to levy 
 his realme, or without, war against his Majesty, his 
 
 heirs, and successors, within 
 this realm, in order by force, 
 or constraint, to compel him 
 or them to change his, or 
 their measures, or councils, 
 or to put any force, or re- 
 straint upon, or to intimidate, 
 or overawe both Houses, or 
 either House of Parliament, 
 §r move or stiir any forreigner, or to move, or stir any foreigner, 
 or strangers with force, to in- or stranger with force, to invade 
 vade this realm, or any ottier this realm, or any other of his 
 his Majesties dominions, or Majesty's dominions, or coun- 
 eountries being under his Ma- tries under the obeisance of his 
 jesties obeysance, Majesty, his heirs, and succes- 
 
 and such compassings, imagi- sors, end such compassing, ima- 
 nations, inventions, devices, or gination, inventions, devices, or 
 intentions, or any of them shall intentions, or any of them shall 
 express, utter, or declare, by any express, utter, or declare, by 
 printing, writing, preaching, publishing any printing, or 
 
240 A VINDICATION, &C. 
 
 section or < malicious, and advised writings or by any overt act 
 
 iv. • • 
 
 . — speaking, or deed, being legally convicted 
 
 being legally convicted thereof, thereof, &c. 
 
 &c. . . 
 
SECTION THE FIFTH. 
 
 I 1 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 No complete History of the Reigns of Charles the Second, and 
 James the Second. — How far arbitrary Power their Object. — The 
 divine Right of Kings introduced by Henry the Eighth, and 
 made the Creed of the Church. — The Right of the People asserted 
 by Protestants abroad, and then in England. — Charles and James, 
 when Exiles, attached to Catholics, and hated Sectaries. — Europe 
 divided into Catholic, and Protestant States. — The Catholics re- 
 fused to assist Charles, unless he changed his Religion. — Whether 
 converted before he left Paris. — His Application to the Pope. — 
 Example of the Duke of Newburgh.— Whether Charles was convert- 
 ed at Fontarabia. — His general Character. — Clarendon's Ministry. 
 — Change upon his Fall. — Character of the Duke of York. — While 
 in Exile, a steady Protestant — First Secret Treaty with France.— 
 Charles's Conversion proposed. — Louis out-witted. — Traite" Simule. 
 — Charles delayed, and then gave up his Conversion. — Conversion 
 of the Duchess, and Duke of York. — Contrast between the two 
 Brothers. — First Declaration of Indulgence. — A general Toleration 
 proposed. — Second Declaration of Indulgence. — Cancelled. — Money 
 first given to Members. — Charles broke with France. — The Duke 
 refused to conform. — A Treaty broken off, and the Duke displeased. 
 — He proposed to rebel. — Verbal Treaty with France. — The Duke 
 in full Power. — Charles alarmed at his Conduct. — Charles's Conver- 
 sion and Death. — Conduct of James, as King. — He, and Louis nego- 
 tiated more as Politicians than Bigots. — Louis would not advance 
 Money. — Excited James to Zeal for Religion. — Declared it to be 
 his sole- Object. — James quarrelled with Louis. — Shewed little an- 
 xiety about Religion. — General Policy of Louis. — James alarmed 
 the Church, and was ruined — Mr. Fox's Opinion of his Conduct 
 accurate. — James treated by Louis with more respect than Charles 
 —General Observation. 
 
 I i2 
 
SECTION THE fclFTH. 
 
 The reigns of Charles the Second and James the Second section 
 form a period of the greatest importance to our history, 
 
 v. 
 
 and a competent knowledge of the transactions included £to°ry K. 
 in it is necessary, not merely for the proper understanding cSefthe 
 of subsequent events, but also for the regular develope- jlme.the 
 ment of the principles, on which our present happy seco 
 constitution is founded. The materials for such a his- 
 tory are numerous, and probably nearly complete, and 
 for them we are indebted, chiefly, to the industry of 
 Sir John Dalrymple, Mr. Macpherson, and Mr. Fox. 
 There is scarcely an intrigue, which they have not 
 brought to light, or a difficulty which baffled the 
 penetration of former writers, which is not now removed. 
 But, as yet, the public has to regret that the full advantage 
 has not been made of these materials, and that the secret 
 transactions of these reigns have not been fully examined. 
 
246 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section or satisfactorily explained. Hume could not do it, 
 
 because these papers were not discovered till after he 
 
 wrote ; Dalrymple, and Macpherson's attempts certainly 
 do not preclude the efforts of others; and Mr. Fox, who 
 had undertaken to write the history of James the Second, 
 was unfortunately cut off before he had completed his 
 plan. The conduct of the royal brothers was generally 
 governed by one of two principles, a love of arbitrary 
 How far arbi- power, or a zeal for the catholic religion. The latter cer- 
 wa3 y th P cHDject tainly had greater influence over the mind of James, 
 PrLces. than of Charles, but it may be doubted whether the 
 attachment of both to that religion did not originate 
 in the hope of making it useful in their struggle 
 for power. But that James afterwards became truly 
 zealous in its cause does not admit of dispute. 
 In the two foregoing sections we have proved that Mr. 
 Rose's opinion, however generally sanctioned by historians, 
 that the primary object of James, immediately after his 
 accession to the throne, was the establishment of the ca- 
 tholic church is altogether unfounded. It is our intention 
 here, in addition to the arguments already produced, to 
 give a short sketch of the previous principles, conduct, and 
 designs of these princes, from which it will appear highly 
 improbable that James at that early period could have 
 formed so desperate a project. 
 
 That the love of arbitrary power, a desire to become 
 absolute, was a predominating passion in the bosoms of 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 247 
 
 both Charles and James historians in general are agreed ; section 
 but, for the perfect understanding of the history of their ■ 
 
 times, it is highly necessary to inquire .whether these 
 unfortunate monarchs grasped at greater power than their 
 predecessors had enjoyed, or confined their wishes to 
 those, which they believed belonged of right to the 
 throne, or were necessary for its security. In other 
 words, the question is, whether the ultimate object of 
 their various acts of tyranny was the unjustifiable increase 
 of their power, or only the safety of their persons, and 
 the stability of their thrones. The degree of guilt to be 
 imputed to them may be very different in one, or other of 
 these cases, in the former, the calamities of their house 
 may be considered as a just punishment for atrocious crimes; 
 in the latter, as the consequence of the improved, and 
 enlightened state of the people, rather than the wanton, 
 or wicked ambition of the monarch. 
 
 The divine right of Kings originally made no part of The divine 
 
 II • r t-> i i i right of King* 
 
 the law or constitution or England, and our most untmowntothe 
 
 ..... , . „ . Common Law. 
 
 ancient writers derive the rights to the possession or the 
 crown and its prerogatives from no higher authority 
 than the law*. Upon this foundation rested the rights of 
 
 * See Bracton, p. 5. 6. Fleta. p. 17. and Fortescue de laudibus, and 
 his Difference between an absolute, and limited monarchy. The p. i9. H. 6.62. 
 following curious case is in the year books. Henry IV. had granted 
 to the rector of Edington and his confreres and their succesors, to be 
 exempted from the payment of all taxes, and tallages, which should be 
 
248 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section the Sovereigns of England until the Reformation. They 
 
 -■■ ■ . claimed to be entrusted with only limited powers, and 
 
 were contented to be indebted for them to human insti- 
 tutions. 
 
 introduced by When Henry the Eighth threw off the yoke of the 
 a»d made t ne Romish Church, there was no argument, by which he 
 church. was so closely pressed, or which he found so difficult 
 
 to answer, as the assumption of a divine right in tem- 
 poral, as well as spiritual affairs by the Pope over all 
 Sovereign Princes. This usurpation had been submitted 
 to by many Princes on the Continent, and, in former 
 times, by some of his own predecessors. He adopted 
 the only expedient, which could remove the difficulty, 
 
 granted by the commonalty, and of all tenths granted by the 
 clergy, together with liberty to appropriate to themselves two parish 
 churches. The legality of this grant was tried in the Exchequer, 
 upon a tenth having been demanded from the rector, and his insisting 
 mpon this exemption. It was argued, on one side that the fifteenth 
 was a profit belonging to the King's Court of Parliament, &c. and on 
 the other, that it was not his inheritance, for he had no right to have 
 it, before his people had granted it to him. Fray, Chief Baron, 
 said that the grant was good, and this was a thing in the King at 
 the time of the grant, for the Parliament is the Court of the King, 
 and the highest Court he has, and the law is the most high inheri- 
 tance, which he has; for by the law he himself ", and his subjects are 
 ruled, and if there was no law, there would be no King, nor no 
 inheritance. Hody, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, said "the same 
 " law, which wills that the King shall defend his people, wills that 
 " the people shall grant to him of their goods, in aid of that defence, 
 " which proves the inheritance." Though the question arose here 
 upon the demand of a tenth, it was argued principally, as if a fifteenth 
 had been demanded. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 24$ 
 
 by usurping the power himself, and claiming not only section 
 
 to be supreme head of his newly erected church, but — - 
 
 to be entitled to his crown by divine right, and therefore 
 to have temporal jurisdiction over ecclesiastical persons, 
 as well as laymen. Such is the language of the " In- Bum. Hist, of 
 
 . ....... Reform.!. 139 
 
 M stitution for the necessary erudition of a christian man, 
 a book first agreed upon in convocation, and published 
 about 1533, by the King's authority, and sometimes called 
 the Bishop's book. But in another publication in support 
 of the reformation, entitled the Obedience of a Christian 
 Man, the principles to which the King was obliged to 
 have resort, are more fully developed, and from it the 
 following extract is made. 
 
 " Here by seest thou, that the Kyng is in this worlde p.27. t. 
 " without lawe, and may at hys luste do ryght or wronge, 
 " and shall gyve accomptes, but to God onely. Another 
 " conclusyon is this, that no pson neyther any degree, 
 <r may be exempte from this ordynaunce of God. 
 u Neyther can the professyon of monkes and freres, or 
 " any thynge, that the Pope or Byshoppes can laye for 
 " themselues, except them fro the swerde of f Emperour 
 " or Kynges, yf they breake y Lawes. For it is wrytten, 
 " let every soule submytte hym selfe unto the auctorytee 
 H of the hyer powers. Here is no man excepte but all 
 *' soules muste obeye. The hyer powers are the Terr> 
 " porall kynges and prynces, unto whom God hath 
 " gyven the swerde to punyshe who soeuer synneth. 
 
 k k 
 
250 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section « God hath not gyuen the swerdes, to punishe one and 
 
 — ■■ "■ to let another go fre and to synne unpunyshe. More 
 
 " ouer, w h what face durste the spirytualtie, which ought 
 " to be the lyght, and an example of good lyuynge unto 
 " all other, desyre to synne unpunysshed, or to be 
 ": excepted from trybute, tolle, or custome, that they 
 " wolde not bear payne with theyr bretherne, unto the 
 " mayntenaunce of Kynges and officers ordayned of God 
 " to punyshe synne ? there is no power but of God (by 
 " power understande the auctoritee of Kynges and 
 " princes). The powers y be ar ordayned of God. 
 ** Who so euer therfore resysteth, resisteth God ; yea* 
 " thoughe he be Pope, Bysshoppe, monke, or frcre. 
 '/ They f resyste. shal receyve unto theselves dampna- 
 " tyon. Why? for Gods worde is agaynste them, whiche 
 " wyll haue all men under the power of f temporall 
 " swerde." 
 
 Henry secured to himself this usurped authority by 
 several acts of Parliament. The Act of Supremacy, the 
 l 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. recognized him as the only supreme 
 head in earth of the Church of England ; and the pre- 
 amble of the 28. Hen. 8. c. 10, an act for extinguishing 
 the authority of the Bishop of Rome, recites, " whereby 
 " he" (i. e. the Pope) "did not only rob the King's Majes- 
 " ty, being only the supreme head of this his realm of En- 
 " gland, immediately under'God, of his honour, right, and 
 " preeminence due unto him by the law of God, but spoiled 
 
MR. POX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 2ol 
 
 " this his realm," &c. Henry the Eighth did not rest section 
 
 satisfied with having his right sanctioned by the civil ■ 
 
 authority of his realm, but made it part of the creed of 
 his national church, where it is still found in its articles, 
 injunctions, canons, orders, and rubric. 
 
 The Reformation occasioned a great revolution in Protestants 
 the politics of Europe, and the discovery of the Art of theright? 
 Printing, at nearly the same period, not only gave per- thepeope " 
 manency to the changes introduced, but disseminated 
 the principles upon which they were to be defended. 
 Instances occurred of princes remaining catholics, whose 
 subjects had embraced the new religion, and by every 
 detestable mode of persecution exercising the power 
 supposed to be delegated immediately from heaven, or 
 to be conveyed to them through the Pope, the Vice- 
 gerent of God on earth, to the oppression, or destruction 
 of those, whom it was their duty to have protected. 
 Against this divine right of Kings, Protestant subjects 
 were driven, by necessity, to oppose the right of the 
 people, as the foundation of all temporal power; and in 
 defence of this latter doctrine many able books were 
 printed, and distributed, among others, one entitled 
 Vindicite contra Tyrannos. The author assumed the feigned 
 name of Stephanus Junius Brutus, but is supposed to 
 have been the celebrated Mornay du Plessis, or Hubert 
 Languet. It was translated into many languages, had 
 a very general circulation upon the continent, and the 
 
 k k 2 
 
252 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section honour to be noticed here in the famous Oxford Decree 
 
 in 1683. 
 
 introduced This doctrine soon found its way into England, and 
 
 though the Protestants here at first supported Henry the 
 Eighth in the assumption of a power, which placed 
 him out of the reach of the anathemas of the Pope,. 
 yet they did not forget the principles of their brethren 
 abroad, when it became necessary to resort to them in 
 their own defence against the subsequent tyrannical 
 ri U htofk ivine P roceem ngs of their Sovereigns. The power of Henry 
 prevailed. was t 00 strong to be resisted with any prospect of suc- 
 cess ; and Edward the Sixth who succeeded him, wielded 
 his sceptre with so much prudence, as to conciliate his 
 subjects, without yielding any part of the usurpations 
 of his father. Mary's proceedings were of so sanguinary 
 a nature, as to make her reign a system of terror, and 
 her religion an object of fear, and detestation. Elizabeth 
 by the ability, and splendour of her government re- 
 tained much of that power, which at her succession to 
 the throne was cheerfully yielded to her for the ne- 
 cessary security of her people against foreign invasion ; 
 and the fear of a repetition of the scenes of horror, 
 which had disgraced the preceding reign, impelled 
 her people to cling fondly to her throne for protection, 
 and chearfully to submit to her oppressions. 
 
 was disputed When the House of Stuart succeeded to the crown 
 
 under James . . i • /» i 1 
 
 the fi !S t. f England, James the First assumed in tact, and de* 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 258 
 
 fended in argument the divine right, by which his four SE( £ I0N 
 immediate predecessors had claimed to hold the royal — — — — — 
 authority. But he was not aware of the alteration, 
 which had gradually taken place in the sentiments, and 
 feelings of the people, and in the relative importance 
 of the House of Commons. Even in Queen Elizabeth's 
 reign, that branch of the legislature had occasionally 
 shewn a disposition to interfere, more than she wished, 
 with the affairs of religion, and state; and if they yield- 
 ed to her mandates, it was partly from their admiration 
 of the wisdom, and energy of her government, but more 
 from the general persuasion that the property and lives 
 of her people were secure only from her having power 
 to defend them. James the First, in the exercise of 
 what he had been taught to believe were the undoubted 
 prerogatives of his crown, met with a resistance, which 
 he was not prepared to expect, and by his imprudent 
 conduct provoked an opposition, which was a source of 
 misery to, and ended in the final expulsion of the first 
 reigning branch of his descendants. Charles the First, Andcharie* 
 was educated in the highest prerogative doctrines. He 
 was taught that, as the anointed of God, he had a 
 divine right to the throne, and that passive obedience, 
 and non-resistance were the duties of his subjects. In 
 the defence of these doctrines, and what he had been 
 taught to consider as his just rights, he lost his crown 
 and life. Against his opposing and rebellious subjects, 
 he did not conceive himself to be struggling for any 
 
254 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 V. 
 
 new accession of power, but for the preservation of 
 that, which had belonged to his predecessors, and which 
 none i but rebels, and traitors could withhold, or wish to 
 take from him. 
 
 charies. and, i Charles the Second and his brother, the Duke of York, 
 
 James, in exile, ' 
 
 cSlicsTfnf fled t0 tne continent. Their father had been murdered, 
 .11 of octanes, jj-g t nrone overturned, h is family driven from their 
 country, and they themselves become poor and friendless 
 exiles. In such a calamitous state, it is not wonderful, 
 that actuated by the most honourable feelings wound up to 
 the highest pitch of sensibility, they should sometimes form 
 hasty, and not always just opinions of the conduct both 
 of their friends and foes, and occasionally attribute to 
 whole classes of people, the vices or virtues of those 
 individuals who had best served, or most molested their 
 family or themselves. Because some catholics had con- 
 tinued faithful subjects in all emergencies to Charles the 
 First, and others had essentially assisted in the preser- 
 vation, and escape of his successor, these Princes natu- 
 rally felt a strong predilection for all professing that 
 religion ; and the execution of their father, by a few of the 
 independents, under the orders of Cromwell, fixed in 
 their minds an indelible stain upon sectaries in general, 
 and of all denominations. The Parliament, the Army, 
 and Cromwell were, in contemplation of the royal bro- 
 thers, involved in one common guilt, all equally traitors, 
 and rebels. The royal exiles beheld, with indignation, 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 255 
 
 and horror, the governing power wrested forcibly from section 
 the true owner, and exercised by persons who had no - — — — * 
 title to it, but their crimes. If any thing could add to 
 the poignancy of those feelings, with which they bid adieu 
 to their country, or was necessary to give to these im- 
 pressions the most complete and permanent possession 
 of their minds, it would be found in the situation, to 
 which they were afterwards unfortunately reduced, in 
 the company they necessarily associated with, in the 
 conversation they were constantly parties to, and the 
 spirit it became their policy^ to excite, and nourish in 
 their adherents, during their exile. 
 
 The reformation, had divided the powers of Europe, The continent 
 into two great parties, the Catholic, and the Protestant. catSc^nd 
 The weakness of the latter had made it necessary, to 10testants * 
 form a general league for the defence of all professing 
 that faith, and the catholics had adopted the same line 
 of policy to stop the further progress of heresy, though 
 the union among them was perhaps not so strong, or 
 general, as among the protestants. The two contending 
 parties, at the time we are now treating of, supported 
 the profession of their respective tenets, with a zeal 
 and energy, unknown in the subsequent history of the 
 continent. 
 
 The protestants of England had also been divided into Puritan, ,„ 
 two distinct sects or parties, the members of the esta- Ens ' and ' 
 
256 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 V. 
 
 connected 
 with Protest- 
 ants abroad. 
 
 Wished church, and the puritans: the latter objected, to 
 the establishment, chiefly, for retaining in its discipline, 
 too many of the objectionable ceremonies of popery, 
 and as the greater part of the protestants upon the con- 
 tinent, had embraced tenets congenial with theirs, they 
 fled from persecution in their own country, and sought 
 an asylum there. Afterwards, when permitted to re- 
 turn in safety, they still continued to keep up a cor- 
 respondence with their former friends. In the reign 
 of Charles the First, the rash measures of the court, and 
 folly of Archbishop Laud gave the puritans an oppor- 
 tunity to charge the King, and the episcopal Church 
 with an inclination to popery, and to spread that report 
 through the protestant states abroad. In the eventful 
 period which followed, the protestants of the continent, 
 generally attached to the puritan cause, expressed their 
 wishes for the prosperity, first of those, who had taken 
 arms against the King, and afterwards for those, who 
 usurped the government. 
 
 Catholics 
 would not 
 
 changed his 
 religion. 
 
 This state of affairs on the continent was peculiarly 
 
 would not * J 
 
 unless he ar ' es ' distressing to the royal brothers, for they could expect 
 no assistance from the protestants, and the catholics 
 could not trust them. Princes of the latter persuasion 
 might reasonably be expected to hesitate about grant, 
 mg succour to a heretical King, whose religion, in 
 case he should be restored, would naturally lead him 
 to take his station among their enemies. Besides, they 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 257 
 
 might hope, by reducing him to still greater distress, to section 
 compel him to change his religion, and submit to join 
 
 their league. Accordingly Lord Clarendon, describing ». 504. IS ' 
 the difficulties of Charles to find a secure place of 
 retreat, at the time when Cromwell was negotiating a 
 treaty with France, says, " the protestants, in most places, 
 " expressed much more inclination to his rebels, than 
 " to him. The roman catholics looked upon him as 
 *' in so desperate a condition, that he would in a short 
 " time be necessitated to throw himself into their arms, 
 " by changing his religion, without which they generally 
 " declared, they would never give him the least assistance" 
 At this period, the situation of Charles was most 
 distressing ; the noble person, from whose history this 
 passage is extracted, had strongly and frequently in- 
 culcated upon his mind, what his own observations had 
 prepared him to believe, that the foreign protestants 
 were generally his enemies, while the catholic princes 
 made his conversion the condition, on which alone they 
 would give him any assistance, and his mother was 
 persuaded that, unless he complied, he had no possible 
 chance of ever possessing his throne. 
 
 Moreover, he was prohibited from entering Holland, 
 and expected every moment that the Court of France 
 would be compelled to drive him from its dominions, 
 if not give up his person. In these melancholy circum- Whether 
 stances it would not excite much surprize, if he had 2S£J& 
 
 T 1 fore he l«ft 
 
 ^ l Parii. 
 
2 ** A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section yielded to necessity, and embraced the catholic faiths 
 
 r If we may believe father Huddleston, his faith had been 
 
 shaken, so early as the year 1651, after the defeat at 
 Worcester; when he found an asylum at Mr. Whitr 
 grave's house, at Mosely, in Staffordshire, where Mr. 
 Huddleston resided, and had a chamber. There the 
 King spent much of his time, perusing several of his 
 books, and among others the manuscript, afterwards print- 
 ed, of a Short and plain way to the faith and church ; 
 of which he said, " I have not seen any tiling more 
 " plain and clear upon this subject : the arguments 
 " here drawn from succession are so conclusive, I do 
 Bum. i. p. 7s, " not conceive how they can be denied." Burnet sup- 
 poses he was converted about 1653, before he left 
 Paris, and says that the Cardinal de Retz was in the 
 secret, and Lord Aubigny had a great hand in it, and that 
 Chancellor Hyde had some suspicion, but never was 
 House of thoroughly satisfied of it. Oldmixon says, that Sir Allen 
 Brodrick, at his death, declared that Charles made pro- 
 fession of the catholic faith at Fontainbleau, where Sir 
 Allen attended him, before he went to Cologne. 
 
 If Charles did make profession of the catholic faith 
 about this time, we may presume his immediate object 
 was to secure the asylum in France, which he then 
 enjoyed. But this, Cardinal Mazarin through fear of 
 Cromwell's power, or rather because he could not 
 
 ,^,4"; carry into effect his designs against Flanders, if he had. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 
 
 259 
 
 not peace with the protector, could not advise his So- section 
 
 vereign to permit, and he was obliged to leave the — ■ 
 
 French dominions. 
 
 But it is improbable that Charles should take a step Not probata 
 so dangerous to himself, and so highly important to 
 his followers, without some assurance that he should 
 derive advantage from it. If he felt himself obliged 
 to profess the catholic religion, at that moment, from 
 purely conscientious motives, it might be suggested, as 
 a reason for secrecy, that he did not think it prudent 
 to make an avowal of this change when he could 
 not possibly receive any benefit from it. But no part of 
 Charles's character, or act of his life, permits the sup- 
 position that zeal for religion ever was the ruling 
 passion of his heart. 
 
 The improbability of this conversion is increased by g^Jf 1 
 three letters, written a short time only after it must be 
 supposed to have happened by Charles to the Duke of 
 York; in one of which dated Cologne, lOih of November, Kennet ... 
 1654-, after putting the Duke in mind of the commands he 293- 
 had left with him at his going away, and alluding to an 
 attempt of Mr. Montague, who was the Queen's con- 
 fessor, to pervert him to her religion, and her design 
 for that purpose, he says, " if you hearken to her, or any 
 " body vise in that matter, you must never think to see 
 u England, or me again, and whatsoever mischief shall 
 
 L 1 2 
 
260 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section ** fall on me, or my affairs from this time, I must lay 
 
 " all upon you, as being the only cause of it," and 
 
 he reminds him of the last words of his deceased father, 
 " which were to be constant to your religion, and 
 " never to be shaken in it, which if you do not 
 " observe, this shall be the last time you will ever hear 
 " from," &c. 
 
 Macph. pa P . Another letter, bearing the same date, begins thus, 
 
 ii. p. 664, 665 
 
 " The news I have received from Paris, of the en- 
 " deavours used to change my brother Harry's religion, 
 " troubles me so much, that if I Jhave any thing to 
 " answer to any of your letters, you must excuse me, 
 " if I omit it this post. All that I can say at this time 
 " is, that I conjure you as you love the memory of 
 " your father, and if you have any care for yourself, 
 " or kindness for me, to hinder all that lies in your 
 " power all such practices, without any consideration 
 " of any person whatever. I have written very home, 
 '? both to the Queen, and my brother about it, and 
 " I expect that you should second it, as I have said 
 " to them, with all the arguments you can. For 
 " neither you nor I were ever so much concerned 
 " in all respects as we are in this. I am able to say 
 *« no more at this time, but that I am yours." The 
 third letter is from the King, dated the 19th of January, 
 1655, stating that he had commanded the bearer Lord 
 Ormond to speak to the Duke at large, about his 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 
 
 261 
 
 brother Harry, desiring him to give credit to what he section 
 
 should say, and do all that he should desire of him. — 
 
 These letters certainly import that the writer was at 
 that time a zealous protestant, and fully aware of the 
 imminent danger, in which even a brother's conver- 
 sion would necessarily involve the royal cause. 
 
 Some circumstances, mentioned by Lord Clarendon, The time fixed 
 
 by Burnet 
 
 favour the supposition that Charles was converted (if favourable, 
 converted at any time before his restoration) at the 
 period mentioned by Bishop Burnet. He was impor- 
 tuned by Lord Jermyn to attend occasionally at the 
 congregation of the Huguenots, which then assembled 
 at Charenton, in order to keep up his interest with the 
 presbyterian party in England, and attach to him the 
 foreign protestant churches. The Queen Mother, a bigoted 
 Roman Catholic, who had been enjoined by his father 
 not to endeavour to change his religion, did not oppose 
 his going there. She had long been of opinion 
 that, without the assistance of the catholic princes on 
 the continent, the restoration of her son could never be 
 brought about. She wrote a letter to him, when preparing ^ess!" Pap " ' 
 for his expedition to Scotland, declaring her dislike of 
 the treaty he had entered into with the Scotch, by 
 which he had bound himself to take the covenant. She 
 warns him that all the catholic princes will be alarmed, 
 and cautions him that the Scotch deceive him, or 
 will deceive, if they pretend that they can re-establish 
 
S62 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 V. 
 
 him of themselves, for without the assistance of foreign 
 * — ~" — — princes; he will never do any thing. After the bat- 
 tle of Worcester she was confirmed in her opinion, 
 and though Clarendon does not say she made any 
 efforts herself for the conversion of her son, yet he 
 allows she was very well content, that attempts 
 should be made upon him by others for that purpose, 
 and hoped that his going to an assembly, where a 
 religion was professed which he disliked, * might tend 
 to give him a distaste for the church, in which he 
 was educated, and turn Ins thoughts towards her own. At 
 •.stressing this time, Charles was placed in very delicate circum- 
 
 situation of \. j 
 
 Charles. slances, Lord Jermyn was looking to an union of the 
 
 * In the MS. genealogy of the family of Balcarras, who are heirs 
 male of Lindsay of Edzell, under the head of Alexander is this 
 passage : — " After the death of his father, Charles the Second was in- 
 " vited by the Marquis of Argyll, and his faction, to come to Scotland, 
 and take possession of the crown, this done neither from loyalty 
 nor affection, but to be revenged of the English sectaries, who 
 by means of Cromwell, &c. had taken possession of the govern- 
 ment, and had dispersed their presbytery and covenant. Upon 
 " the King's arrival from Holland, he found himself entirely a pri- 
 " soner, and without power. None of the real friends of his family, 
 " were allowed to approach him. He attempted to make his es- 
 '? cape, and fled from Perth to Clova, but was pursued by Major 
 " Montgomery, and brought back again, and was often obliged 
 " to sit and hear five or six enthusiastic sermons at a time; where 
 " the tyranny of his father, and idolatry of his mother were often 
 s6 mentioned. This made him afterwards often say, that presbytery 
 <? s was a religion not fit for a gentleman." 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 26$ 
 
 protestant powers in his favour, his mother to the sup- section 
 
 port of the catholic princes, and Hyde (then Chancellor . 
 
 of the Exchequer) dissuaded him from going to Cha- 
 renton, because the Huguenots of France had expressed 
 great malice against the late King, and their ministers 
 had justified the late rebellion in their sermons, and 
 prayed for its success. Besides, their Synod had in- 
 veighed against episcopacy, as not being consistent with 
 the protestant religion. In short, he took advantage 
 of Charles's dislike of the presbyterian form of govern- 
 ment to prevent his conciliating the Huguenots, and 
 other foreign protestant*, and left him no resource, 
 but in the catholics, whose assistance his mother believed, 
 and taught him to believe, could alone be effectual 
 to restore him to his throne, and was to be obtained 
 only by declaring himself of their religion. 
 
 The kind and magnificent manner in which he was Residences 
 
 • i /-~t i i • i /-i Cologne. 
 
 receivea at Cologne, on his road to Germany, attached 
 him to the place, and determined him to make it his 
 future residence. But the city was filled with catholics, 
 who had only a few years before expelled the protestants, £ lar '?^ ,, 
 and a full moiety of the inhabitants were religious persons, 
 and church men. Gratitude was justly excited by favours 
 bestowed at such a critical moment, and his friendly 
 disposition towards the catholic religion was confirmed 
 by the generous attachment of its professors to a fallen 
 and fugitive monarch. In this chosen spot he resided 
 
2<54 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section f or several years, and certainly the opinion of those, 
 
 who place his conversion at a later period than Burnet, is 
 
 p. 548. countenanced by his silence upon the subject of his 
 
 religion while he remained here; more especially, as, upon 
 Application to the death of Pope Innocent the Tenth, a negotiation was 
 attempted through the Duke of Newburgh with his suc- 
 cessor for pecuniary succour, and also for his interference 
 with the Sovereign Princes on the Continent. The 
 application was made as on behalf of a protestant King, 
 and the answer respecting the money was the same as 
 Pope Innocent the Tenth had given upon a similar 
 occasion, that " he could not with a good conscience 
 " apply the patrimony of the church to the assistance, 
 •" and support of heretics," and in other respects, the ap- 
 plication was wholly unsuccessful. 
 
 Example of When Charles retired to Cologne he became intimate 
 
 the Duke of .'/,*., , . 
 
 Newburgh. with the Duke of Newburgh, who resided at Dusseldorp. 
 His father, in order to obtain the assistance of the Empe- 
 ror, and the King of Spain, against the House of Branden- 
 burgh, which was supported by the Prince of Orange 
 and the States, had turned catholic, and thereby 
 secured his possessions. His successful conversion may 
 have made some impression upon the mind of Charles, 
 who felt himself in nearly similar circumstances, and to 
 whom the same expedient had been suggested to relieve 
 him from embarrassment. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 265 
 
 Rapin, who gives credit to Burnet's conjecture as to section 
 the time of Charles's conversion, observes there are some, 
 
 " who think themselves better informed," and assign for thatchavies 
 
 hi 111 i-< I l 1 was converted 
 
 it the year \6d9, alluding probably to tchard, who says at Fomarabi*. 
 he had full reason to believe it was brought about " by 
 " the Spaniard at Fontarabia, in the year before his 
 " restoration." Cromwell's death, which happened 
 only a few months before that period, had made a 
 material change in the prospects of Charles, and 
 occasioned a temporary revival of his hopes of being 
 supported, and possibly restored by the efforts of his 
 own subjects; but the treachery of Sir Richard Willis, 
 and the defeat of Sir George Booth left him no resources, 
 but from foreign powers. Almost as a last effort of 
 despair, he had resolved to attend the conferences of the 
 French and Spanish Ministers at Fontarabia, and take the Charles's visit 
 chance of being able by his presence to prevail upon them fruitless. 
 to suggest some measures in his favour. To this step he 
 was encouraged bv the Spanish Minister, who seems 
 to have had a sincere desire to render him service, and 
 Clarendon formed sanguine expectations of his success. 
 But the King unaccountably lost so much time, and 
 proceeded by so circuitous a route upon the journey, that 
 he did not arrive at Fontarabia till after the treaty had been 
 concluded. The Spanish Minister, Don Lewis De Haro, Macph.Pap.ii. 
 received him with great distinction and apparent friend- P ' 
 ship ; but Cardinal Mazarin, unwilling to offend the 
 governing power in England, refused to see him, and 
 
 m m 
 
266 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 V. 
 
 Clar. Hist. iii. 
 686. 
 
 behaved with great coolness. Upon Don Lewis mention- 
 ing the King to the Cardinal, he spoke of his Majesty's 
 affairs as desperate, and advised Don Lewis to be " wary 
 " how he embarked himself in an affair, that had no 
 " foundation ; and that it was rather time for all the 
 '* catholics to unite to the breaking of the power and 
 " interest of the heretical party, wherever it was, than to 
 *' strengthen it, by restoring the King, except he ivould 
 " become catholic." Charles having arrived too late to 
 have his concerns mentioned in the treaty, even if the 
 Cardinal had been inclined to attend to them, made only 
 a short stay. He arrived at Fontarabia upon the last 
 Tuesday in October, and left it upon the 17th of Novem- 
 ber, remaining there, probably, not more than three 
 weeks. 
 
 Not probable 
 he was then 
 eonrerted. 
 
 It is possible, that by the advice of Don Lewis de Haro, 
 and in hopes of obtaining the good offices of the Cardinal 
 at any price, Charles might have consented to embrace 
 the catholic religion, but it Can hardly be conct ived 
 that he would have run the risk without some assurance 
 of support; for if it should be afterwards known in 
 England, he was aware (for he had so stated in a letter 
 before mentioned to the Duke some years before) that 
 it would form an insurmountable obstacle to his 
 restoration to the throne. Besides, if his conversion 
 had taken place while he remained there, it would 
 hardly have been possible to prevent the secret from 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 267 
 
 being divulged, and if promoted, as Echard says, by the section 
 Spaniard, it must have been known at least to him. — - 
 
 Supposing that Charles declared his conversion in 
 hopes of profiting by the hint, given by the Cardinal to 
 Don Lewis, and obtaining the general support of the 
 Catholic Princes, and the good wishes, and zealous service 
 of the Cardinal himself, he was most wretchedly dis- 
 appointed ; for this sacrifice did not even obtain for him an 
 interview with the Cardinal, and neither France, nor 
 Spain afforded him any important succour. 
 
 During Charles's excursion to Fontarabia, a report was Report inEn S - 
 circulated in England that he had renounced the pro- ?! ar - Pa P- '"• 
 
 o JL 602. 
 
 testant religion, put away ". his protestant council, and 
 " only embraced romanists," but this probably had no 
 reference to what had passed at Fontarabia, for Lord 
 Mordaunt mentions it in a letter, dated at London, 10th 
 November, 1659; and it is not likely that an account of a 
 fact, which had happened at such a distance within the 
 fourteen preceding days, could have found its way to 
 England. This rumour might have arisen from the 
 jealousy of the King's protestant friends at the attention 
 shewn by him to the catholics, and the general anxiety 
 occasioned by the distracted state of the country. It 
 might also have received additional force from the sus- 
 picion that he would attend the conferences of the two 
 great catholic powers, and urge his pretensions to their 
 
 m m 2 
 
268 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 v. ministers. And this idle rumour, founded upon no spe- 
 
 cific fact, may have been the sole foundation for the 
 opinion of Echard before mentioned. 
 
 Charles pre- Charles, however, received some general assurances of 
 
 vents the con- o 
 
 venHo.i of his support, and returned to Brussels in good spirits about 
 cur. Hist. iii. fae enc j f December. But he found Clarendon and 
 his other friends in despair, their hopes had so often been 
 disappointed, that they looked upon the late change in 
 England with indifference, and some about his person 
 had serious thoughts of leaving the protest ant, and a- 
 dopttng the catholic faith, which they and others con- 
 sidered to be the only mode of obtaining the assistance of 
 the catholic princes, who could never be united but 
 on behalf of their religion. And Clarendon says, " if 
 " it had not been for the King's own stead ness, of 
 " which he gave great indications, men would have 
 " been more out of countenance to have owned the 
 **■ faith they were of." 
 
 The steadiness of Charles at such a moment, when 
 all hopes of exertion in his favour in England were 
 exhausted, may certainly be urged as a strong argu- 
 ment to prove that his conversion had not yet taken 
 place, and Clarendon seems clearly to be of that opi- 
 nion. For he describes him as preventing his friends 
 from leaving the protestant religion, when their em- 
 bracing the catholic faith afforded apparently the only 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 269 
 
 possible chance of his procuring any assistance. It must section 
 
 however be recollected, that protestant historians are — - 
 
 generally agreed, as to his having become a catholic 
 before this period, and the only dispute among them is, 
 whether his conversion happened in 1653, 01 165^ ; 
 nor must it be unnoticed, that, from there being so much 
 of artifice and duplicity in his conduct, il would not be 
 safe to arofue from his actions to his motives, as in the 
 case of a more steady and consistent character. 
 
 If we are to assume that his conversion took place Charles feit no 
 
 . . ,, , , . zeal far re 
 
 at either or the periods just mentioned, or more gene- Ugion. 
 rally at some time previous to his restoration, it cannot 
 be deemed uncharitable in any one, who has attentively 
 contemplated his character, habits, and pursuits, to assume 
 that the motives of his conduct were more of an inte- 
 rested, than conscientious nature, and that his conversion 
 took place at the moment, when he had the best 
 prospect of assisting his temporal projects by it. At no 
 one period of his future life, does he seem to have 
 been impressed with serious thoughts of religion, or a 
 sincere predilection for the catholic faith, and even upon his 
 death bed, he expressed no anxious wish to be received into 
 its communion, but, quietly submitted to its ordinances 
 when nearly exhausted, at the suggestion of his brother. 
 
 We shall prove indisputably in a future part of this ifconrerted, 
 section, that Charles never made any formal declaration it secret. cpt 
 
!70 a vindication or 
 
 section f his conversion, until the last hours of his life. But 
 
 if he was converted before his restoration, (which seems 
 
 to be very doubtful) he might determine to keep it 
 secret, so long as he had any prospect of success 
 through the exertions of his own subjects, reserving 
 the public avowal of his faith, till he should be driven 
 by necessity to solicit a general union of the catholic 
 princes in his favour, and attempt the conquest of his 
 kingdom by a foreign force. Subsequent events, how- 
 ever, rendered it unnecessary to have recourse to so 
 desperate an expedient, and the secret was not disclosed 
 till his reign was terminated. 
 
 Character of 
 Charles. 
 
 The personal character of Charles the Second has 
 been generally mistaken, and frequently mis-represented 
 by historians; he pursued such a system of duplicity 
 and meanness, at first to secure his throne, and afterwards 
 to increase his power, that the merit of his private 
 virtues and feelings has been almost forgotten. Yet 
 from these, perhaps, may be obtained the most satis- 
 factory explanation of those transactions, which have been 
 found the most difficult to account for. 
 
 His natural disposition seems to have been mild, 
 and his heart capable of steady attachment to those 
 he really loved. Lord Mulgrave, who knew him in- 
 timately, says, * That his temper both of body and 
 '* mind was admirable, which made him an easy and 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 27J. 
 
 ** generous lover, a civil and obliging husband, a friendly section 
 
 u brother, and an indulgent father, and a good natured ■ 
 
 " master." He was passionately fond of his sister the 
 duchess of Orleans, and his son Monmouth, even after 
 he had meditated his ruin, experienced no diminution 
 of affection; his firm adherence to his brother, the 
 Duke of York, was the principal cause of all the diffi- 
 culties which he encountered, in the latter part of 
 his reign ; and with his last breath, it is said, he recom- 
 mended his mistress, and his children to the protection 
 of that prince. 
 
 The love of pleasure was in him a predominant 
 passion, and sensual indulgences the principal occupa- 
 tion of his life ; with respect to politics, his indolence 
 and natural love of pleasure made him more anxious 
 for the tranquil enjoyment of his throne, than solicitous 
 about the conditions on which he was permitted to 
 hold it. Until the discovery of the Ryehouse Plot, his 
 Teign was not distinguished by any extraordinary acts 
 of severity. And when Lord Dartmouth pressed him, Dai.Ap. torn 
 
 r Part, ii. p. 73. 
 
 with several arguments to save the life of Lord Russell, 
 he answered, " All that is true, but it is as true, that 
 " if I do not take his life, he will soon have mine," 
 which adds his lordship in his MS. note upon Burnet's 
 History, "would admit of no reply:" and Monmouth 
 in his journal records that the King was inclined to ™ elwood 'l, 
 
 J o Mem, p. 37i. 
 
 have saved Lord Russell, and it was through the per- 
 
272 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section suasion of the Duke of York, that he permitted him 
 
 to be executed, 
 
 Character of 
 Clarendon. 
 
 Macph. St. 
 Pap. i. p. 17. 
 
 Change on 
 Clarendon's 
 fall. 
 
 Fox, p. 23. 
 
 Upon his restoration, the Earl of Clarendon was in- 
 trusted, principally, with the administration of public 
 affairs, and this country owes its liberty to that minister 
 having discouraged a project for settling such a revenue 
 upon the King, as should make him independent of 
 parliaments, but " in all other things," James says in 
 his Diary, '*' he supported the crown's authority to the 
 " height." The general principles of Clarendon and 
 his royal master were the same, they both held the doc- 
 trines of passive obedience and non-resistance ; they 
 both were attached to an episcopalian form of church 
 government, and both cordially hated and feared the 
 presbyterians, and sectaries of all denominations, whom 
 they considered as rebels and republicans. Charles 
 had been so long accustomed to be governed in his 
 exile by the advice of Clarendon, that he willingly 
 yielded to his guidance afterwards, and during his ad- 
 ministration, the security of the throne, rather than the 
 increase of the royal power, seems to have been the 
 principal object of his care. He was disgraced in the 
 end of 1667. Immediately after his fall a change of 
 measures took place. The ministry called the cabal was 
 formed, the Duke of York consulted, and the King 
 begun, as Mr. Fox says, ." that career of mis-govern- 
 " ment, which, that he was able to pursue it to its 
 «' end, is a disgrace to the history of this country." 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 275 
 
 The disposition and habits of thinking of the Duke section 
 of York were very different from those of his brother, 
 
 Character of 
 
 and it is surprizing that he should have gained, and the Duke* 
 kept for so long a time the powerful ascendancy 
 over his mind, which was visible for the greater part 
 of his reign. Burnet says * that the king never loved I5u , r 9 n 6 et,i 
 or esteemed him, but stood in awe of him. Charles 
 excelled him in penetration and judgement, and yet, 
 from the natural indolence of his disposition, frequently 
 yielded to his opinion when contrary to his own. The Duke 
 was fond of business and accustomed to examine every 
 thing in its detail; he possessed an eager and ardent mind, 
 and, for want of proper restraint and correction in his 
 youth, was distinguished in his riper years by an ob- 
 stinate perseverance in whatever resolution he made, or 
 opinion he formed. His education had been much neg- 
 lected in his father's life, at whose death he was about 
 sixteen years of age; after his escape into France Sir 
 John Berkely, who is described by Burnet as very arbi- ib. P .6i«. 
 trary in his temper and notions, and seemed to lean 
 to popery, was appointed his governor. James was the 
 favourite of his mother; and his brother when he went 
 to Scotland placed him under her care with directions ciar. Hist. «*, 
 to obey her in all things, religion only excepted. p * 
 
 * Burnet, knew him personally, and at one time intimately when 
 Duke of York, and is confirmed in almost every particular by 
 Barillon, who was acquainted with him, when be was farther 
 advanced in life, and seated upon the throne. 
 
 N n 
 
274 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section There being no fund for a separate establishment for the 
 
 Duke, he was entirely dependent upon her for support, 
 
 and she treated him with much seventy. The Duke 
 soon grew discontented and, yielding to the natural 
 violence of his disposition, in defiance of her com- 
 mands set off for Brussels to advise with the Duke of 
 Lorraine, and did not return till he had been also at the 
 Hague, and Breda, where Hyde met him, disappointed 
 in all his prospects, and in a humour to obey his mo- 
 Macph.Pap. ther's commands and return to her. But Clarendon 
 
 App. n. p. 664. 
 
 omits to mention that the Queen mother invited the 
 Duke to come back at the desire of the Queen of 
 France, with the assurance of 12,000 crowns pension 
 for his subsistence. It may be readily believed that 
 this last assurance had more weight with him than any 
 argument which Hyde could possibly use. The want 
 of sensibility in his correspondence, while Duke of York, 
 with the Prince of Orange has been remarked by Dal- 
 rymple; the same deficiency was manifested, after he 
 became King, in the satisfaction he expressed at the 
 bloody proceedings of 'Jeffries after Monmouth's defeat. 
 
 l7teadyp a ro- s During the exile of the royal family, the Duke re- 
 BahMem. i. sisted all the efforts of the Queen mother to persuade him 
 to change his religion. And Dalrymple produces, as a strong 
 proof of his attachment to the protestant faith, and the 
 zeal with which he maintained that, as well as every 
 other opinion, his having insisted upon the removal of the 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 275 
 
 Duke of Gloucester from his mother, lest she should section 
 prevail upon him to become a catholic. And James ■ 
 
 , .... _^. , . .... Macph. Pap. i. 
 
 also mentions in his Diary, that he was zealous in nin- P . in. 
 dering his brother the Duke of Gloucester from chang- 
 ing his religion. But it ha6 been shewn in a preceding 
 page, that he acted under the orders of the King upon 
 this occasion. 
 
 In the court of Lewis the Fourteenth the calvinists J f. mes bel . ieve- 
 
 ail sectaries 
 
 could be no favourites, and James himself told Burnet, toberebels - 
 that when Cromwell was negotiating with Cardinal 
 Mazarin, " among other prejudices he had at the 
 " protestant religion this was one, that both his brother, 
 " and himself being in many companies in Paris incog' Bum.!, p.ts. 
 " nito, where they met many protestants, he found they 
 " were all alienated from them, and were great ad- 
 " mirers of Cromwell, so he believed they were all 
 " rebels in their heart." 
 
 The opposition, which his brother met with from the After the r*.- 
 
 . storation, botl» 
 
 sectaries after his return to England, did not tend to Princes hated 
 
 the sci-taries 
 
 weaken the force of those prejudices, or to give a more as rebels - 
 favourable opinion of their political principles. And we 
 may assume that after the restoration both the brothers 
 entertained the same decided opinion of the throne having 
 no honest supporters, but catholics and episcopalian But favours 
 protestants, while all other protestants were zealously episco P "ia«s. 
 attached to a republican form of government, and neces- 
 
 n n 2 
 
276 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 V. 
 
 sarily enemies to monarchy. It has been mentioned 
 • before that Burnet says Lord Clarendon suspected Charles 
 
 to have embraced the catholic faith, and the diary of 
 Macph. pap. i. James confirms Burnet in some degree, for under the 
 
 p. 17. ° 
 
 year 1660, he attributes the mistaken conduct of Cla- 
 rendon to his fear of the King's bringing in the catholic 
 religion. And if he, who was so highly in the confi- 
 dence of Charles, entertained this apprehension, can it 
 occasion surprize that the fears of his subjects should 
 be awakened, and render them jealous of his conduct! 
 
 Clarendon's administration, it has been already observed, 
 was succeeded by the cabal, among the members of 
 which it would be difficult to discover any one com- 
 mon principle, either in religion, or politics. By this 
 extraordinary union of popular characters Charles, might 
 hope to conciliate the minds of his subjects, reconcile 
 the sectaries to a monarchical form of government, and 
 secure his own peaceable possession of the throne, for 
 it does not appear, as yet, that he had formed any 
 plan for increasing the power of the crown, which 
 trembled upon his brow. Disappointed however in his 
 expectations, and probably acting under the advice of 
 the Duke of York, who had always been the advocate 
 Charlestons of violent measures, he turned his thoughts to an alliance 
 with France. Of his private wishes in this respect he 
 gave hints to Rouvigny, the French Embassador, before 
 the triple alliance was formed, but they not being at- 
 
sed 
 
 MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 277 
 
 tended to he became a party to that treaty, which was sbction 
 
 signed on the 23rd of January, 166$. Charles, however, 
 
 immediately afterwards entered into intrigues for a secret 
 treaty with France through the Duke of Buckingham, 
 and the Duchess of Orleans. To break the triple alii- a secret 
 
 treaty, and 
 
 ance was an object with France, and Lewis listened to charies-scon 
 
 J ^ version advise 
 
 these new proposals. The diary of James the Second by the Duke 
 leaves no doubt of the quarter, from which the propo- Macph. p ap . i. 
 
 i -..,-, •.;■ . , . ,. • p.48.50. 
 
 sition came that Charles should change his religion, 
 which made a principal part of the negotiation, for in 
 1668 the Duke discoursed with the King, whether he 
 remained in the same mind as to his religion, " he 
 " assured him he did, and desired nothing more than to 
 " be reconciled." Upon this, the King appointed a private 
 meeting in the Duke's closet with Lord Arundel, Lord 
 Arlington, and Sir Thomas Clifford, (Lord Bellasis is 
 also mentioned, in the first passage quoted) to advise 
 upon the methods to advance the catholic religion in 
 his kingdoms. They met on the 25th of January, 1669. 
 The King declared his mind with great zeal, and the 
 result of the consultation was that the work should be 
 done in cenj unction with France, and the Lord Arun- 
 del was accordingly sent to treat with the French King. 
 And from a letter, dated 22nd of March, 1669, it is ma- 
 nifest that the treaty had been in agitation before the 
 Duke of York was consulted, and also that, previously 
 to that date, the subject of religion had b^cr, men'ioned 
 in the negotiation, and the Duke of York on that ac- 
 
278 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section count engaged in the management of it, for Charles 
 - says, " before this comes to your hands you will 
 
 " clearly see, upon what score York is come upon the 
 44 businesse; and for what reason I desired you not to 
 " write to any body, upon the businesse of Fiance. 
 " Buckingham knows nothing of King Charles intert- 
 " tions, towards the catholic religion, nor of the person 
 " Arundel sends to le Roy," i. e. Louis the Fourteenth. 
 After the change of religion was talked of Buckingham 
 was dropped, and the correspondence carried on by 
 Charles himself with the Duchess of Orleans. 
 
 In the account given by Mr. Hume of this treaty 
 
 from the original diary of James, which he saw in the 
 
 Scotch College at Paris, a circumstance is mentioned, 
 
 which it can hardly be conceived Macphcrson would 
 
 have omitted, if he had had access to the same original. 
 
 He says, that " the King was so zealous a papist that 
 
 t( he wept for joy, when he saw the prospect of re- 
 
 " uniting his kingdom to the church." This we may 
 
 presume happened, if it happened at all, at the private 
 
 meeting held in the Duke's closet, or in the previous 
 
 conversation he had held with the Duke. This strong 
 
 expression of zeal corresponds so little with the general 
 
 character of the King, and is so little to be reconciled 
 
 witn his conduct in the performance of the treaty 
 
 itself, that we may reasonably doubt the truth of the 
 
 fact, and set it down as an additional proof of the 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 279 
 
 little reliance, which can be placed on facts narrated v. 
 in James's Diary. 
 
 The true object of this negotiation, on the part of Charles, Jeiwret*** 
 may be discovered from the account of a conversation treaty - 
 had on the 12th jSovember, 1669, in which he is described 
 as telling Colbert, that he was " pressed both by his con- ffl™* m ' "' 
 " science, and by the confusion which he saw increasing 
 " from day to day in his kingdom, to the diminution of 
 " his authority, to declare himself a catholic : and besides 
 " the spiritual advantage he should draw from it, he 
 " believed it to be the only means of re-establishing the 
 " monarchy." Colbert, among other arguments, urged 
 that the greater part of the German Princes, being con- 
 nected with one or other of the Kings would either 
 remain neuter, or join against the Dutch if the war was 
 to begin first, but if the declaration of his religion was 
 made first, neither could be expected from the protestant 
 Kings and Princes for it would give room to the Dutch 
 to make them believe it was a religious quarrel. In the ib.50. 
 same letter Colbert mentions a free liberty of conscience, . 
 as what Charles was to grant. The secret treaty was 
 signed on the 22nd March, 1670, and in the heads of a 
 conference, had between Colbert and Charles, on the 28th 
 of the subsequent September, in which the former urged Dai.Men.it 
 the latter to enter into the war against Holland before lie 
 declared his conversion, one of the beneficial consequences 
 is supposed to be that the presbyterians, and sectaries 
 
£80 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 V. 
 
 Macph. i. 
 Pap.u p. 51. 
 
 would be " content with the free exercise of religion, 
 " which you will grant them." — It may be worthy 
 of notice that in the month of July in this year, the 
 Duke of York assured Dr. Owen of his having no 
 bitterness against the nonconformists ; he was against all 
 persecution merely for conscience sake, looking on it 
 as an unchristian thing and absolutely against his con- 
 science. 
 
 As it is not very likely that Charles's conscience pressed 
 him very hard to become a catholic, we may be justified 
 in assuming that he was actuated by the other motives 
 alluded to in his conversation with Colbert, viz. the re- 
 establishing the monarchy, and increasing his power ; and 
 the declaration of his own conversion was to be followed, 
 not with the substitution of a catholic, instead of the pro- 
 testant establishment, but a free exercise of their respective 
 religions to both catholic and protestant nonconformists, 
 without affecting the rights of the then existing esta- 
 blished church. The dangerous consequences expected 
 from the avowal of Charles's conversion, uniformly 
 alluded to by both parties, prove that his situation 
 must have been very desperate indeed when he felt 
 himself compelled to resort to this expedient. 
 
 Terms of the 
 secret treaty. 
 
 Dal.ii. p. 59. 
 
 The treaty after a formal preamble begins in this 
 manner, " the King of Great Britain being convinced 
 " of the truth of the catholic religion, and resolved to 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK* $81 
 
 " declare himself a catholic and be reconciled to the section 
 
 " church of Rome, thinks the assistance of his most — — — 
 
 " Christian Majesty necessary to facilitate his design. 
 
 l ' It is therefore agreed," &c. It is also stipulated that 
 
 " Lewis, in case the subjects of the said Lord the King 
 
 " shall not acquiesce with the said declaration, but rebel 
 
 " against his said Britannic Majesty, (which cannot be 
 
 " believed) &c." Afterwards the beginning of the ar- Dai. m«».m. 
 
 tide relating to the King's conversion was altered to 
 
 this, " The King of Great Britain, being convinced of 
 
 " the truth of the catholic religion, is resolved to recon- 
 
 " cile himself to the church of Rome, as soon as the 
 
 " affairs of his Kingdom will permit him," &c. 
 
 In negotiating this treaty Charles seems to have con- Cha rie«out- 
 ducted himself with great adroitness, for by making 
 his conversion precede the war, and leaving the de- 
 claration of his conversion to his own pleasure, the 
 time for entering into the war became of course de- 
 pendent upon him. Lewis soon discovered his error, 
 and as his principal object in the negotiation had been 
 to engage Charles in a war against the Dutch, he sent 
 the Dutchess of Orleans to Dover where the negotia- 
 tions were going on, to persuade the King to begin 
 with the Dutch war and postpone his conversion. The 
 Duke when he got down to Dover, which was some 
 days after Charles had arrived there, found that, unable 
 to resist the solicitations of his sister, he had agreed te 
 
 o o 
 
282 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section Lewis's proposal. And the Duke could not shake his 
 
 resolution. Dalrymple says that Charles did not receive 
 
 any part of the money to be paid for his conversion, 
 Macph. Pap i. but James in his diary says that, even when the Dutchess 
 came to Dover, part of the money had been paid. How- 
 ever this may be, Charles notwithstanding his engage- 
 ment delayed to prepare for the war, and Lewis re- 
 fused to pay regularly the instalments stipulated for, as 
 the price of his conversion. 
 
 Account of the In the ensuing year, another treaty was made between 
 dIk Mem!i1i these Sovereigns, called by the French un traitt simulc. 
 
 p. 83. • • 
 
 The former treaty having been negotiated and concluded 
 with the knowledge of the catholic ministers only, Dal- 
 rymple conjectures that this was thought of by Charles 
 for the sole purpose of making his protestant ministers 
 parties to it, supposing it to be nearly a repetition of the 
 former one, with the exception of the article respecting 
 the King's reconciliation to the catholic church. But 
 the alteration in that article made a very material change 
 in the situation of the two Kings. Charles, whose qualms 
 of conscience were quieted by the expectation of ob- 
 taining an immediate supply of money, had proposed 
 that the article concerning his religion might not appear 
 in this second treaty, and the sum due on that account 
 thrown into his subsidy for the Dutch war, in order as 
 he pretended, that the secret might be kept from his 
 protestant ministers. In return, France insisted upon 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 2SS 
 
 the insertion of a secret article confirming the former section 
 
 treaty against the instances of Charles, who at last con- 
 
 sented to give a declaration of the same date with the 
 treaty for that purpose. That declaration states that, 
 by the treaty, Lewis was to pay him two millions of 
 livres tournois to assist him in declaring himself a catho- 
 lic, and three millions each year for the expence of a 
 war with Holland; and then it states that, by the treaty 
 to be signed that day, it was stipulated that five mil- 
 lions of livres were to be paid him for the first years 
 expence of a war with Holland, and that the two mil- 
 lions, mentioned in the former treaty for declaring him- 
 self a catholic, were included in the said sum of five 
 millions, and engages that, having received the first two 
 millions, he will give an acquittance as relative to the 
 article of his being a catholic, and concludes with con- 
 firming the former treaty. The new treaty was signed 
 by Charles on the 2nd of February, 1671, and by the 
 commissioners on the 3rd of June following. In con- 
 sequence of this second treaty, it became the interest 
 of Charles to accelerate the Dutch war, because in the 
 subsidy for the first year was to be included the 2,000,000 
 of livres agreed to be paid for his conversion. He 
 therefore entered into a war against the Dutch, but 
 was in no hurry to declare his new faith, because by that 
 he would be entitled to no additional supply from 
 France. In this second negociation it is probable that 
 he had been encouraged by the Duke of York, who 
 
 2 
 
2&* & VINDICATION OJf 
 
 section | n a conversation the 14th of July, 1671, with Colbert 
 - after the treaty was made, and when a question had arisen 
 
 p.V?. ' whether a Parliament should be assembled or not, stated 
 that affairs were then in such a situation as to make 
 him believe that a King and a Parliament could exis^ 
 no longer together; " that nothing should be any longer 
 ** thought of, than to make war upon Holland, as the 
 ** only means left without having recourse to Parlia- 
 s * ments, to which they ought no longer -to have recourse 
 M till tfte war and the catholic faith had come to an 
 
 ** happy issue, and when they should be in a condition 
 *' to obtain by force, what they could not obtain by 
 *' mildness." This Dalrymple points out, as one of the 
 
 first strokes ti of that arbitrary disposition and con- 
 
 V tempt of Parliaments in the Duke of York, which 
 
 *' afterwards drew ruin upon him." 
 
 eharte. adays The allied princes expected that the Dutch would 
 Se/reureaty. e not be able to withstand their forces, and that the war 
 would be finished in a single campaign, hut in this 
 they were disappointed; and Lewis, who was engaged 
 by the treaty to assist Charles with all his forces in 
 case his subjects should rebel against him upon the de- 
 claration of his change of religion, and yet hoped it 
 would embroil him with them, and render him depend- 
 ent upon France, pressed him to make it immediately. 
 Charles, who had no longer any inducement to take 
 that step, raised difficulties,, at one time refused with- 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 285 
 
 out assigning any reason; and the 21st of March, 1672, section 
 more than two years after the treaty was signed, Colbert ■ 
 
 , , . t • i ^ a '- Mem. it. 
 
 communicated to Ins master an excuse, which must p. 101. 
 have opened his eyes, if Charles's conduct had not been 
 sufficiently explicit before; it was that Charles desired 
 a theologian from Paris to instruct him in the mysteries 
 of the catholic religion, but that he desired this theo- 
 logian might be a good chymist. And at last, Charles Charles's «m- 
 
 i i r i i /• <■> version given 
 
 put an end to the larce, for on the 7th of June, 1672, »p. 
 Colbert writes, that he had postponed his conversion i Wd , 
 to the end of the campaign, and, in the mean time, 
 desired a treaty with the Pope, by which should be 
 yielded that the communion should be given in both 
 kinds, and mass said in the vulgar tongue. This demand, 
 which it could not be expected the Pope would comply 
 with, could leave no possible doubt that Charles was 
 not inclined to declare his conversion, and we hear no 
 more on either side of his religion. In these trans- 
 actions, the affected zeal of both Charles and Lewis 
 for the catholic religion, while it could be used by either 
 of them as an argument in favour of his particular 
 object, and their coolness about it when those objects 
 were no longer wished for, or had lost their consequence, 
 may provoke a smile in a superficial observer of man- 
 kind, but to those of deeper thought it will probably 
 give rise to melancholy reflexions. 
 
 It is not improbable that Charles had been persuaded PoHcyoi 
 that by publicly declaring his change of religion he might ■"*«■*«!■ 
 
f86 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 Dal. Mem. ii. 
 p. 102. 
 
 section secure t o himself the assistance of other catholic states, 
 
 — as well as of France, in case his subjects should rebel 
 
 against him, for he communicated the secret to the 
 Queen of Spain, and when Lewis complained of thi s 
 breach of faith declared he had done it to engage the 
 Queen to take part against the Dutch. And Blanchard, 
 who had been secretary to Rouvigny in a memorial, 
 ib. P . 148. written for the Prince of Orange in 1686, states that when 
 the two Kings declared war against Holland they counted 
 upon conquering it in one campaign, and their principal 
 view was, thereby, to give such a fatal blow to the pro-* 
 testant religion that afterwards they might overthrow 
 it through all Europe. 
 
 Charles** eon- The impressions under which Charles acted may be 
 
 rersation with *■ J 
 
 the Prince of collected from a conversation, which he had with the 
 
 Orange. 
 
 Prince of Orange in 1669, when the secret treaty was 
 negociating. The Prince told Bishop Burnett that " he 
 '< spoke of all the pro'testants as a factious body, broken 
 " among themselves ever since they had broken off 
 " from the main body, and wished that he would take 
 "' more pains, and look into these things better, and not 
 " to be led by his Dutch blockheads." The Prince related 
 what he had heard to Zuylestein, his Uncle, and they 
 were both amazed that the King should trust so great a 
 secret, as his being a Papist, to so young a person, he being 
 then only in his 20th year. The Prince never disclosed 
 it till after the death of the King, but speaking to Sir 
 
 Barn. i. p. 273. 
 
MR. fox's historical work. 287 
 
 William Temple soon after the discovery of the Popish section 
 Plot went so far as to tell him, that " he had reason to 
 
 " be confident, that the King was a catholic in his Mem! p.W 
 " heart, though he does not profess it." With all possible 
 respect for the Prince, and his Uncle, it may be remarked 
 that the expressions recorded by Burnet do not amount 
 to a declaration on the part of Charles that he was a 
 Papist, if by that word is meant a person reconciled to, 
 and become a member of the church of Rome. 
 They might be intended to convey a caution to the 
 young Prince, and arise from the feelings of his Uncle 
 towards him. It is now ascertained as will be shewn 
 hereafter that Charles, whatever his private sentiments 
 may have been, never declared in a formal manner His 
 reconciliation to the church of Rome, or did any one chariesaot 
 public act from which his conversion could be inferred, theXl^h tin 
 until his last illness. The preamble to the secret treaty 
 before mentioned, recited that he was "convinced of d*i. Mem. a . 
 " the truth of the catholic religion," and " resolved to P ' 
 " reconcile himself to the church of Rome, as soon 
 44 as the affairs of his kingdoms will permit him." The 
 expression used by the Prince to Sir William Tem- 
 ple was probably more nearly accurate, namely, that 
 the King was a catholic at his heart ; but in fact he had 
 no fixed principles of religion. At the time, when he 
 conversed with the Prince of Orange, he might have 
 hoped to derive advantage from declaring himself a 
 catholic and uniting himself with princes of that re- 
 
sat 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 V. 
 
 ligion upon the continent, but when he was afterwards 
 convinced that his interest would be best consulted by 
 remaining a protestant, he continued one to the closing 
 scene of his life, though he had fifteen years before 
 made this solemn profession of his being satisfied oi 
 the truth of the catholic religion. 
 
 Conversion of 
 the Duke of 
 York, 
 
 Histoire de 
 Jaques 2d. 
 p. 37. 
 
 Dal. Mem.i. 
 p. 31. 
 
 Welw. Mens, 
 p, J 30, 
 
 It is very extraordinary that the asra of Charles's 
 conversion to the catholic religion should be the subject 
 of dispute, but it is still more surprizing that the pre- 
 cise time of the conversion of James should not be 
 ascertained. The eagerness with which he pursued every 
 object, and the rashness with which he generally avowed 
 his sentiments, we might have expected would have left 
 nothing doubtful concerning a matter of such personal 
 concern, as to constitute according to Mr. Rose the 
 pride and boast of his life, and the ruling principle 
 of all his actions. The French history of James states 
 that he was converted while he resided at Brussels, but 
 Dalrymple supposes his conversion to have been in 1669. 
 Welwood says, that he was privately reconciled to the 
 church of Rome during his exile, while the French 
 author assures us that he did not make his abjuration till 
 after the death of his wife, in 1671. Both he and Dal- 
 rymple however agree/that Father Symons, a Jesuit, as the 
 immediate instrument of his reconciliation being compsoat- 
 ed. If it had taken place before the Lkitchess had fom ily 
 announced her conversions her father Lord Clarenoun 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 2&9 
 
 must have been ignorant of it, for in his letter to the SE( ^ I0N 
 
 Duke he assumes that he was not then without zeal 
 
 and entire devotion for the Church of England. Echard 
 also dates it after the death of the Dutchess in 1671, 
 when, if we may rely upon his authority, there was a 
 secret design among the papists to get Charles divorced 
 from his Queen, by whom he had no children, to pre- 
 vent which and secure the crown in his own family 
 James abjured the protestant faith, and took for a second 
 wife a catholic princess. But there has fortunately been Macph. p*p.<. 
 
 *■ •'p. 130. 
 
 preserved that part of James's Diary, which contains 
 the account of his conversion, and puts an end to all 
 dispute. For he tells us that " he did not turn till after" 
 his return to England, and he had read " the histories 
 of the Reformation," and that about the beginning of 1669, 
 (having long had in his thoughts that the Church of 
 Rome was the only true Church) he was more sensibly 
 touched in conscience and began to think seriously 
 of his salvation. We must recollect that this was at 
 the critical period, when Charles at his instigation was 
 desirous to declare himself a catholic, and negotiating 
 the secret treaty. Accordingly the Duke sent for Joseph 
 Symons a learned Jesuit, told him his good intentions, 
 and treated with him about being reconciled to the 
 Church. He said, unless the Duke quitted the com- 
 munion of the Protestant Church of England, he could 
 not be received into the Catholic Church. The Duke 
 then pressed for a dispensation to appear outwardly a 
 protestant, at least till a more proper time for declaring 
 
 pp 
 
296 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 ■y. himself. But Symons told him it could not be done, 
 " upon which James wrote to the pope, who confirmed 
 
 what the priest had said*. 
 
 ^vSkcon! 8 In the winter of 1570 » tne Dutchess of York was 
 verted. suspected to be a catholic, she always before had re- 
 
 Macph. Pap.i. . . 
 
 p. 56. ceived the sacrament once a month, but was taken 
 
 ill and, from her not having prayers said to her, sus- 
 picions arose. " The King took notice of it in December 
 " to the Duke, who said she was resolved to be a 
 " catholic, and to be reconciled. The King bade him 
 " keep it private." And except to three persons it was 
 not known till she died on the 31st of March, 1671. 
 This is the account given by James, but it affords 
 another proof that his Diary is not to be trusted implicitly, 
 for the Dutchess herself in a paper, which she left be- 
 €om Hi.t mnc ^ ner dated tne 20tn °f August, 1670, a few months 
 i«. p . 29s. before her death, says that she never had any religious 
 scruples till the month of November, 1669, when the 
 reading of Dr. Heylins History of the Reformation raised 
 doubts in her mind. She conversed with two Bishops, 
 who rather encouraged her, -f and was not satisfied, 
 
 * If the reader has any inclination to compare Carte's Extracts 
 with the original diary !n this particular instance, he may turn from-: 
 p. 130 of the first Volume of Macpherson's original papers, where 
 the passage is given in the very words of the Diary, to p. 52 of 
 the same book, where he will find the corresponding extract. 
 Burnet, i. *. j) r# B U rnet had conversations at several times with the Duke 
 
 upon the subject of religion, and he said, " He had often picqueered 
 11 out (that was his word) on Sheldon, and some other Bishops, by 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 291 
 
 till soon after Christmas-day 1669, when she communica- section 
 
 ted to a catholic her design to change, who introduced a 
 
 priest to remove her doubts. 
 
 The coincidence of dates and circumstances is well 
 worthy of attention, and gives rise to suspicions not 
 very honourable to these noble personages. In 1668, 
 the Duke of York conversed with his brother upon 
 the subject of his religion, and persuaded him to agree 
 by treaty to embrace the catholic faith. In the No- 
 vember of that year his Dutchess began to doubt, 
 and in the beginning of 1669, when the treaty was nego- 
 tiating, he was sensibly touched in conscience himself, 
 and began to think seriously of his own salvation. It 
 is true that these conversions may by possibility have 
 taken place at this critical period from virtuous motives; 
 but considering the situation and characters of the parties 
 
 " whose answers he could not but conclude, that they were much 
 " nearer the Church of Rome, than some of us young men were." 
 The Dutchess it seems came to the same conclusion, but unfor- 
 tunately the Bishops, alluded to in her paper, denied what she had 
 stated concerning them. This paper is open to observation in several 
 other respects. She most solemnly declares that no person had used any 
 endeavours to make her change her religion since she came to 
 England, and describes her conversion as entirely of her own seeking. 
 But if she had no doubts till November, it may be asked how Dr. 
 Heylin'sbook happened to be recommended to her to settle her, in case 
 she had any at that critical time? and by whom was it recommended ? 
 The reader will have observed also that the Duke knew in December 
 of her design to be reconciled and told the King so, yet she sayi she 
 <Ud not disclose her design till after Christmas-day. 
 
 p p 2 
 
292 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 V. 
 
 concerned it is more probable that they originated in 
 considerations of another kind. A great revolution in the 
 general system of the government was about to be at- 
 tempted, and the cordial co-operation of a powerful prince 
 was to be purchased by a change of religion in the 
 King, and to be better secured by a similar change 
 in the presumptive heir to the throne, and his family. 
 That the Duke should use his influence with the Dutchess 
 to promote the object, which was uppermost in his own 
 mind, and which he had for the first time engaged 
 his brother to pursue with eagerness can occasion no 
 surprize. If we may credit the Diary their doubts and 
 scruples must have been suggested in the same year, from 
 reading if not the same books, yet books written on the 
 same subject; and conversations with Protestant Bishops, 
 gave rise to similar reflections and doubts in both. The ca- 
 tholic, in whom she is represented to have placed confidence 
 and who brought the priest to her, probably was her hus- 
 band and therefore, when her change of religion was 
 suspected and the King spoke about it to the Duke, he 
 was already well acquainted with her wishes to be re- 
 conciled. 
 
 The Duke 
 concealed his 
 conversion. 
 
 Macph. Pap. h 
 p. 68. 
 
 The Duke does not seem to have been in any great 
 hurry to declare his own conversion, or his application 
 to the Pope must have been attended with a consider- 
 able loss of time, for he continued to attend the King 
 tp church as usual lest he should be suspected. About 
 the Christmas of 1672, the King spoke to the Lords 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 29S 
 
 Clifford and Arundel to persuade him to receive the section 
 sacrament with him, which he had forborn to do for 
 
 conse- 
 quences of his 
 conversion. 
 
 some months before. The Test Act passed in the spring ib.p.m 
 of 1673, and in May the King endeavoured to prevail 
 upon the Duke to conform, but he was resolute. We 
 now have the authority of the Duke himself for fixing 
 the date of his public avowal of the catholic religion 
 to be several months after the death of the Duchess, and 
 some months previous to the Christmas of 1672, yet 
 after that he continued to attend the King to the pro- 
 testant church ; but the secret got out, and to guard 
 against the apprehended mischief the Test Act was passed. 
 The withholding from the public the avowal of his con- Fatal 
 version was not exactly consistent with his general cha- 
 racter; it might have been expected that he would have 
 gloried in the act, rather than have condescended to 
 conceal it. His brother, aware of the impending danger, 
 wished him to retrace the steps he had taken, but pro- 
 voked at the weakness, which had permitted the crown 
 to be robbed of what was, in his estimation, one of its 
 most valuable prerogatives, and feeling himself humili- 
 ated and unjustly persecuted, he resumed his usual spirit, 
 refused all compromise and on the 15th of June re- 
 signed his employments. An extract from his Diary 
 remarks, " All the storms now raised, and which after- Macph.pap., 
 " wards followed the Duke in Parliament, bear their p * 71 ' 
 " date and origin from the suspicion they had of his 
 '* being converted to the Roman Catholic faith. Nor 
 " could his private enemies till then, gain any advan- 
 
294 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section « ta g e over hi m . Before that time, he was looked upon 
 
 " as the darling of the nation; for his having so freely, 
 
 " and so often ventured his life for the honour and 
 " interest of the King and Country, and for his having 
 " been always so active, and industrious in carrying on 
 " every thing as to trade, or as to navigation, that might 
 *' tend to their advantage." Charles describes the evil 
 consequences of this fatal step strongly to Barillon, in 
 a letter dated the 1st of November 1677, since that event 
 D«i. Mem. n. he writes, " All England has been in motion, and ap- 
 " prehensive that I have other designs, and am taking 
 " measures for changing the government and religion 
 " of my country." 
 
 Here it may be observed that if Charles had been 
 converted before he returned to England, it is highly 
 improbable that James should not have known it; and 
 when the secret treaty was agitated, the project for 
 Charles's conversion was formed in his closel, and the 
 treaty itself negociated with his concurrence and appro- 
 contrastbe- bation. Upon this occasion, the different dispositions of 
 
 tween the two i i • i j 
 
 brothers. the two brothers were strongly marked in the conduct 
 of each. Charles artful, indolent, and timid, wished to 
 manage his own subjects, without resorting to the des- 
 perate measure of calling for the interference of a 
 foreign power. James, on the contrary, eager, rash, 
 and obstinate, was dazzled with the prospect of the 
 crown being possessed of arbitrary power, and no longer 
 restrained by Parliaments. He could not brook delay. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 295 
 
 but precipitately became a member of the catholic church, section 
 as soon as his brother's conduct afforded a sanction. He ■ 
 flattered himself that this decisive step would secure the aid 
 of the catholic powers, and waited only for his brother's per- 
 mission to make the public avowal of his creed. Possibly 
 he might hope to fix the wavering mind of the King 
 and accelerate his declaration, without which he was 
 persuaded monarchy must always remain in danger. 
 The difficulties he encountered made him more deter- 
 mined in ins conduct, and his brother's efforts to recal him 
 to his former religion, the loss of all his employments, 
 and a long train of calamities and humiliations served 
 only to strengthen his resolution. 
 
 Charles expressed no displeasure at his change of chariesap- 
 
 1 r ° proved of the 
 
 religion, and probably at the time when it was made r>«ke'scon- 
 
 . version. 
 
 was rather inclined from interested motives to encourage 
 him in it. From some expressions used by James in 
 conversation with Barillon in 1680, when he was highly Dai.Mem. n. 
 enraged at the conduct of his brother in deserting P> 
 his cause and sending him to Scotland, while his ene- 
 mies were collected round the throne, it may be sus- 
 pected that he not only took this hazardous step 
 with the concurrence, but by the order of the King, 
 for he manifested great distress of mind, and com- 
 plained bitterly of the treatment he received ?' for an 
 " affair, in ivhich he had only obeyed and conformed him- 
 ". self to the zvill of the King of Great Britain" When, But afterward 
 however, the agitation of the public mind gave him j[" p,eMed at 
 
296 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section alarm, Charles not only strongly expressed his regret, 
 ' - .. but wished it to be understood that the Duke had acted 
 
 without his knowledge, and contrary to his wishes and 
 advice. In truth, there was no single occurrence in 
 the whole course of his reign, which gave him so much 
 trouble, and was attended with so much danger. It 
 was not only to him a constant source of anxiety and 
 affliction and, embittered the remainder of his reign and 
 life, but decisively hastened the ruin of his brother and 
 his family afterwards. If Charles had not been con- 
 sulted about and approved of the Duke's conduct, it 
 can hardly be conceived that he would not have ex- 
 pressed his anger more unequivocally at a transaction, 
 so nearly concerning him, and so likely to involve him 
 in the most serious difficulties. Trusting, but not con- 
 fidently, in the engagements of France, it may have 
 been concerted after the first secret treaty, that the Duke 
 of York should by way of experiment first declare his 
 conversion. But the manner, in which it was received 
 by the Parliament and the nation, and the fate of the 
 declaration of indulgence may not only have prevented 
 the King from proceeding to fulfil the treaty by a de- 
 claration of his own conversion, but compelled him for 
 his own security to disavow all previous knowledge of 
 this act of the Duke. In this manner we may account 
 for the haughty conduct of James while his exclusion 
 was in agitation, and his displeasure at the timidity, and 
 irresolution of his brother, who only declined to risk 
 the crown in his support. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 297 
 
 The obstinate and intractable temper of the Duke was section 
 strongly manifested upon various occasions in matters relat- 
 
 ing to his religion during his brother's reign; in the year of humour. 011 
 1673, after he had given up his employments, he was JS'Vo.^'*' 
 advised by the Earl of Berkshire and other friends, but 
 in vain, to withdraw from court, and Lord M.* and 
 Lord Peterborough pressed him also to comply. 
 In the beginning of the year 1675, upon the issuing of ibid.p. gj. 
 a severe order of the council against the Roman Catholics 
 and Non-conformists, he said to the King that " he 
 " hoped he would not be displeased, if he did not wait 
 " on him to Church, as he had not, at his forbearing 
 " to receive the sacrament." At this time the Duke 
 was in ill humour with the King, who had not pro- 
 tected him from the persecution of the Parliament, as 
 he thought he had a right to expect, and had sent 
 Arlington over to Holland to negotiate a match between 
 the Prince of Orange and the Princess Mary, against 
 the inclination of the Duke. In the next year the Duke it,. P . »& 
 refused to consent to the confirmation of his two daughters 
 by the Bishop of London, in order to their receiv- 
 ing the sacrament in the Church of England, but submitted 
 when the King insisted upon it. He said he had not 
 instructed them in his own religion, because if he had 
 they would have been taken from him. 
 
 Fortunately for this country the suspicions of designs Marriage of 
 
 ■ » • i /» i • ' • ii the Prince ef 
 
 being entertained lor changing its government, and de- Oran?«. 
 * So in Macpherson. 
 
 « q 
 
298 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section stroying its religious establishment were so universal, 
 
 ' that in order to satisfy the minds of the people, Charles 
 
 was compelled in the latter end of 1677 to consent 
 to the marriage of his niece with the Prince of Orange, 
 who was then in England, and to insist upon the Duke 
 of York also consenting to the match. In a letter 
 Pai.Mam.ii. f Barillon, dated the 1st of November, 1677, after 
 
 j. 153. 
 
 describing the fatal consequences of the Duke of York 
 having professed himself a catholic, Charles is stated to have 
 declared that he had to resist the continual efforts of 
 the whole English nation, and he himself was the only 
 one of his party except it was his brother. 
 
 umes always James, never having had any confidence in the friends 
 
 looked to the , . . r . j , : ' ■ 
 
 aidofforeign of the royal cause in England lor its support, and having 
 imbibed under Cardinal Mazarin an exalted opinion 
 of the superior strength of its opponents, had been ac- 
 customed to consider the friendship of the catholic powers 
 on the continent, as the only solid security of the throne. 
 And from the time when he had accomplished this 
 secret treaty, or made the subsequent public declara- 
 tion of his faith, he seems never to have willingly 
 entered into any measures of conciliation, but considered 
 every person who opposed the proceedings of the court, 
 as an enemy to monarchy in general. Even during the 
 debates upon the Exclusion Bill, irritated and mortified 
 at the irresolute conduct of the King, his letters pre- 
 served by Dalrymple exhibit no symptom of compunction 
 
 powers. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 2 " 
 
 SECTION 
 V. 
 
 or sorrow; he attributes neither the distress of the go- 
 vernment nor of himself, to any act of his own, but 
 
 describes his apprehensions of all being involved in one 
 common ruin, as if he had done nothing to occasion 
 it. He was never satisfied with the tern porizing; conduct Fox > a hp- 
 
 *■ <-> p. XKXlll. 
 
 of Charles in not making the public profession of his 
 religion, and after his death accounted for it by 
 saying that he was afraid of shewing himself to the 
 eyes of men such as he was, though there were several 
 occasions, on which he might have done it without any 
 danger. In the conversation alluded to James assumed that 
 his predecessor had long before his death held the faith, 
 in which it was wished his subjects might suppose 
 him to have died. 
 
 So early as in the second year after his restoration, First decian- 
 and before he had formed any plan for making him- duigence. 
 self more arbitrary than, as he understood, by the con- 
 stitution a King of England had a right to be, Charles 
 had issued a declaration of indulgence asserting the dis- 
 pensing power, and shewing his inclination to mitigate 
 the severity of the penal laws against non-conformists, 
 but his Parliament compelled him to withdraw it. At 
 that time Clarendon was in power and the soundness 
 of his principles was not doubted ; but upon the fall 
 of Clarendon, the House of Commons, which had ma- 
 nifested upon all occasions a bigoted attachment to the 
 episcopal establishment, entertained increased suspicions 
 of the designs of the King. It is not improbable that 
 
 Q q 2 
 
300 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section upon the dismissal of Clarendon the King turned his 
 ■ thoughts more particularly to the conciliation of his 
 
 catholic subjects and the augmentation of their numbers 
 and power, with a view to reinstate what he con- 
 ceived to be the rights of the crown, and repress 
 the unconstitutional interference of a House of Com- 
 mons, which continually opposed and tormented him. 
 
 General toiera- The King in 1661, had proposed to the Parliament 
 a general toleration, expressed his favourable inclina- 
 tion towards the protestant non-conformists, and en- 
 couraged them to hope for a comprehension within 
 the Established Church. The Parliament immediately 
 took the alarm, and renewed the act against conventicles. 
 In consequence a severe persecution of the protestant 
 non-conformists was carried on, and an address against 
 the catholics presented to the King, who issued a pro- 
 clamation for the prosecution of them also in 1671. 
 But the magistrates in general, knowing the wishes of 
 the court, were not very active in its execution, while 
 little mercy was shewn to the protestants. 
 
 ©cehnation of Irritated at the perverseness of his Parliament and 
 
 indulgence 
 
 issuea. encouraged by his ministers, Charles did not change his 
 
 design. His object was the enjoyment of arbitrary power* 
 as the ancient prerogative of the crown, and still con- 
 templating the assistance of France, as his best protection 
 from the republican and bigoted principles of his sub- 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 301 
 
 jects, he determined by a bold effort to unite in the section 
 royal cause the catholic and protestant non-conformists — — — ■ 
 against the establishment. He might also wish to make 
 the experiment of the disposition of his subjects to 
 the general toleration of the catholics, to which he 
 was pledged by the treaty of 1671, tor if that should 
 be favourably received he might expect his own con- 
 version would occasion no disturbance, and his brother 
 be shielded from prosecution. The personal influence of 
 the Duke of York was not wanting, and in March 
 1672, Charles had the boldness to issue a declaration 
 of indulgence for sectaries of all descriptions, whether 
 catholic or protestant. By this abuse of the prerogative 
 he granted that toleration, which in his negotiation with 
 Lewis was understood, and stated to be, the ultimate 
 extent of the favour intended to be shewn to the ca- 
 tholics after his conversion. Charles met his Parliament 
 in the memorable session of 1672, in full expectation 
 that, by assuming the voice of authority, he should subdue 
 the popular party and silence opposition ; he declared 
 at the opening that he would not be contradicted in 
 his grant of indulgence, and that he would increase his 
 army. But the Parliament more alarmed with the fear 
 of popery, than intimidated by the King, not only in- canceled, 
 sisted on the declaration of indulgence being cancelled, 
 but passed the Test Act to restrain the exercise of the 
 prerogative in the appointment of persons to office, 
 and to deprive the Duke of York of his employ- 
 ments. 
 
302 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 
 V. 
 
 This declaration of indulgence appears to have been 
 issued without the concurrence of France, but by the 
 advice of Buckingham and Shaftesbury, who hoped 
 to gain the dissenters; but the ferment through the na- 
 tion was so great, the remonstrances of the Parliament 
 so strong, and Charles so seriously alarmed that Lewis, 
 fearing he might be driven to make peace with Hol- 
 land, interfered and prevailed upon him to recal the 
 declaration. » The opposition, which was shewn to this 
 untimely effort of Charles, tended more perhaps than 
 any other circumstance to open his eyes to the danger 
 of his situation. By yielding to the Parliament he quieted 
 his people, but as that was not the wish of France, 
 Colbert put him in mind that his master had by treaty 
 stipulated to send over to his assistance 6,000 men 
 after the war was ended, and assured him that in addition 
 as many more, as he should stand in need of, should be 
 sent over. Charles however avoided the snare, pru- 
 dently declining the proffered assistance and declaring 
 that nothing was so likely to occasion a general revolt 
 of the whole nation, as to shew them that he could sup- 
 port his authority by foreign forces. After having 
 relieved himself from this difficulty, he dared to think 
 and speak no more of his own conversion, or the 
 indulgence of catholics. 
 
 TheDuke The Dutch war continued till February, 1673, and in 
 
 fears a bill of . . " ._ 
 
 exclusion. August, 1674, at which time the Parliament stood pro- 
 
 1674. ; * 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 303 
 
 rogucd to the 10th of November following, the Duke section 
 of York expressed to Colbert his, fears of a bill of ex- — 
 
 elusion, and proposed that for a sum of money his Money ne S o. 
 brother should make a further prorogation of the Par- 
 liament. On this, a negociation was commenced, and 
 Charles for 500,000 crowns agreed to prorogue it till 
 April, 1675. 
 
 In a treaty made in February, 1616, copied by the me. 
 King himself and signed with his own hand, in con- 
 sideration of a pension to be paid to Charles, both 
 Sovereigns agreed not to enter into any treaties without 
 mutual consent, and Charles obliged himself to prorogue 
 or dissolve the Parliament, if it should endeavour to 
 force any treaties upon him. 
 
 In the year 1677, Charles obtained money from i 6 77. 
 France for the purpose of bribing his own subjects, and 
 on the 5th of August, bargained for 2,000,000 of Livres 
 to be paid within the year that he would prorogue the 
 Parliament till the end of April in the year 1678. In 
 fixing this sum the Duke of York manifested a strong 
 attachment to France, for Lord Danby's endeavours to Dai. Mem.u. 
 increase were constantly frustrated by the Duke's p ' 
 struggle to diminish it. In the month of November, 1677, 
 the Prince of Orange was married to the Princess Mary, 
 daughter to the Duke, but Charles endeavoured to 
 keep term? with France, and the Parliament, which 
 
304 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 V. 
 
 Dal. Mem. ii. 
 p. 154. 
 
 had been adjourned to the 13th December was prorogued 
 to April, 1678. Notwithstanding all the efforts of Charles, 
 Lewis stopped the payment of the pension and proceeded 
 to such measures as indicated an approaching rupture. 
 The Duke of York with great anxiety endeavoured to 
 prevent it. 
 
 Money given 
 to members. 
 
 The French Embassador, taught by the conduct of 
 Charles himself, had begun to form connexions with 
 some of the leading Members of the House of Commons, 
 even before the agreement made in this year was com- 
 pleted. Barillon succeeded Courtin, as Embassador 
 from France, in September, and upon overtures being 
 made by several Members of the House of Commons 
 Lewis sent over de Rouvigny, who was better ac- 
 quainted with them, and also remitted considerable 
 stums of money to be distributed among them. 
 
 Macph. Pap. i, 
 p. 91. 
 
 In 1678, when the examinations about the Popish Plot 
 &c. were going on in Council, the King being appre- 
 hensive of an address to remove the Duke from his pre- 
 sence, which had been talked of before, endeavoured in 
 vain to persuade him to abstain from attending there, and 
 at last the council was forced to make an order for that 
 purpose. 
 
 Dal. Mem. ii. 
 p. 172. 
 
 In the spring of 1678 Lewis marched into Flanders, 
 and obliged Charles to send some troops abroad. Even 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 305 
 
 the Duke of York cordially promoted the war. Ba- section 
 rillon's letter of the 18th of April, 1678, is characteristic 
 
 of the general views and dispositions of the two brothers, claries and 
 " The High Treasurer's aim," he writes, "is to procure DaU Mem.u. 
 " money, and he would willingly increase his master's p " 
 " authority. The Duke of York believes himself lost 
 " as to his religion, if the present opportunity does not 
 " serve to bring England into subjection; t'is a very 
 " bold enterprize, and the success very doubtful." — "The 
 " King of England still wavers upon carrying things 
 " to extremity, his humour is very repugnant to the 
 " design of changing the government. He is nevertheless 
 " drawn along by the Duke of York and the High 
 " Treasurer; but at the bottom he would rather chuse 
 " that peace should leave him in a situation to remain 
 " in quiet and re-establish his affairs, that is to say, 
 " a good revenue ; and I do not believe he cares muck 
 44 for being more absolute than he is. The Duke and the 
 44 Treasurer know well with whom they have to deal, 
 " and are afraid of being abandoned by the King of 
 " England, on the first considerable obstacles they may 
 " meet with to the design of enlarging the royal au- 
 " thority in England." Charles had proceeded for a 
 series of years in a deeper system of intrigue and dis- 
 simulation, than perhaps had been ever carried on by 
 any monarch ; he had duped and sacrificed his mi- 
 nisters, and almost every body connected with him, but 
 at last the storm fell upon his own head. The moment 1678. 
 
 r r 
 
306 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 V. 
 
 Dal. Mem.H. 
 p. 190, 193. 
 
 Desperate 
 condition of 
 Charles. 
 
 Dal. Mem. ii. 
 p. 205. 
 
 the continuation of the second Dutch war became no 
 longer practicable, and the Commons would grant no 
 further supplies, he entered into a secret money treaty 
 with Lewis, which was concluded in a few days, and 
 signed and dated on the 27th of May, 1678. By it, 
 Charles engaged not to call a Parliament for six months, 
 and was to receive in consideration of that, and the re- 
 calling and disbanding of his troops in two months, 
 6,000,000 of livres. At this period Barillon describes 
 " the country, as almost in rebellion ;" he was push- 
 ing his intrigues with the members of the House 
 of Commons to the utmost extremity, and at last upon 
 Lewis refusing according to agreement to deliver up 
 the Spanish towns in Flanders, Charles entered into a 
 treaty with the Dutch to make war upon France, if 
 she did not evacuate them. This he did probably in 
 order to get more money from Lewis, not with a serious 
 intention to go to war, for about that time he offered 
 to enter into a treaty with France in favour of Sweden 
 her ally, for which he expected to receive a consideration 
 in money. But the Dutch obtaining information of the 
 negociation for this treaty, hastily signed the treaty of 
 Nimeguen in the spring of 1678. And, when Charles 
 asked from the King of France payment of the first 
 instalment of the pension stipulated for in the treaty, 
 it was refused. 
 
 Charles bro>.e 
 with France. 
 
 This disappointment roused the anger of Charles, he 
 broke of! all connection with France, and sent a greater 
 
AIR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 307 
 
 army to Flanders, which was to be commanded by sbction 
 
 the Duke of York in person. But the French Embas- 
 
 sador, now well versed in the art of managing and 
 corrupting the Members of the House of Commons, 
 through Mr. Montague made a successful attack upon 
 Lord Danby, then High Treasurer, and to save him from 
 impeachment the Parliament was dissolved. The Duke Dai.Mem.ii. 
 of York saw further than Charles and dreaded more P ,a53 ' 254, 
 the impending storm: even before Lord Danby 
 was impeached he secretly proposed to Barillon strong 
 measures, supported by a cordial union with France; 
 and when the impeachment was going on, in a letter 
 dated the 5th of January, 167 8/9, he writes that 
 Charles had pressed for assistance from Lewis, upon 
 the ground " that the attack upon the catholics, was 
 " only an attack upon the common cause of royalty," 
 but this argument had lost its consequence, and Barillon 
 coolly answered that Charles ought to disband his army 
 before he could expect it, " for that is the essential point" 
 
 Charles is reported by Barillon, in a letter of the ib. P .«&, 
 12th of January, 1679, to have said that he liked better 
 to depend upon the King of France than his people, 
 and at other times he begged the assistance of France 
 in the most humiliating terms, but his intreaties were 
 unsuccessful, for it was suspected that there was a secret 
 understanding between him and the Prince of Orange. 
 Besides he was not to be trusted about disbanding 
 
 r r 2 
 
308 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section ' foig army, an d Barillon conceived it more advantageous 
 to intrigue with the Members of Parliament, than with 
 
 Dal. Mem, ii. 
 
 p. 258. the King. 
 
 in his distress, The proceedings against Lord Danby, the discovery 
 to his own sub- of the Popish Plot, and the agitation of the Exclusion 
 Bill had thrown the nation into a ferment, and a civil 
 war seemed the necessary consequence. At this crisis, 
 abandoned by France, Charles had no resource but in 
 his own subjects, he therefore assembled a new Par- 
 liament, disbanded his newly raised forces, sent the 
 Duke of York into Flanders, and by the advice of Sir 
 William Temple constituted a new Privy Council, to 
 which Lord Russell and the most popular leaders in 
 the House of Commons were admitted. 
 
 Dai. Mem. ii. Charles now most anxiously endeavoured to prevail 
 upon the Duke to make some concessions, and used 
 
 Macph.pap.i. every expedient which could be suggested. In January, 
 1679, Lady Powis was deputed from the Lords in the tower 
 
 Charles tries {o ^eg f or their sakes that the Duke would withdraw, while 
 
 to get the o ' 
 
 Duke to con- fae King urged him to take the protestant tests, as the 
 only means of securing his continuance in England 
 and preventing his utter ruin. The Parliament, which had 
 sat sixteen years, was dissolved, and another summoned; 
 
 Dai. Mem. .i. but before it met, on the 4th of March, 167S>, the King 
 
 p.261. . ■ 4 
 
 sent the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of 
 Dai. Mem. i. Winchester to endeavour to persuade the Duke to con- 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 309 
 
 form to the established Church. Upon this subject, section 
 
 however, James was still inexorable, he declined the r- 
 
 conference and was highly displeased at the deputa- 
 tion having been sent to him. Notwithstanding the ill 
 success of these prelates, on the 15th of June the attempt Macph.Pa*.i. 
 was repeated, and the Duke further pressed by his 
 friends to change his religion. Charles, chagrined at 
 the obstinacy of his brother and alarmed for his own 
 safety, sent him, much against his inclination, out of 
 the kingdom. He wished to have taken up his resi- 
 dence in France, but the King would not permit him. 
 
 Charles could not long endure the thraldom of his charies applies 
 new council, and, within less than two months after it F?an"e. 
 was formed, conjured France in the most abject manner 
 to incline to put England under its dependence for Dai. Mem. a. 
 ever. Lewis kept him in suspense for some months, but, p " 
 after the dissolution of the second Parliament, attended 
 to his supplication. The Duke of York was consulted 
 at Brussels, and expressed the utmost anxiety that the ib. P . 290. 
 treaty should be concluded, he offered to lend, and 
 actually did lend his own money to Lewis to enable him 
 to pay the subsidies, and sent Churchill to Paris to assist in 
 the negociation. Lewis, either actuated at last by the 
 same wishes with the Duke or disposed to secure his 
 further friendship, applied to Charles for permission for 
 him to return to England, which was accordingly 
 granted. The condition at first proposed by Lewis was ib. P .285. 
 
310 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section that Charles should not assemble a Parliament for a 
 - —- number of years, and the term fixed was of three years, 
 and after that time not till Lewis should give him leave. 
 For this Charles was lo receive 1,000,000 of livres per 
 annum, by quarterly payments, and if he should be com- 
 pelled to call a Parliament the French King himself was 
 to judge whether the payments, if any remained due 
 of the million a year, should be continued. The avowed 
 
 Treaty broken reason for breaking off this negociation was the insertion 
 of a clause by the French Embassador, to which even 
 the base mind of Charles was not prepared to submit. 
 
 Dai. Mem. ii. But it is probable that the alarm of the ministers of the 
 
 p. 297. 
 
 King, particularly the Lords Hyde and Sunderland, 
 and perhaps of the King himself at entering into a 
 stipulation not to call a Parliament, whatever exigency 
 of the country might require it, induced the King and 
 his Ministers to break off the treaty in the end of Novem- 
 ber, 1679. Charles immediately made advances to the 
 Dutch and Spaniards, and entered into a treaty with 
 Spain. Lewis was then aware of his error and offered 
 terms of conciliation through Barillon and the Duke of 
 York, who was displeased at the measures taken in his 
 absence and without his privity, but Charles was not to be 
 ib. p. 3i2. prevailed upon. He told Barillon that the want of 
 an alliance lay at Lewis's door, " and if he dared to say 
 " so, it was the second fault of this kind which had been 
 " committed by France; that, when the triple alliance 
 " was made, he had given information of it to Mr. de 
 " Rouvigny before hand." 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 311 
 
 A more humiliating spectacle can hardly be found in SEC ™ 0K 
 history than was exhibited in the person of Charles the 
 
 J l m Humiliating 
 
 Second during the greater part of his reign; to so low ntuationof 
 
 & & * Charles. 
 
 and mean a situation was he reduced, that he was trusted 
 
 neither by his subjects, nor by foreign powers. By 
 
 dissimulation and baseness it is true that he retained 
 
 his throne, and died a King, but a reference to a few 
 
 passages in the French correspondence will prove how 
 
 little his situation, or that of his confidential adviser, his 
 
 brother, was to be envied, after the fall of Clarendon. 
 
 Even before the cabal was dismissed and when the first a connection 
 
 money treaty was in agitation, Charles was aware how ailay/odioL. 
 
 very obnoxious his connection with France would be 
 
 to his people, who were generally disposed to favour 
 
 Spain. In 1676", de Rouvigny writes to Lewis, " it Dai. Mem. a- 
 
 " will be difficult to conceive that a King should be so 
 
 *' abandoned by his subjects, that even among his 
 
 " ministers he cannot find one, in whom he can place 
 
 " an entire confidence." And Courtin in 1677, writes, i b . p . u2 . 
 
 as Rouvigny had done in the preceding year, that he 
 
 could count upon only two friends in all England, the King 
 
 and the Duke. Again 5th of August, 1677, the Lord Ib , pi i 58 
 
 Treasurer said in Courtin 's presence, that " the King of 
 
 " England hazarded his crown by opposing, as he did, 
 
 " the universal desire of his subjects." On the 8th of 
 
 lb. p. 2iS. 
 
 May, 1679, Barillon wrote, that the power of Charles, 
 by the factions of his own dominions was entirely sunk; 
 that an alliance with him would therefore be of no 
 
( 
 
 312 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section advantage with regard to foreign affairs, and that it 
 would be better to continue to court the heads of 
 
 parties in order to continue his difficulties. 
 
 pi h e e as?d k a e t dis There are preserved in Dairy m pie a considerable 
 ducT. e:,scon " number of letters written by James to the Prince of 
 Orange, dated from Brussels in the year 1679, in which 
 is expressed great dissatisfaction with the King's pro- 
 ceedings, accompanied with apprehensions for the fate 
 of monarchy in England, all things tending to a republic. 
 It is observable that he expresses no sorrow at the 
 state into which he has brought the King, but an- 
 xiously wishes him to make no concession and run the 
 risk of his crown to prevent the Bill of Exclusion 
 from passing, which he states not to be the object of 
 his enemies, who wished for a commonwealth, backed 
 by the presbyterians, who are gaining strength. He 
 seems at all times to have been fully convinced, or. 
 desirous to inculcate that the monarchy and the King, 
 were aimed at by the Bill of Exclusion, and to have 
 retained the same high notions respecting monarchical 
 government, which he had imbibed in his earliest 
 years. They are strongly marked in a ielter to the 
 Dai. Mem. ii. Prince of Orange, dated 6th • of July, 1679, in which 
 p ' ' he writes, " the bill that was read in the House of 
 
 " Commons against me, which was against law, and 
 " which destroys the very being of monarchy, which 
 I thank God yet has had no dependency on Par- 
 
 «* 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 91$ 
 
 " liament, nor on nothing but God alone, nor ever can section 
 " and be a monarchy," and on the 26th of July, 1679, 
 
 Dal. Metn.ii. 
 
 the same sentiments are repeated." p-s". 
 
 In order to defeat the Exclusion Bill, Charles declared cbaries»*«H». 
 
 cession to de- 
 
 to the Parliament his readiness to consent to limitations e^ 1 ^, Bil 
 
 upon the power and future succession to the Crown, to 
 
 which scheme neither the Duke of York, nor the Prince 
 
 of Orange were inclined to accede ; and at last, com- 
 
 pleatly overcome with the difficulties he was perpetually 
 
 encountering through his efforts to secure the succession 
 
 to the former, he seems to have given up his support 
 
 in despair; and in February, 1681, proposed to the r>ai. Mtm.a. 
 
 Prince of Orange to make the Princess Regent, during 
 
 the life of her father. But both of these plans were ib. P .s«». 
 
 rejected by the Parliament. 
 
 The Duke of York acted a most extraordinary part in Extraordinary 
 
 . . . . conduct of th« 
 
 these transactions, he received, as before mentioned, Dukeofy«rk. 
 
 the order for his residence abroad with great displeasure, 
 
 and his mind was so much irritated, that he immediately 
 
 supplicated the protection of Lewis and apologized for 
 
 his having lately appeared to oppose the interests of 
 
 France, throwing the fault upon his brother. Lewis 
 
 shewed him every possible attention during his abode 
 
 at Brussels, and obtained his recall about the 18th Octo- d<»i. Men. a. 
 
 ber, 1679, for which James expressed his gratitude in 
 
 the strongest terms. And from this time, he, as perhaps 
 
 S 5 
 
314* A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section ' m some respects he had done from the beginning of 
 
 - — the reign, placed all his dependence upon France, fully- 
 persuaded that the Government at home could not be 
 carried on without proceeding to extremities, and calling 
 in a foreign force. The treaty broke off in November, 
 1679, and James remained in England till after the 
 Parliament met in the ensuing year (21st October, 1680). 
 Charles, at that time, iiad no connection with France, 
 and it became a question, whether he should not attempt, 
 to keep well with the Parliament and the people by 
 sending the Duke abroad again.. Charles was much 
 irritated at the uncomplying spirit of his brother, and 
 entertained serious thoughts of abandoning him to the 
 Parliament, if he could fall upon no other method of 
 extricating himself from the difficulties, which surrounded 
 him, at least such seems to have been the apprehension 
 D»i. Mem. iu of James, who made a confidant of Barillon. The dan- 
 ger, however, was so urgent that the King continued firm 
 Tvucph. Psp. i. in his resolution that James should depart for Scotland ; 
 but Shaftesbury threatning an impeachment, the Duke 
 insisted upon having a pardon for his security. This 
 DaLMem.iu was debated in council, and the King refused it. The 
 M»<-ph.Pap.i. Duke then declared he would not go to Scotland, and the 
 P . io4, Kb. King was under difficulties, because he could not by law 
 compel him to leave the kingdom against his will. Charles 
 and his confidential advisers were however so strongly con- 
 vinced of the urgent necessity of sending the Duke away, 
 »ai. Mem. ii. that he was at last obliged to depart. Mr. Godolphin 
 saying *• if the Duke of York does not leave it" (i.e. the. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 91 S 
 
 Kingdom) ' at present, he will be obliged to go in a section 
 " fortnight, and the King along with him.*' __— 
 
 At this time, Charles was desirous to please the Par- critical »itna- 
 
 tion of the 
 
 liament, Monmouth had been reconciled to him, Sunder- Duke of York, 
 land and the Dutchess of Portsmouth were inclined to 
 favour Monmouth, and the Ministers appeared well 
 disposed to the Prince of Orange. To add to this 
 combination of untoward circumstances against the Duke 
 of York, he had incurred the royal displeasure, and 
 been compelled much against his inclination, to embark t^, rfre . 
 for Scotland. In a conversation with Barillon just before brother!"* 
 he sailed, he declared in terms full of violence and Dai. Mem. «. 
 
 p. 335. 
 
 rage, that " if he was pushed to extremity, and saw him- 
 " self likely to be entirely mined by his enemies, he would 
 " find means to make them repent it, and revenge himself 
 " of them, by giving your Majesty also your revenge, 
 " for the conduct they had held with regard to you; 
 " the meaning of which is, that he hopes to be able to 
 «• excite troubles in Scotland and Ireland, and he even 
 " alledges he has a party in England, more coyisiderable 
 " than is thought of He finished his discourse with great 
 " protestations of being eternally attached to your Ma- 
 " jesty, and by a very humble prayer to grant him your 
 " protection." Barillon answered only in general terms. 
 
 Lewis, upon receiving this welcome intelligence, ordered d.i. Mem. u. 
 Barillon to assure the Duke of secret supplies, in case 
 
 0fjS 
 
316 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 
 V. 
 
 Dal. Mem. ii. 
 p. 363. 
 
 he should carry his threat into execution. It however 
 turned out, from the extreme unpopularity of the Duke's 
 administration in Scotland, that he was obliged upon 
 his arrival there to abandon the design of revolting 
 against his brother. The conduct of James, upon his 
 being sent at this time to Scotland, affords ample scope 
 for reflection. There is nothing wonderful in his being 
 exasperated in the highest degree at the preference 
 openly shewn to Monmouth, and the disgraceful treat- 
 ment he himself experienced, but that this destined 
 martyr to the doctrine of the divine right of Kings 
 should seriously propose to rebel against his Sovereign, 
 and afford a practical proof of the fallacy of his own 
 principles is a fact, which no previous acquaintance with 
 his temper and turn of mind could have led to the ex- 
 pectation of. This outrageous design probably never 
 was communicated to his brother, and that the Duke 
 of Monmouth and others about the court were kept in 
 ignorance of it appears from their never having after- 
 wards urged it, as an argument to inflame the mind of 
 Charles against him, or prevent a reconciliation between 
 them. 
 
 Mew treaty 
 with France. 
 
 Dal. Mem. ii- 
 
 p. 357. 
 
 During these struggles Charles had received proposals 
 for a money treaty with France, stipulating, among other 
 things, that the Duke should return, the catholics be 
 favourably treated, and the penal laws against them suspen- 
 ded, and Charles never more call a Parliament, and in re- 
 
Mr. fox's historical work. 317 
 
 turn he should have a pension for three years. Probably section 
 thinking the terms too exorbitant, he had kept the 
 
 treaty in suspense, but in January, 1680, the Duke sent Macph. Pap.i. 
 Churchill to the King to further it, and the King con- 
 sented that the Duke should carry it on, but he would 
 not move in it himself. He cautioned the Duke, how- 
 ever, not to consent to any article, which might fore- 
 close him from calling a Parliament, that the first pay- 
 ment should be more considerable than the succeeding, 
 and the last, and that the person sent by the Duke 
 should come straight to London and deliver his letters 
 to Mr. Hyde, to be shewn to the King. Charles agreed issi. 
 to the treaty on the 24th of March, 1681, and a few 
 days afterwards dissolved the Parliament with a firm 
 determination never to summon another, and published 
 an appeal to the people. The discovery of the infamous 
 transactions carried on between the courts of England 
 and France, made in consequence of the prosecution of 
 Lord Danby, had alienated from Charles the affection 
 of his subjects, and after the dissolution of the Parlia- 
 ment he laid aside all thoughts of conciliation; relying 
 upon the assistance of France, he set at defiance all 
 his domestic enemies, and resolved to preserve his crown 
 and secure his person, without being scrupulous as to the 
 legality, or morality of the means used for those pur- 
 poses. Barillon pressed that the treaty should be reduced J3 ^ er1, " 
 into writing, but the King refused, and at last it was 
 concluded verbally. By this treaty, Charles in conside- 
 
A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section ration of a pension of 2,000,000 of livres for one 
 ■ • year, and of 5,000,000 crowns for two more, engaged 
 himself by a stipulation introduced into the treaty, con- 
 trary to his orders to the Duke of York as before 
 mentioned, not to assemble a Parliament, but for what 
 period of time Dalrymple does not inform us, probably 
 for the three years during which the pension was to 
 be paid. After this treaty, Lewis, feeling himself in 
 security from any efforts of this country to interrupt 
 his schemes upon the continent, became indifferent about 
 keeping up the connections, which Barilkm had formed 
 with the popular party, though strongly pressed by him 
 not wholly to give them up. 
 
 The Duke kept James bore his banishment to Scotland with sreat im- 
 
 in Scotland # . . . 
 
 bec.nse he patience, and Charles was importuned by his friends very 
 
 would not con- r x J 
 
 form. SO on after he went there to order his recall. In 1680, they 
 
 PU09* Pap " '' renewed the solicitation, and again in March, in the same 
 ib. us. year, but whether before or after Charles had agreed to 
 ib no tne treat y does not appear. And on the 24?th of May, 
 
 Halifax got from the King a promise that he would not 
 send for the Duke. The Duke had flattered himself 
 that Lewis would make his return to England one of 
 the stipulations in the treaty, or that it would be obtained 
 through his interference, or be the necessary consequence 
 of it. In these expectations however he was cruelly dis- 
 appointed, for he was kept in Scotland for nearly twelve 
 months afterwards, because he would not consent to coa- 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 319 
 
 form to the Church of England. The King, pressed on section 
 all sides with difficulties and dangers, had determined ■ — 
 to endeavour to extricate himself by prevailing upon 
 the Duke if not to resume his former creed, at least 
 to conform externally to the established Church. Such 
 a hopeless expedient could be resorted to only in a case 
 of most urgent necessity, but Charles was reduced to the 
 last extremity. Churchill, who had been sent as before 
 mentioned to expedite the treaty, pressed that the Duke 
 might be permitted to wait upon the King, and on the 
 31st of August, 1680, the following answer was delivered 
 to the Duke by Lord Hyde, as it is stated in the ex- 
 tracts from James's Diary, that " except the Duke of 
 " York resolved to conform entirely, and go to church, Macph. p.p. i. 
 " no leave was to be had; that if he did not conform, P 
 •'■ the King could no longer support him, though he 
 " had hitherto done it, ■ that I should ruin myself and 
 " him.' Hyde executed his instructions well, in pressing 
 " and representing the dismal state of affairs; when 
 ** after two or three days' discourse, he saw he could 
 " not prevail, he shewed the Duke a short note, in the 
 " King's own hand; * that if I would but go to church, 
 ** without doing more, I should have leave to come to 
 " him, as soon as the Parliament was up." The Duke 
 rejected the conditions. But whether his conduct upon 
 this occasion proceeded purely from conscientious mo- 
 tives may be questioned, for about this time he attended, 
 without scruple, the' public prayers of the presbyterians 
 
note. 
 
 Burn. i. p. 517 
 
 S2Q A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section at t h e Parliament of Scotland. Some time afterward 
 — (14th of October,) Barillon mentions his having learnt 
 
 Dal. Mem. ii. « . , _ t . 
 
 P . 340. from a good quarter, that the King was always pressing 
 
 the Duke of York strongly to take the protestant tests, 
 as the only means of bringing about his continuance in 
 England, and securing him from utter ruin. And after- 
 wards the Lords Halifax and Hyde wrote to the Duke 
 
 Macph.Pap. i. upon the subject. His answer to the letter of Lord 
 
 p. in. J 
 
 Rose, p. us, Hyde bears date the 14th of December, 1680. Mr. 
 
 Rose has given a copy of it, from Lord Dartmouth's 
 MS. notes upon Burnet, and he says, first, that he cannot 
 do it in conscience, and it would be of no advantage 
 to the King's cause ; he then says peremptorily he will 
 not do it, rejoices his Majesty has laid aside the in- 
 tention of writing to him, " for should he be prevailed 
 " upon to do it, one might easily guess what must 
 " soon follow after." Perhaps intimating that if the 
 King insisted upon it, he should be compelled to resist 
 by force. Mr. Rose has also copied from the same MS. 
 another letter, written by the Duke about the same time, 
 in which the letters of Halifax and Hyde are men- 
 tioned, expressive of his determination not to comply. 
 
 ib. 184, i«9. At last, if we may credit the extracts from James's 
 
 132 133. 
 
 diary, (which are in some degree contradicted by his 
 gratitude to Lewis for his recall, as having been obtained 
 in consequence of his request) the Dutchess of Ports- 
 mouth accomplished his return for the purpose of 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 321 
 
 making, at the desire of the King, a settlement of £5000 section 
 
 a rear upon her, which it was advised could not be 
 
 done without his presence in London. James shews a 
 particular anxiety that this may be understood to be 
 the cause of his return ; it is mentioned repeatedly in 
 his diary, and in places where it has no connection 
 with the circumstances, recorded immediately before or 
 after it. On the Itrfa of March, 1682, he met the King 
 at Newmarket, and attended him till the third of May, 
 when he left him to brin^ his Dutchess to England. 
 
 In consequence of the private money treaty of 1681 The Duke re. 
 
 • t-v ' v ~ turns, friendly 
 
 tne Duke ot lork returned from exile, and Lewis well to France. 
 
 knowing his blind attachment to France, and his influence 
 
 over his brother, ordered Barillon to act in concert with 
 
 him. He also wrote a letter to him dated on the 20th Ap P *. to.?t.i. 
 
 of March, 16S2, expressive of pleasure at his return, in " P 
 
 which are these words, " I see also that your councils and 
 
 " firmness will henceforth be very necessary to strengthen 
 
 " the King of Great Britain in the resolution to avail 
 
 " himself of the means, I have offered him, to confirm 
 
 " the peace, and render immoveable the terms of friend- 
 
 " ship, to which you have go much contributed *:'■ 
 
 * Upon the treaty of 1681, and the general state of affairs, James Macpb.Pa P .{. 
 in his diary gives his sentiments pretty fully, the extract is as follows: P- l32> 
 " The King's necessities had been long so great, and the Parliament 
 " so refractory, that he had no way left for relief, but by a private 
 " agreement for a pension from France. The conduct of the French 
 ** upon this, bad like to have obliged the King to call a Parliament; 
 
 T t 
 
322 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section The power of the Duke of York was now predominant* 
 ; the King indulged his natural disposition to indolence, 
 
 Si pow k e e r. ,n and gave the reins of Government, Which he found too 
 troublesome to hold himself into the hands of his brother. 
 So long as the subsidy was regularly paid according to 
 the treaty of 1681, Charles behaved under the controuling 
 Macph. pa P .i. influence of the Duke with the most abject servility towards 
 p. 127. France, though at one moment the Duke himself seems 
 
 to have felt some indignation at the encroachments of 
 that power, and thought of resorting to a Parliament. 
 Lewis, among other encroachments contrary to the treaty, 
 had resolved to make himself master of Luxemburg*, 
 Charles intends ana< seize the principality of Orange. When the treaty of 
 a change. 1^81 expired and the subsidy was discontinued, Charles's 
 necessities pressed hard upon him, he had some time 
 before discovered that Lewis had been intriguing with 
 his subjects, while professing the most ardent wishes to 
 serve him ; he became melancholy, and it is probable, 
 that in order to extricate himself from his difficulties he 
 had determined upon an entire alteration of his system of 
 government, which was prevented only by his death. 
 
 e< which at that time would have turned to the Duke's advantage. 
 " The project was broke off by Halifax's refined arguing, who was 
 " always for cleaving a hair in his advice. The Duke owed his 
 ** return to court to the Dutchess of Portsmouth, without her intend- 
 " ing it. This turned out well for the King for, without the Duke's 
 " presence, the King could not have obtained such a victory over 
 « the faction." 
 
 * For this Charles received a large sum of money from Lewis. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 323 
 
 About the time of his discovering the treachery of section 
 Lewis, he expressed his apprehensions for the situation 
 
 and prospects of his brother, when walking with Sir ed for hist™- 
 Richard Bulstrode, who had been his Minister at Brussels. 
 
 Bulstr. Mem. 
 
 He spoke with pleasure of the Flemings, and then added, p- 42 *- 
 " but I am weary of travelling, I am resolved to go 
 " abroad no more. But when I am dead and gone, I 
 " know not what my brother will do, I am much afraid 
 
 • that when he comes to the crown, he will be obliged 
 
 * to travel again. And yet 1 will take care to leave my 
 " kingdoms to him in peace, wishing that he may long 
 " keep them so. But this hath all of my fears, little of 
 " my hopes, and less of my reason, and I am much 
 " afraid, that when my brother comes to the crown, he 
 " will be obliged again to leave his native soil." 
 
 And still impressed with the same fears, PuffendorfT weiw. Mem. 
 relates that when, aware of his own approaching dissolu- 
 tion, he delivered the key of his strong box to James, he 
 gave him the prudent advice, " Not to think upon intro- 
 " ducing the Romish religion into England, it being a 
 M thing that was both dangerous and impracticable." 
 
 The death of Charles happened at a critical moment conversion and 
 
 1 . death of 
 
 for the Duke, for he had in contemplation a complete and Ch *r\es. 
 immediate change of men and measures, and the Dutchess Mac P'i. Pap- «• 
 
 p. 134. 
 
 of Portsmouth and Sunderland had resolved that the 
 Duke should be sent out of England again. The 
 
 Tt 2 
 
324 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section Dutchess was jealous of his power, and perhaps dreaded 
 
 . — the final event, if Charles should be prevailed upon to 
 
 persist in the measures which had been suggested by his 
 brother. James would have us believe that his frequent 
 conferences with the King, which increased her fears 
 of his power, had for their object religion, not politics; 
 that his anxious wish was to make a convert, not to 
 govern a kingdom. But the character of Charles does 
 not permit the supposition that he was impelled by any 
 religious scruples to add to his troubles, and make a de- 
 claration of his faith. That his anxiety upon that subject 
 did not induce him to wish for frequent conferences 
 with his brother may be reasonably inferred, not only 
 from the silence and patience in which he passed the 
 last twelve years of his life, without submitting to those 
 public ceremonies, which (if convinced of the truth of the 
 catholic religion) he must have believed to be necessary 
 for his salvation, but from the efforts which he made 
 repeatedly, and most anxiously to bring back his brother 
 to conformity with the. protestant church. On the other 
 hand, we can readily point out motives, which might have 
 induced the Duke of York to pretend that religion was 
 the object of these conferences, or really to have made 
 it so, for we cannot forget how intimately the conversion 
 of Charles had been connected upon a former occasion 
 with the system of policy, which James had constantly 
 recommended, and was displeased not to see pursued. 
 We obtain however knowledge of this fact, if the truth of 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 325 
 
 James's representation be admitted, that he was endea- section 
 
 vouring to make his brother a catholic, and we also 
 
 learn that his persuasions had no effect, and that, if 
 Charles had lived, he expected an order for his own 
 removal from court. What James could not effect when 
 Charles was in health, and his faculties were entire, he 
 contrived to bring about not long afterwards in the 
 closing scene of his life; when he had the triumph of 
 seeing the almost helpless monarch perform religious 
 ceremonies, he was not in a condition to understand or 
 partake of, and to publish afterwards to the world, that 
 he died in the same faith with that which he himself 
 professed. On Monday morning the 12th of February, 
 1685, Charles was seized with a sort of apoplectic fit, 
 and continued in a very precarious state till Thursday 
 the 15th, when he had a second attack, and there were 
 no hopes of his recovery. A very minute account of 
 his reconciliation to the Church of Rome, when his 
 dissolution was approaching, was given by Barillon in 
 his dispatch to Lewis the Fourteenth, dated on the Dal . Meai . 
 18th of February, 1685; and Father John Huddleston £*£ n/ an L 
 in a Brief Account of the particulars, annexed to a Short 
 and Plain way to the faith and church, written by his 
 uncle, has detailed the religious rites, which were per- 
 formed, and the conduct of his proselyte. Some further 
 particulars are also noticed in the copy of a letter from 
 Mr. J. Aprice, a Catholic Priest, to Mr. William Lin- 
 wood, preserved in the British Museum, and published 
 
326 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section i n the Appendix to Harris's Life of Charles the Second, but 
 
 - that book having been long out of print, it is inserted 
 
 in the Appendix to this Work. It differs materially in 
 some respects from the two other accounts; but as it 
 was written only the day after Charles's death, and Mr. 
 Huddleston himself appears, from the manner, in which 
 he is mentioned in it, to have furnished the facts in 
 a few hours after he had quitted the presence of his 
 dying Sovereign, its credit seems preferable to either of 
 the other accounts. To Barillon's, because he must have 
 received most of the circumstances he has mentioned 
 from the Duke of York, and others interested to de- 
 ceive him, as well as the people in general; to Hud- 
 dleston's, because his narrative was drawn up, and 
 printed, at the desire, and to serve the interested purposes 
 of the then King. 
 
 The letter of Mr. Aprice mentions some particulars, 
 which Barillon was not acquainted with, and which 
 Mr. Huddleston might not think it necessary to com- 
 municate to the public. It discloses that the recon- 
 ciliation of the King to the Church of Rome originated 
 neither in the suggestions of his own conscience, nor 
 any anxiety of the Dutchess of Portsmouth about the 
 state of his soul, but was the result of a preconcerted 
 plan. No sooner was Charles recovered fr.om his first 
 attack on the Monday, than the Duke of York began 
 to take precautions, and Mr. Huddleston was commanded 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 327 
 
 to be incessantly in waiting, but an opportunity of section 
 
 making him useful did not present itself till the Thursday . 
 
 following. It is not improbable that the design was 
 kept secret from Barillon, until he was made, as if bjr 
 accident, a principal agent in the transaction. Now we 
 are acquainted with the fact of Mr. Huddleston being 
 in waiting by order of the Duke, we may be permitted 
 to smile at the minute account given by Barillon, of 
 the difficulty the Earl of Castlemethor had to find 
 a Priest. * But it, however, fortunately happened that 
 the Queen's Priests, for what purpose we are not told, 
 were in a closet near the King's chamber, and among 
 them Mr. Huddleston, the very man, who had saved 
 the King after the battle of Worcester and had been 
 excepted by Act of Parliament, from all the laws against 
 Catholics and Priests. Disguised in a wig and gown, 
 he was, between seven and eight in the evening, intro- 
 duced into the King's chamber. Barillon says that Hud- 
 dleston was himself " no great Doctor," but was instructed 
 in what he had to say to the King, on such an occasion, 
 by a Portuguese Monk of the barefooted Carmelites; 
 but the Duke afterwards told Barillon that he acquitted 
 
 * The Extracts from James's Diary agree with the account Mac. Pap. i. 
 of Barillon, it is said, " The Duke of York proposed sending for p " 142, 
 " a Priest to him to Count Castlemethor ; but none being founds 
 " Huddleston was brought up the back stairs to the private closet, 
 " where the Duke, the Earl of Bath, and Trevanion a Captain 
 " of the Guards were." 
 
328 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section himself very well, and " made the King formally promise 
 
 " to declare himself openly a catholic, if he recovered 
 
 " his health." It can hardly he supposed that Mr. 
 Huddleston was ignorant of his duty as a Priest when 
 first applied to, and it is highly improbable, if he was 
 ignorant, that he would have been in attendance for 
 four days, in constant expectation of being called in at 
 any moment, without obtaining the necessary instructions. 
 But the circumstances related by Barillon, which did 
 not occur in his own presence, are not much to be 
 relied upon, and he certainly has made a mistake as to 
 one material fact, for the Priest did. not require any promise 
 from the King, that, in case of his recovery, he would 
 make a public declaration of his new faith. Father 
 Huddleston makes no mention of it in his account, and 
 Burnet says he was much blamed for not having in- 
 sisted upon it. That Charles never had manifested his 
 conversion to the Church of Rome, by the performance 
 of any formal act or ceremony, is clear from the de- 
 dication of the book before mentioned to the Queen 
 Dowager hy Mr. John Huddleston, who officiated upon 
 this occasion ; for he, mentioning " that conversion of 
 " his to the Catholic Church," says, " which your 
 ** Majesty would look upon as the happiest moment 
 V of your own life, as well as of his, had it not been 
 '* so near his last" * An expression used by the Dutchess 
 
 * The Histoire de Jaques le Second, published at Brussels in. 
 H40 p. 31. also states that Charles was not converted till his death. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 329 
 
 o: Portsmouth to Bp.rillon also implies the same thing, section 
 
 and Father Huddleston expressly states that, after he ' s_ 
 
 had made a tender of his services, the King declared 
 his desire to " die in the faith, and communion of the 
 " holy Roman Catholic Church: that he was most heartily 
 " sorry for all his sins of his life past, and particularly for 
 " that he had deferred his reconciliation so long*. 
 
 f It was omitted to be mentioned in its proper place, that the Carte's Or- 
 Duke of Ormond, who was a Catholic himself, suspected the King m0 g 5 d ^ "" 
 to be one so early as when they removed from Cologne to 
 Flanders. And being at Brussels, just before the negotiations for 
 the treaty of the Pyrennees were opened, the Duke went at a very 
 early hour into one of the Churches, where a great number of 
 people were at their devotions, and saw the King on his knees at 
 mass near the altar. The Duke retired without being perceived, 
 and did not mention the circumstance. At that time a great 
 division of sentiment, as to the best measures for the King to 
 pursue, prevailed among his friends, but they seem to have 
 been agreed in a general persuasion, that he was convinced of the 
 truth of the catholic religion for both Sir Henry Bennett, who 
 wished the Duke to advise the King to a public avowal of his 
 change, in order to obtain assistance from France and Spain, whose 
 ministers had made his conversion the condition of granting it 
 and the Earl of Bristol, who applied to him to prevent the King 
 from making such a declaration, because it would offend the pro. 
 testants, assured him that he was a catholic. These circumstances 
 undoubtedly tend to prove that, when Charles was at Brussels, he 
 was either convinced of the truth of the catholic religion, or wished 
 it to be thought that he entertained sentiments favourable to it. 
 But that he was a member of that Church, or that he had formally 
 gone through the ceremonies necessary for his reconciliation, and to 
 entitle him to the benefit of its ordinances, before the time, mentioned 
 in the text, there is no ground for believing. 
 
 U U 
 
SSO A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section , Comparing the dates which have been stated, and 
 — — considering the weak and exhausted state of the King 
 when he is supposed to have gone through so many 
 fatiguing religious ceremonies, it is impossible not to 
 entertain a doubt of his capacity to receive spiritual 
 comfort from them, or of his being, as Mr. Huddleston 
 assured Mr. Aprice he was, " as ready and as apt in 
 " making his confession, as if he had been brought up 
 " a catholic all his life time." Barillon says that the 
 priest was with the King three quarters of an hour. He had 
 been given over by the Physicians in the morning, but 
 the introduction of the Priest could not be managed till 
 between seven and eight in the evening. He left the 
 chamber of course between eight and nine, yet if we 
 may credit Barillon, Charles continued sensible the 
 whole of the ensuing night, and spoke upon all things 
 with great calmness. But in Mr. Aprice's letter we are 
 informed that ** he was heard to say little, but begging 
 " Almighty God's pardon for all his offences." After 
 Charles's reconciliation, Barillon describes him as being 
 a little better, " he spoke more intelligibly, and had more 
 " strength," and Barillon, and other persons present 
 entertained hopes that God was working a miracle to 
 restore him*. Here we have an admission that before 
 he had received the Sacraments, he had not spoken 
 very intelligibly; and we must read Barillon's account 
 
 * Barillon's words are, " Nous esperions deja, que Dieu avoit 
 voulu faire un miracle en le guerissant" 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. SSI 
 
 with some degree of caution, for he fondly hoped that section 
 God had begun to work a miracle in favour of his — — — — ■ 
 religion from appearances, which could not deceive the 
 cooler judgment of those, who knew too well that there 
 was no change for the better. The Physicians, not 
 misled by the expectation of any supernatural inter- 
 ference, but drawing their prognostic from the known 
 laws of nature and the actual state of their patient, 
 declared their opinion that " he could not out live the 
 " night." In fact he suffered great pain during the night; 
 was bled at seven in the morning, became speechless 
 about eight, and breathed his last before noon. 
 
 Upon this subject the professional character of Dr. weiw.Mm 
 Wei wood entitles him to great respect, and he, when p " 140 ' 
 discussing the question whether the King died by 
 poison, describes him to have suffered most severely 
 during the whole time of his illness from a racking pain 
 in his stomach, and as pointing to that part as the 
 seat of it, laying his hand there generally, even 
 when insensible, in a moaning posture, and so 
 continued to his death. Moreover, he says that " his 
 " fits were so violent that he could not speak when they lb . P . U8 , 
 " were upon him, and shewed an aversion to speaking 
 " during the intervals," and that " so violent was the , 
 
 lb. p. 140. 
 
 " pain, that when all hopes were gone the Physicians 
 " were desired to use all their art to procure him an 
 *' easy death." Burnet also says, "the King suffered Burn .j. p . 6()8 . 
 
 u u 2 
 
332 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 V. 
 
 " much inwardly, and said he was burnt up within: of 
 " which he complained often, but with great decency." 
 
 Hisconversion Adverting to the circumstances narrated in the 
 
 to be sus- 
 pected, interested relations of those concerned immediately in 
 
 this transaction, we are authorized to suspect fraud in 
 every part of it. The suffering and feeble state of the 
 dying monarch did not leave him sufficient strength 
 either of body or mind to form, and still less to express, 
 a wish upon the subject of his faith. He could not resist, 
 or signify his resistance to the artful persuasions of the 
 Duke, who had acquired a powerful ascendancy over 
 his mind, and had been in the earlier part of his life 
 accustomed to direct his actions. The Duke of York 
 and Dutchess of Portsmouth were determined to make 
 him die a catholic, the plot was laid, the priest was pre- 
 pared, and when the design was effected, it creates no 
 surprize to learn that a report prevailed of the conversion 
 fox, App. of the King not being his own spontaneous act, but 
 occasioned by his brother, who had beset him and forced 
 him to declare himself a catholic. In the hands of the 
 Priest he was only a mere passive instrument; and, if the 
 Duke had importuned him, he must with equal meekness 
 and docility have declared his conversion to any other 
 faith, and submitted to its ordinances. 
 
 imprudent < j^g D u k e f Y or k succeeded to the crown with the 
 
 conduct ot the 
 
 Hew King. S ame temper, habits, and prejudices, with which he had 
 
 p. XXXIV. 
 
MR. FOX^S HISTORICAL WORK. 333 
 
 been an impatient spectator of his brother's versatile section 
 system of Government ; and when he unexpectedly- 
 
 continued the officers of the royal household and for- P ?xivii!^' 
 bore to dismiss the late Ministers, his catholic advisers 
 were not quite pleased and reminded him, that he had 
 suffered more through Lord Arlington (one of the Minis- 
 ters he allowed to remain) from his having first inspired 
 the late King with those timid councils, which brought him 
 so near to ruin, than any other person. The evil councils 
 of these evil spirits were, when the reign was further ad- 
 vanced, unfortunately too much attended to, and the 
 following extract from James's diary affords a striking 
 lesson to Kings of the necessity of being cautious in the 
 selection of their confidential advisers. '* In the case of Mac P h. p ap ,L 
 " the Bishops there is no doubt," he is made to say, " but 
 SS the King had done better in not forcing some wheels 
 " when he found the whole machine stop. But it was 
 " his misfortune to give too much ear to those who put 
 " him upon such dangerous councils with intent to widen 
 " the breach between him, and his subjects. Bui. his 
 " prepossession against the yielding temper, which had 
 " proved so dangerous to his brother, and fatal to the 
 " King his father, fixed him in a contrary method. He 
 " had always preached against the wavering councils 
 " of his brother ; and seeing the other Bishops made not 
 " the same difficulty, and since many complied, he 
 " thought the rest ought to do the same. The King 
 ff therefore gave more easily into the chancellor's opinion, 
 
A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section <* wno thought that a mere reprimand was not sufficient. 
 
 " It was however, a fatal council." There is something 
 
 disingenuous in the defence James here makes for himself, 
 particularly in attributing to the advice of the chancellor 
 the fatal measure, which he admits he was perfectly 
 prepared to have adopted, if that advice had not 
 been given. 
 
 .lames spread a One of the first steps of James's reign is, as Mr. Fox 
 
 report that r . 
 
 Charles died observes, generally considered to have been an ill advised 
 
 a. catholic. ° J 
 
 Fox, p. 95. instance of zeal, for he caused to be circulated a report 
 that the late King had died a catholic, and then to be 
 published Father Huddleston's attestation of the fact, with 
 copies of two papers shewing the necessity of a visible 
 church and guide found in his strong box, and written 
 with his own hand. These papers were also published 
 separately, and pains taken to have it believed that they 
 had been drawn up, as well as written out, by Charles 
 
 Maeph. Pap. i. himself. The new King shewed them to the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, (Sancroft) who observed that he did not 
 think Charles had been «' such a controvertist," but 
 
 Dai. Mem.; Dalrymple, without citing any authority, gives the 
 answer of the archbishop more at length. It is not pro- 
 bable that Charles, if he had the ability would have had 
 the inclination to have drawn up these papers himself, 
 or that he ever was in a situation, in which he would 
 have taken the trouble to copy them, except indeed 
 during tlae few days of his confinement at Moseley, in 
 
 p. 123, 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 5SJ 
 
 Father Huddleston's chamber. Charles is said to have con- section 
 
 v. 
 
 versed with him the greatest part of that time, or amused — — — — 
 himself with his books. He read and approved the 
 Short and Plain way to the faith and church, written by- 
 Mr. Richard Huddleston, was forcibly struck with the 
 arguments drawn from succession, and that this was the 
 product of a real solid conviction, the papers found after. 
 his death are appealed to by Mr. John Huddleston, the 
 priest, who attended him, and by him are said to " seem 
 " even to die very manner of expression, to breathe the 
 " same spirit, and genius with that of the book." Upon 
 this subject there could not be found a more competent 
 judge, he was the nephew of the writer, and by him that 
 book was both admired and studied, and had been recom- 
 mended to the perusal of Charles. And if Charles was 
 in the humour, at this period of his life, to read and 
 converse upon the subject, is it an unreasonable conjecture 
 that Mr. John Huddleston himself drew these papers 
 up from his uncle's book, and that Charles copied them 
 in his study? The Duke of Ormond, was perfectly sa- carte's or- 
 
 . i J tnond,ii.p.25«. 
 
 tisfied that they were in the hand-writing of Charles, 
 and that he was too lazy to compose them, but ingeni- 
 ously suggests, by way of accounting for his having 
 taken the pains even to copy them, that his Majesty 
 did it, " by way of penance or on some other occasion." 
 
 James in circulating these documents, might have had 
 in view the removal of apprehensions, entertained by his 
 
336 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 sbction subjects, of the danger to the protestant establishment 
 
 : from his public profession of the catholic faith, by 
 
 disclosing that its best friend, its restorer and protector, 
 had been of that religion. Perhaps too he might gratify his 
 own spleen, by shewing that the King, who would have 
 consented to exclude him from the throne because he 
 was a catholic, was himself one also. The consequence 
 of this was, that the Whigs, overjoyed at being ac- 
 quainted with the fact from authority, eagerly seized 
 the opportunity to give currency to it. They used it 
 not only as a justification of their own conduct, but as an 
 incitement to rouse the nation to- a higher sense of 
 danger, from the religion they feared and detested, 
 having been secretly and insidiously favoured by a former 
 King, as well as openly professed by the present one. 
 - Of course, they did not make or attend to objections 
 to the authenticity of the papers, and still less to the 
 inference James wished to be drawn from them. These 
 papers therefore" have been considered as decisive proofs of 
 his having adopted the sentiments contained in them long 
 before his death, and the truth of this fact has generally 
 been assumed by historians of all parties.. But the evir 
 dence is very slight indeed, as has been shewn in a 
 former part of this section, that Charles ever was 
 thoroughly convinced of the truth of the catholic religion, 
 or that he willingly died in the bosom of that Church. 
 The discovery of these papers under the circumstances 
 just mentioned,, is not likely to make much impression 
 
MR. fox's historical WORK. S57 
 
 upon any mind, not already prepared to think favour- 
 ably of the evidence. 
 
 Conduct .if 
 
 A minute examination of the contents of the corres- Lewi?™- 
 pondence, contained in the Appendix to Mr. Fox's Work, pa ' D 
 might lead into a tedious repetition of former arguments, 
 for in the third and fourth sections of this Work, all the 
 objections urged by Mr. Rose against the opinion of 
 Mr. Fox are answered, and the documents he has cited 
 observed upon. But in further support of Mr. Fox*s 
 opinion, it is intended here to present the reader with 
 a very slight and short sketch of the conduct of James 
 and Lewis towards each other in their negotiations ; 
 referring to the very able reasoning of Mr. Fox for 
 further satisfaction upon the subject. 
 
 There was in many respects a great similarity of 
 temper between these two monarchs. Each seems to 
 have made his religion subservient to his ambition in 
 the early part of life, and both were attached with en- 
 thusiastic zeal to the catholic cause, as they advanced 
 in years. Lewis exhibited the selfish narrow spirit of 
 a bigot at a more early period than James, for he 
 was a King from the time when only five years of 
 age, and, for a large portion of his long reign, sur- 
 rendered his conscience to the guidance of priests arid 
 women, and became a persecutor; having power, he 
 abused it. James continued for many years a persecuted 
 
 x x 
 
338 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section subject, and his hopes certainly for some time after, as 
 well as before he succeeded to the throne, could not 
 rationally be extended beyond a toleration for himself, 
 and others who thought like him. And possibly he 
 might be sincere in his death bed declaration, that he 
 bad never intended more. Hence may have arisen, in 
 part, the difference between the conduct of these Kings 
 observable in their correspondence. James's first object 
 was to establish himself upon the throne and increase 
 his power; Lewis's was to keep him always in a de- 
 pendent state and occupied in domestic strife. The 
 conduct of the former was therefore more honest, and 
 of the latter more deceitful. It would not have been 
 surprising, if the overbearing and impatient spirit of 
 James, disdaining in his own kingdom to be considered 
 as an offender against its laws, had made the establish- 
 ment of his favourite religion the first motive of his 
 actions, though he. had felt but slightly the impulse of 
 religion. He had been taught that the favour and 
 support of the catholics were necessary for the existence 
 and support of monarchy ; and for the purpose of 
 strengthening his power, he might, independently of 
 any religious motive, have most ardently struggled for 
 a toleration for them. To what extent his private wishes 
 were extended, must be matter of conjecture. 
 
 Perfidious con- 
 duct of Lewis. 
 
 When the royal brothers returned from exile, it has 
 been stated before that they looked to the power of 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 339 
 
 France as the best, and indeed the only support of the section 
 throne, but they had to treat with a court, which na- — - — — — - » 
 turally looked more to its own interest, than to theirs. 
 Besides Lewis had been taught, as a maxim to prevent 
 any interruption in his designs upon the continent, that 
 the King of England was to be kept in a constant state 
 of dependence for his crown upon him, and prevented 
 as far as possible from assembling or acting cordially 
 with his Parliaments. From this maxim he never de- 
 parted during the reign either of Charles or his brother, 
 though, upon the accession of the latter, he changed his 
 system in some respects. In the before-mentioned me- 
 morial of Blancard, who had been confidential secretary 
 to de Rouvigny, when Embassador from France, the 
 policy of Lewis with respect to Charles is fully explained 
 in these words, u The Kins: of France would have been Dai. Mem. n. 
 
 p. 245. 
 
 " very sorry that he" (i. e, Charles) " had been absolute 
 " in his states ; one of his constant maxims, since the 
 " re-establishment of that Prince, having been to set 
 " him at variance with his Parliament, and to make 
 " use sometimes of the one, sometimes of the other, and 
 " always by money to gain his ends." In the French pai. Mem. 
 correspondence, this perfidious system is displayed in 
 several letters ; it may be discovered in a dispatch from 
 Courtin the French Embassador, dated the 12th of July, 
 1677, and Barillon on the 11th of April, 1678, assumes 
 that the most sensible of the popular party, " know well it 
 " it is not the interest of France, that a King of England 
 
 x x 2 
 
340 A VINDICATION OT 
 
 section w should be absolute master, and be able to dispose ac- 
 
 "cording to his will, of all the power of the nation." 
 
 On the 5th of December, 1680, he expressly states 
 the principles of his royal master in these words, but 
 
 Dai. Mem.ii. with regard to the future '* I see what your Majesty 
 " has most at heart, is to prevent England from being 
 u re-united by an accommodation, between his Britannic 
 " Majesty, and his Parliament." When the Duke of 
 York, irritated at being sent out of England, and alarmed 
 at the refusal of a pardon for himself, projected a civil 
 
 ib. p. 341. war against his brother, in the same letter dated the 
 15th of November, 1680, Lewis gave instructions to 
 Barillon on the one hand to encourage the Duke to 
 make a stand in Scotland, and on the other to assure 
 the republican party in Parliament that he would 
 protect the privileges of the nation. And on the 
 
 ib. 23rd of November* only eight days after, he directs 
 
 him to encourage the King to follow a firm and bold 
 conduct to his subjects in his present situation. The 
 proceedings against Lord Danby, and the manner, in 
 which during the latter part of Charles's reign, Lewis 
 played off the King and the leaders of the popular 
 party against each other, may be referred to in further 
 proof of the system, by which the conduct of Lewis 
 was uniformly directed. Pursuing this policy, we find 
 him constantly inciting Charles to violent measures 
 for the increase of the royal authority, and to secure an 
 arbitrary sway. Charles however was too prudent to 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 341 
 
 proceed to extremities, he frequently advanced tiil the section 
 danger was imminent, but withdrew his pretensions when - ■ 
 
 hopeless of success. But the haughty obstinate temper 
 of James, instigated by the insidious policy of Lewis, 
 could not brook the temporizing measures of his brother, 
 the councils he gave were of the most violent nature, 
 and his mind was in a constant state of irritation and 
 alarm, because they were not always listened to. He 
 preferred force to artifice, and his principle was to 
 subdue, not conciliate opposition. 
 
 tiations. 
 
 Only three days after the accession of James, the Earl Money nego- 
 of Rochester gave hints to the French Embassador, that 
 supplies of money from France would be necessary to 
 support the royal power. But Lewis was tired of pay- 
 ing subsidies, and disgusted with the little attention 
 Charles had shewn to his engagements. He, therefore, 
 set out with a determination to treat with the new King 
 upon the principle of entering into no treaties, and of 
 advancing no money unless in cases of extreme urgency, 
 and yet with an anxious wish to prevent him from making 
 any continental engagements, injurious to the interests of 
 France. Expecting that the accession would be attended 
 with tumults, if not with open rebellion, Lewis determined 
 to anticipate the wishes of James by instructing Barillon 
 to make an offer of five hundred thousand livres, (about 
 nineteen thousand pounds English money) in case of 
 necessity. The manner, in which the offer of this paltry 
 
342 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section sum was received, has been well described by Mr. Fox. 
 
 goassaH But Lewis pretending that the favourable reception of 
 
 James, as King, did not render even this assistance neces- 
 
 , sary, took care that no part of this money should be paid* 
 
 James and The object of James, so far as religion was concerned, 
 
 Lewis did not 
 
 act at bigots, was, as appears from the quotations made by Mr. Rose, 
 and already observed upon in the third section, a com- 
 plete toleration for the catholic religion; it was what his 
 brother had also had in view, and what Lewis had long 
 before endeavoured to get established here. But even 
 upon this subject James spoke and acted, not as a bigoted 
 fanatic, but a cool headed politician ; he described it not 
 only as desirable for promotion of the cause of religion, 
 but as necessary to confirm and increase the royal power. 
 In like manner, Lewis exhibited no symptoms of bigoted 
 zeal ; before he had determined upon the part he should 
 take, he inquired in a private note what was the strength 
 of the catholic party, and he afterwards connected 
 together the royal authority and the catholic cause, con- 
 sidering them as inseparably united, and upon this basis 
 the correspondence of the two monarchs was for some 
 time conducted. 
 
 Religion not The negociations for money were managed by the 
 ject. s ° Earl of Rochester, then High Treasurer, but so remote 
 
 was the contingency of popery being tolerated in Eng- 
 land, that between him and Barillon, there was no con„ 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 843 
 
 versation upon the subject of religion. Rochester's section 
 
 known attachment to the church of England might have — — 
 
 rendered it dangerous, but this concealment shews that 
 the object in view was at least of an ambiguous nature, 
 and not confined to religion alone, unmixed with other 
 objects. If Rochester had suspected the established 
 church was to be destroyed, as Mr. Rose supposes, would 
 he have submitted to be the negotiator ? or would it have 
 been prudent to have employed such an agent in such 
 a service t The arguments used by Rochester were the 
 necessities of the King, and his anxiety for the establish- Fo*,App. 
 ment of his authority, and the giving of a settled form to 
 the Government. James was anxious that his designs in 
 favour of the catholics should be kept secret till after 
 the Parliament had granted the revenues, but with 
 Barillon, he and some of his Ministers, more in his 
 confidence than Rochester, conversed upon the subject 
 without reserve. 
 
 Barillon, not having received instructions for his conduct, Lewisi 
 could only speak generally of his master's good intentions, fe^lt 
 and Lord Churchill being sent to Paris to ask assistance 
 from Lewis, we may account for no notice being taken 
 in the correspondence of any money transactions for a 
 few days. But during that time, James had openly 
 testified his attachment to the catholic religion by going 
 publicly to mass, and Lewis, who had not before, either 
 by himself or his Embassador, encouraged James in his 
 
 utro- 
 eluces the sub- 
 re- 
 ligion. 
 
■3*4' A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 V. 
 
 designs in favour of religion, highly applauded his con- 
 
 *- — duct, and artfully suggested that he should not have 
 
 approved of a long dissimulation of the religion he pro- 
 fessed. Shortly afterwards, pretending to anticipate that 
 James would soon make application to the Pope to appoint 
 Bishops, whom he probably would select from the clergy 
 of the church of England, Lewis cautioned him to take 
 care they were not infected with Jansenism, which might 
 be in its consequences, little less dangerous than the 
 heresy, from which the country was about to be delivered. 
 
 Lewis declines Notwithstanding the intreaties of James, Lewis refused 
 
 to advance 
 
 money. to advance any money, and though those intreaties became 
 
 still more pressing on the approach of the meeting of 
 Parliament, when James was alarmed lest the revenues 
 might be granted him only for a limited time, yet Lewis 
 remained unmoved, A treaty for a considerable sum 
 to be paid down, and a subsidy for three years of two 
 millions of livres per annum was proposed and rejected ; 
 but at length Lewis remitted so much money to Barillon 
 as to make up, with what he had in his hands before, two 
 millions of livres, but with orders to permit James to have 
 only four hundred thousand livres to bribe the Members 
 of Parliament with. 
 
 When Lord Churchill's mission ended does not appear, 
 but, about the 16th of April, negociations were going on 
 with Barillon for pecuniary assistance, though not exactly 
 
MR. POX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 345 
 
 of the nature, which the French King expected. For suction 
 Barillon expresses his surprize that Lord Rochester had 
 
 proposed to him no new treaty, though he had acknow- P .ix. 
 
 ledged that the safety of James depended upon France, 
 
 and upon the catholic religion being tolerated. Lewis, 
 
 perhaps chagrined and disappointed that James had not 
 
 been reduced to a situation of dependence upon him, on 
 
 the twenty fourth of April, 1685, sent explicit instructions n>. P . 1™. 
 
 to his Minister to make no advances unless the conduct 
 
 of the Parliament should be so violent as to force him 
 
 to dissolve it, or he should meet with such obstacles 
 
 in his designs for the catholics, as to make it necessary 
 
 to employ his forces against his own subjects. From this 
 
 time, Lewis who never lost sight of that system of policy 
 
 by which his conduct had been always governed, and 
 
 is alluded to by Mr. Fox, took every opportunity of Fo3t)P . 83 . 
 
 excitine James to press for measures in favour of the Lewis excite* 
 
 o v i James's zeal 
 
 catholics, well knowing that there could be nothing so for veli * ion - 
 •distasteful to the people of England, or so dangerous to 
 the King. 
 
 Barillon afterwards (on the 30th of April) apprized his fox, a p . 
 master that the Parliament was inclined to grant the 
 revenues to the King for life, and describes Lewis as 
 having at heart the further object of a free exercise of 
 the catholic religion. But it is clear that he did not 
 look upon James as acting the part of a bigot, for 
 
 y y 
 
346 
 
 A VINDICATION OT 
 
 SECTION 
 V. 
 
 Fox, App. 
 p. Ixxi. 
 
 Zeal for the 
 catholic re- 
 ligion made 
 Lewis's sole 
 motive. 
 
 he expresses a persuasion that he would not abandon die 
 catholic cause interrns, which convey a doubt that pos- 
 sibly he might do so. The answer to this letter is perfectly 
 explicit, for (on the 9th of May) Lewis in a few words, 
 which precede the passage quoted by Mr. Rose, but are 
 omitted by him, repeats the argument which Barillon had 
 urged to shew that a compliance with the wishes of James,, 
 would be for his service, " as well as strengthen him in the 
 " resolution to establish at whatever price it may be the free 
 " exercise of our religion as, &c." Lewis then after 
 intimating some doubts of the firmness of James, which 
 have been observed upon in the third section, repeats his 
 resolution to advance no more money except in the 
 emergencies he had before mentioned. It may be 
 observed that in this letter, Lewis, aware that James was 
 likely to, obtain the revenues without much opposition, 
 gives importance to the catholic religion, which before 
 had been chiefly desireable as a support of the royal 
 power. It is now set up not only as the principal, but, 
 more properly speaking, " the sole and only motive" for 
 having placed the sum of two millions of livres in the 
 hands of Barillon to succour the King of England incase of 
 necessity. Of the truth of this being his sole and only 
 motive the reader may. judge by referring back to the 
 earlier letters in the correspondence, in which the catholic 
 religion is either not mentioned at all, or as secondary to 
 the affirmance of the royal power. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 347 
 
 A difference of opinion prevailed between Barilion section 
 and his master about the manner, in which it would be 
 
 d Lewis only 
 
 ent to manage James, in order to prevent his paid the old 
 
 . • i • -It- i i subsidies. 
 
 interfering to the prejudice of the French King upon the 
 continent without engaging to pay him subsidies. Baril- 
 ion relying upon his own intimate knowledge of James's 
 character, pressed to be permitted to advance him money, 
 to treat him with confidence, and trust to his gratitude ; 
 but Lewis continued inflexible, and by his obstinacy 
 his own plans were ultimately defeated. Barilion, how- 
 ever, did extort from him an order to pay four hundred 
 and seventy thousand livres, the balance of the arrear of 
 subsidies left unpaid to Charles. This is the only sum 
 mentioned in the correspondence to have been ever paid*. 
 
 The coolness with which Lewis received the advances 
 of James, may have arisen from his not having been yet 
 sufficiently humbled, and also from his conduct with regard 
 to the continental powers, particularly the States General, 
 and Spain. Upon these subjects, Lewis was full of 
 suspicions, and his Minister received repeated orders to 
 be upon the watch. At last James failing in his attempts Dai. Mem.,, 
 to procure a supply from France, renewed the defensive p ' 
 treaty with the States General, which had been the source James breaks 
 
 . . with Lewis. 
 
 of so much uneasiness to Lewis. 
 
 * Sir John Dalryoiple states that Barilion, in a letter of the 25th 
 of October 1685, says he had paid in all only eight hundred thousand 
 livres. Dal. Mem. iii. p 4t, 
 
 Y y 2 
 
34« 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 
 V. 
 
 Lewis dis- 
 pleased. 
 
 JFox, App. 
 
 %. xciz. 
 
 On the 30th of May, 1685, the royal assent was given 
 to the act, for settling the revenues on the King for 
 life. Lewis at this time was highly displeased, and upon 
 Barillon again remonstrating, and requesting an order 
 to pay to James 100,000 crowns, besides the arrears 
 of the subsidies, Lewis wrote a letter, (15th of June,) 
 of which it is impossible to mistake the meaning. He 
 begun by assuming that James, having obtained all he 
 wished from his Parliament, could not want any pe- 
 cuniary assistance; and then stated that still there remained, 
 for the satisfaction of both Kings, to obtain the repeal 
 of the penal laws in favour of the catholics, and the 
 free exercise of their religion, and this was the principal 
 motive with him for remitting so much money. That, 
 as James did not think proper to make the effort at present, 
 he would not press it, but notwithstanding he should think, 
 from the good disposition of the Parliament, that would 
 be the time to carry his wishes into effect, for reasons 
 which he detailed ; and if the King should take this part, 
 and find any obstacle not to be conquered without his 
 assistance, he would be ready to give it as soon as he had 
 notice. But till he took this resolution and executed it, he 
 would not make any change in the orders he had given. 
 This conduct of Lewis is easily accounted for by the 
 recollection that James, then being in possession of an 
 ample revenue for life and his throne no longer in. 
 danger, the assistance of the catholics was not so necessary, 
 as at the commencement of his reign. James thus si- 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 3*9 
 
 tuated was not inclined, whether through fear or policy, section 
 to make any rash experiments in their favour. And 
 
 Lewis had too much sagacity not to perceive, that if SusTo. 
 the question of religion was not agitated, there was a 1,g;on " 
 prospect of the King being able to keep his Parliament 
 and people in good humour, and perhaps at no distant 
 period to accomplish quietly every object of his wishes. 
 To sec a King of England in the full and peaceable 
 enjoyment of arbitrary power, was not consistent with the 
 shortsighted policy of Lewis, who erroneously imagined 
 that arbitrary power gave national strength ; but in a 
 subsequent period of his reign he was taught by the 
 brilliant campaigns of Marlborough the important truth, 
 that a free government affords more ample means of 
 maintaining the independence and extending the glory 
 of a country. As the security of the throne was 
 now provided for, and could no longer be made a pre- 
 tence for his interference in the domestic concerns of 
 England, he changed his ground, and used every per- 
 suasion that he could address to the avarice or pride of 
 James to awaken his religious zeal, and encourage him 
 to insist upon an immediate toleration for the catholics 
 at all hazards. James's prudence however still triumphed 
 over his bigotry, and he seems to have been intimidated 
 by the firmness and violence, with which his Parliament, 
 prepared to resist every effort of the crown in favour 
 of the catholics. Even his haughty spirit was subdued, 
 and it may be doubted whether for a moment his mind 
 
550 
 
 SECTION 
 V. 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 was not nearly in the same wavering state, which he 
 
 — had so strongly reprobated in his brother. Possibly, 
 
 the excitement of Lewis might operate upon his way- 
 ward disposition, as a sufficient reason for not pursuing 
 the object, which he had himself at heart. His im- 
 perious temper might not submit without repugnance 
 to be dictated to by an equal, a foreign potentate, who 
 had displeased him, and upon whom at that moment, 
 he felt no impulse of passion or interest to make himself 
 dependent. Lewis was determined that he and James 
 should fully understand each other; and for this purpose. 
 Fox,App, on the 13th of July, took a decisive step, by sending 
 an order to withdraw from Barillon's hands all the 
 money he had lodged with him. In consequence, Barillon 
 jt, was compelled to disclose, which he had till then con- 
 
 trived to avoid, the resolutions of Lewis, and the intel- 
 ligence was received by James and his Ministers, with 
 almost as much astonishment and consternation, as that 
 of the remittance of money for the use of James in 
 case of necessity had been received a few months before 
 with surprize and joy. Barillon then communicated his 
 master's wishes, and the terms, upon which he would 
 still be ready to assist James with money; he declared 
 that the establishment of the catholic religion (meaning 
 of a toleration for it) was the principal motive with Lewis, 
 and if James would establish such a toleration, and 
 found it attended with difficulty, Lewis would be ready 
 to assist him. Barillon upon this occasion, for the first 
 
 _J 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 5S1 
 
 time, spoke to the Treasurer upon the subject of religion, ssqwh* 
 
 but contented himself with only opening the business 
 
 and mixing religion with it. The Treasurer did not 
 
 enter into that question. To James and Sunderland, 
 
 Barillon was more explicit, and the latter declared it 
 
 was all the end the King had in view, and argued that 
 
 he could have no other end for without it he could never 
 
 be in safety. How far these monarchs were afterwards 
 
 reconciled to each other, or what communications they 
 
 had does not satisfactorily, appear. But we discover that Lewis not 
 
 Lewis was not pleased with James's resolution to re- SSJ^ 
 
 assemble the Parliament, (which had been prorogued) in S*. 1 ^ 
 
 order to procure a supply to keep up his standing army, and 
 
 to get the Test repealed. The experiment did not succeed, 
 
 for the Parliament proved so refractory that he was obliged 
 
 to prorogue it, after ii had sat only eleven days. 
 
 During this second session of the Parliament, Lewis was General poiic, 
 
 di i r iiii °f Lewis ex- 
 
 cr great alarm lest James should be negotiating a v^^a. 
 
 treaty with Austria, and gave orders to Barillon, in case ?5wE 
 
 he was found taking part with his enemies, to renew 
 
 the intrigues, which had been carried on in the former 
 
 reign with Members of Parliament, to give him trouble 
 
 in that assembly. At the same time he instructed Barillon 
 
 artfully to insinuate to James upon all occasions, that it 
 
 icas his interest to employ his authority for the recstablislunent 
 
 of the catholic religion, and not allow it to be longer 
 
 exposed to all the penal laws, which had been passed 
 
352 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section against it in the former reigns. This may be considered 
 as a declaration, made by Lewis himself, of his object 
 and intentions. Having thus disclosed the true motive 
 of his conduct upon one occasion, it does not seem 
 uncharitable to assign the same motive, when we rind 
 him acting in the same manner, in similar circumstances. 
 
 Lewis still 
 presses re- 
 ligion. 
 
 Fox, App. 
 p. cxxxviii. 
 
 lb. p. cxlii. 
 
 Ibid, exliii. 
 
 Ibid. cxlv. 
 •xlviil. 
 
 After the Parliament was assembled, Lewis pursued 
 the same system, and ordered Barillon to encourage James 
 to persist in his design for religion, but in such a manner as 
 to evince that he was fearful he would not. Barillon, in 
 the mean time, renewed his intrigues with Members of 
 the Parliament, and gravely told his master, that the hav- 
 ing some Members always dependent upon him might 
 upon some occasions be useful to the King of England, 
 and to the good of religion. The policy of the French 
 court at this time is not easily accounted for unless from its 
 inability to advance any money, for so strong was the 
 apprehension which Lewis entertained of being called 
 upon for advances, that Barillon described himself as 
 afraid of speaking to James about the renewal of the 
 treaty with Spain, which he knew was in agitation, lest it 
 should be followed immediately by proposals for money. 
 Barillon now considered France as released from ail 
 engagements with James, and ventured to make some 
 further remonstrances with Lewis on his conduct, but, if 
 he was determined to persist, advised the giving oi a 
 pension to Sunderland, which was immediately consented 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 353 
 
 to. Lewis remained fixed in his resolution, and mis- section 
 
 v. 
 
 chievously declared his approbation of James's firmness — . 
 in maintaining the catholic officers, and not suffering the 
 religion he professed to be longer exposed to the penal laws, 
 which could only be productive of good effects for his 
 reputation, and the security of his Government. 
 
 Here close the very important documents, which Mr. 
 Fox has added to our former stores of knowledge, but 
 which Mr. Rose for reasons of his own, asserts to be of no 
 value at all ; of this the reader can best judge for himself. 
 The effect of these papers is not to be collected from any 
 one or two separated from the rest, they must be taken 
 altogether. The reader will perhaps be surprized to find 
 that James, so far from appearing in the character of the 
 mad hot headed bigot described by Mr. Rose, seems 
 to have conducted himself with the refined policy of a 
 consummate statesman, and to have been more than a 
 match for the monarch he was treating with. Highly 
 displeased with the refusal of a subsidy from France, he 
 assumed a tone of independence and renewed the treaty 
 with Spain. Ofc ourse, all confidential intercourse ceased 
 between these former friends. James was disappointed 
 in his attempt to manage the second session of his Parlia- 
 ment, but he was not accustomed readily to relinquish an 
 object, he still trusted to his army and his own resources 
 for enabling him to obtain a toleration for the catholics, 
 
 z z 
 
3*4 A VINDICATION Of 
 
 section anc j j n December, 1686, after an ineffectual effort to con- 
 
 vert Rochester to the catholic religion dismissed him 
 
 from office. 
 
 This was considered by the established church as a 
 declaration of war, and James seems afterwards to have 
 proceeded regularly from one irritating measure to 
 another, till the trial of the seven Bishops deprived him 
 of the support of the church of England, and left him 
 helpless upon the throne. 
 
 Mr.Fox'aopi- It remains to be observed that Mr. Fox and Mr. Rose 
 
 nion correct. 
 
 agree that James was a lover of power and a bigot ; and 
 Mr. Fox would not have not denied that, in the latter 
 character, the secret wish of his heart was to establish the 
 catholic religion in England. But at first, he must have 
 almost despaired of ever being able to accomplish it, and 
 his chief exertions were directed to another point, the 
 acquisition and peaceable possession of absolute power, 
 through which, if at all, he could entertain hopes of 
 being able to shew favour to the catholics. From prudential 
 motives, therefore, he for some time confined his efforts, 
 and probably his hopes, to the procuring for them only a 
 complete toleration; but Mr. Fox supposes that the 
 astonishing facility, with which the attainment of his 
 political objects was attended, the subserviency of Par- 
 liament, the infatuated love of the people for him, and 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. S55 
 
 the despair of the party opposed to the court after the section 
 
 execution of Monmouth, and Argyle, encouraged him to — 
 
 proceed to effect his ultimate object; and that, in the latter 
 part of his reign, his actions were intended to introduce 
 the establishment of his favourite religion. Mr. Rose's 
 proposition on the contrary is, that James acted the part 
 of a bigot from the first moment of his possessing the 
 crown, and sought the establishment of the catholic 
 religion, on the ruin of the Church of England at all 
 hazards, and without attention to his own power or any 
 personal considerations. But in answer to this we have 
 shewn that his conduct, at least for some time, was guided 
 by prudence, and even caution, the security of his power 
 his primary object, and a complete toleration for the 
 catholics, all he ventured to propose himself, and more 
 than he dared to avow, notwithstanding the promised 
 assistance, the threatning and coaxing of Lewis, 
 
 It has been said that, in the latter part of his life, James nerer 
 
 T „ . . . . „ . , n . :. , . bound liy any 
 
 James repelled with indignation the charge of his having treaty with 
 
 . ° Fiance. 
 
 entered into money engagements with France incon- 
 sistent with the interests of his kingdom and people, 
 and declared that he never made any with that power. 
 This is probably true, but it appears that he was enabled 
 to make that declaration, not through any merit of 
 his own, for during a large portion of his reign, he 
 sought to renew with France the disgraceful treaties for 
 
 z z 2 
 
356 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section subsidies, which had occasioned so much mischief in 
 
 James treated 
 with respect 
 by Lewis. 
 
 the former reign, and was displeased that Lewis would 
 not enter into any with him. At the same time, we ought 
 not to rob the memory of James of the merit of having 
 assumed with France a tone and used a language, which 
 his brother had not the spirit to adopt. Upon perusing 
 the correspondence in the two reigns, there is a very 
 remarkable difference; after James came to the throne, 
 there is no appearance or acknowledgement of depen^ 
 dence upon his side, he asks supplies because without 
 them he shall, not be able to compass the design, which 
 Lewis wished as well as himself, and offers a return 
 of gratitude, but as the equal of the person he is applying 
 to. In the letters between Barillon and Lewis he is 
 treated with respect, Barillon always describing him as 
 a determined character, having a will of his own, and 
 not surrendering his understanding to the guidance of 
 others. In short he was treated by them, as a person 
 to be suspected and watched, and counteracted, but not 
 easily to be influenced, and never to be commanded. 
 
 «rvation! b "" With one observation this section shall be con- 
 cluded. How grateful to Providence ought this happy 
 country to be, that these two monarchs did not under- 
 stand one another better. Had Lewis followed Barillon's 
 advice, advanced money to James, and readily assisted 
 him in increasing the royal authority and carrying into 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. ■ 357 
 
 effect his measures in favour of the catholic religion, section 
 
 James might in return have been prevailed upon, to '■ 
 
 have taken part in the ambitious schemes of Lewis. And 
 a cordial union between them must have extended 
 the territories and increased the power of France, anni- 
 hilated the Protestant States upon the Continent, and de- 
 prived Britain, perhaps for ever, of the blessings, which 
 a free constitution has bestowed upon her people. 
 
SECTION THE SIXTH; 
 
CONTEN T S. 
 
 Mr. Fox gives currency to no charges against Sir Patrick Hume 
 except of deserting the Earl of Argyle. — Argyle does not name 
 him. — Treachery imputed neither by Argyle nor Mr. Fox. — - 
 The charge against Mr. Fox never explained, and founded on 
 a Mistake of Mr. Rose. — Cochrane and Hume principal causes 
 of the rout. — Delicacy of Argyle towards Sir Patrick Hume. — 
 Mr. Fox only narrates, and anxious to be fully informed. — Peevish 
 observations of Mr. Rose. — Mr. Fox desirous to obtain Family 
 Papers. — Mr. Rose did not offer the Marchmont Papers. — Liberal 
 Conduct of the present Earl of Lonsdale. — Mr. Fox attacked for a 
 supposed Offence of his Editor. — The Exclamation of Argyle 
 when taken. — Mr. Fox compares the Spirit of Montrose and Argyle, 
 only as it appears from their verses. — Characters of Montrose 
 and Argyle. — It was intended to torture Argyle. — History of Tor- 
 ture in England. — Incidents relating to Argyle disputed. — Mr. Fox 
 does not call regular Soldiers Assassins, or cast Reflections on the 
 Supporters of Kings.— Sir Patrick Hume indefensible. — His conduct 
 contrasted with Argyle's. — Want of Materials concerning Mon- 
 mouth's Invasion. — Mr. Fox misrepresented. — Mr. Fox had no 
 Wish to degrade Monarchy and did not sacrifice the Truth of 
 History to Party. 
 
 3 A 
 
SECTION THE SIXTH. 
 
 We are now arrived at the fifth and last section of section 
 Mr. Rose's Observation?, and are informed that here ' 
 
 little opportunity will be afforded for the exercise of in- Mr.Foxhas 
 
 rr J not given cur- 
 
 dustry, " because in the narrative of Sir pLirick Hume, r ? nc y t0 . 
 
 J ' charges against 
 
 " comprizing every thing material that passed relative to Hu„f c atrick 
 " the expedition to Scotland, will be found a complete Rose >p- 163 - 
 ** justification of him from the charges unjustly made 
 " against him for faction, cowardice and treachery to 
 " which Mr. Fox has given currency." An inquiry, 
 whether Mr. Fox has given currency to these charges, 
 will naturally precede an examination whether the narrative 
 is a justification of Sir Patrick Hume. 
 
 The spirit, in which Mr. Rose's Observations are penned, Except of de- 
 
 ..... • t • i • I'll sorting Argyt<" 
 
 maybe distinctly perceived in the manner in which he at last. 
 has treated Mr. Fox upon this occasion ; a wilful de- 
 parture from truth or candour is not imputed, but a 
 
 3 A 2 
 
364 A VINDICATION OF . *• 
 
 section perversion of facts/ and a petulance in argument pervade 
 
 a large portion of what he has written. It is a remarkable 
 
 circumstance, that the ill treatment of the ancestor of his 
 friend, so much complained of, is no where fully explained 
 by Mr. Rose, and from no part of his work can the reader 
 learn the precise extent of Mr. Fox's supposed delinquency. 
 Fox, p. 193. The first thing objected to is a passage in the historical 
 work, stating " that in their last extremity Sir Patrick 
 " Hume, and Sir John Cochrane would not stay even to 
 " reason the matter with him, whom at the onset of their 
 " expedition they had engaged to obey, but crossed the 
 " Clyde, with such as followed them, &c." Mr. Rose 
 does not deny that Hume and Cochrane had engaged to 
 obey Argyle, so that the only question is whether they 
 deserted him, and as to this fact, Mr. Rose must admit 
 there cannot be a higher authority than the narrative of 
 Narr. p. 64. Sir Patrick Hume himself. He says he was absent when 
 Sir John Cochrane parted with Argyle, but " an honest 
 " gentleman, who was present, told mee the manner of 
 " his parting with the Erie. Argyle beingin the roome 
 " with Sir John, the gentleman coming in, found con- 
 " fusion in the Erie's countenance and speach : in end he 
 " said, Sir John, I pray advise mee what shall I doe : shall 
 " I goe over Clide with you, or shall I goe to my owne 
 " countrey? Sir John answered, My Lord, I have told 
 ** you my opinion ; you have some Highlanders here 
 " about you, it is best you goe to your owne countrey 
 " with them, for it is to no purpose for you to goe over 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 365 
 
 " Clide. My Lord faire you well ; then called the gen- section 
 
 " tleman come away Sir ; who followed him when I met ■ 
 
 " with him." In another part of the narrative the 
 
 story is thus continued. " But I met Sir John with ib. P .63. 
 
 " others accompanieing him ; who takeing mee by the 
 
 •' hand, turned mee, saying my heart goe you with mee: 
 
 " whither goe you said I ? over Clide by boate said he : 
 
 " I, where is Argyle? I must see him : He, he is gone 
 
 *' away to his owne countrey, you cannot see him; I, 
 
 " how comes tins change of resolution, and that wee 
 
 " went not together to Glasgow? He, it is no time 
 
 " to answer questions, but I shall satisfy you afterward. 
 
 " To the boates wee came, filled two, and rowed over." 
 
 The second part of the charge arises from Mr. Fox Faction, 
 
 r ° , cowardice, 
 
 when sfivine the substance of a paper, intended for a letter, and treachery, 
 
 O O 1 1 not charged 
 
 written by Argyle while in prison, making use of these g^*^ 
 words, " In recounting the failure of his expedition, it Fox> p . 197 . 
 " is impossible for him not to touch upon what he deemed 
 n the misconduct of his friends; and this is the subject 
 " upon which, of all others, his temper must have been 
 " most irritable. A certain description of friends (the 
 " words describing them are omitted) were all of them, 
 " without exception, his greatest enemies, both to betray 
 
 " and destroy him;- and and (the names 
 
 " again omitted) were the greatest cause of his rout and 
 " his being taken, though not designedly he acknowledges 
 f* but by ignorance, cowardice, and faction. This sentence 
 
366 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 VI. 
 
 Argyle does 
 not name Sir 
 P. Hume. 
 
 " had scarce escaped him, when notwithstanding the qua- 
 " lifying words, withwh ich his candour had acquitted the 
 " last mentioned persons of intentional treachery, it appeared 
 " too harsh to his gentle nature, and declaring himself dis- 
 " pleased with the hard epithets he had used, he desires 
 " they may be put out of any account, that is to be 
 " given of these transactions." It is observable that Argyle 
 names, neither. the description of friends, who were his 
 greatest enemies, nor the two persons, who were the 
 principal cause of the failure of his scheme, and his own 
 misfortune, so that Sir Patrick Hume and his friends would 
 have nothing to complain of, if they had not had some 
 reason to suppose that he was included in one, or other 
 of the descriptions. The delicacy of Argyle is most 
 striking, he is writing to a private friend, who, he takes 
 for granted, will not be at a loss to fill up the blanks, 
 and was acquainted with the ill humour, with which the 
 expedition was embarked in: to that person, as he evi- 
 dently wished that an account of his transaction should 
 be published, it was necessary that he should commu- 
 nicate the particulars of what had passed. Mr. Fox in 
 his Historical Work, from similar motives of delicacy 
 and a rigid adherence to his determination to be accurate 
 in his statements, purposely leaves the blanks as he found 
 them, and Sir Patrick Hume's name is not mentioned. 
 Mr. Rose therefore, is not authorized to charge him, 
 as he has frequently done, with having in his Historical 
 Work treated Sir Patrick Hume with injustice, and this 
 
Fox, p. 198. 
 
 MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 367 
 
 is to be added to the Ions: list of mistakes committed, section 
 
 ° VI. 
 
 by an author, who boasts of being accustomed to official — 
 
 accuracy. But two notes are inserted by the Editor, 
 which Mr. Rose might have observed, are marked with 
 an E. to distinguish them and prevent any mistakes as 
 to the writer. In the latter of them we are told, tha* 
 " after an ineffectual research to recover the original 
 " MS. Mr. Fox observes in a letter, "Cochrane and Hume 
 '" certainly filled up the two principal blanks, with respect 
 iff to the other blank it is more difficult, but neither is it 
 '" very material.'" Accordingly, drawing the inference 
 from Mr. Fox's letter, the Editor says, " the blanks in the 
 " text, and in the preceding note rn,ay be filled up thus, 
 " (Coclirane's) friends were our greatest enemies," &c. 
 a and indeed Hume and Cochrane were the greatest cause 
 " of our rout," &c. For this information, the Editor is cer- 
 tainly intitled to the thanks of the reader, for without it, 
 he might have been at a loss to fill up the blanks, and 
 understand the sentence. Mr. Fox in his Historical Work 
 declares no approbation, or disapprobation of the words 
 and expressions made use of by Argyle, he simply nar- 
 rates the fact, and it appears from the note that he was 
 not perfectly satisfied in his own mind, how one of the 
 blanks should be filled up. That Mr. Fox was right in 
 his conjecture, respecting the name of Sir Patrick Hume 
 being the proper one to fill up another of these, Mr. 
 Rose takes for granted, but that conjecture was made 
 in a private letter, not in the Historical Work, and it is 
 
S68 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section not correct j n ^- im tQ comp i a i n f i n j ul y done to the 
 
 — character of the ancestor of his friend in a work, in which 
 
 he is not mentioned, or to make an author answerable 
 for the acts of his editor*-' done after his decease. 
 
 Treachery not In the beginning of this section we mentioned that 
 Trly^orMT. Mr. Rose had 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 pro- 
 position before he has proceeded to answer it, and in 
 this instance the sense of the passage, objected to, 
 is grossly perverted by the terms, in which he professes 
 to convey the meaning of it. The charge of treachery 
 against Sir Patrick Hume is neither expressed nor im- 
 plied in the Earl of Argyle's letter, in Mr. Fox's text, 
 or in the Editor's note, and Mr. Rose himself, in the 
 ensuing page reverts to the words as they really stand in 
 the Earl's letter, namely, ignorance, cowardice, and 
 faction. In a moral view there is a wide difference 
 between ignorance, and treachery ; and if Mr. Rose had 
 not misunderstood the passage, or forgotten the precise 
 words of it, possibly his feelings might not have been so 
 highly irritated, and he might have perused Mr. Fox's 
 labours in a more placid temper, and with greater satisfac- 
 tion than he has done. 
 
 The charge The reader is now in possession of the facts, and the 
 
 against Mr. . , 
 
 fox not ex- charge against Mr. Fox is, that he has given currency to 
 
 plained. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 369 
 
 the misrepresentations cast by the Earl of Argyle upon section 
 
 the character or" Sir Patrick Hume. As has been already 
 
 observed, Mr. Rose has no where distinctly brought this 
 charge before his readers, but has contented himself with 
 a statement sometimes loose, and not always correct. But 
 he has not exhibited any marks of candour in endeavour- 
 ing to have it believed that the charge came originally 
 from the pen of Mr. Fox himself; for instance, in his 
 Introduction, when stating his reasons for publishing the p°£' IntTOj * 
 Narrative, he says, " I allude to the censure contained in 
 " the third chapter of Mr. Fox's work on Sir Patrick 
 '• Hume," &c. " affecting equally thehonour, the courage, 
 '.' and the talents of that eminent man." This is the fullest 
 description of Mr. Fox's offence to be found in Mr. R <«e, p. i«* 
 Rose's book, until he comes to the fifth Section, in which 
 by way of giving a striking specimen of accuracy, 
 he says, "■ Sir Patrick Hume, and Sir John Cochrane, 
 " (for the censure applies equally to both), are first 
 " accused of having deserted the Earl, afterwards with 
 «' being ' his greatest enemies, ' both to betray and to 
 " ' destroy him, and finally with being the greatest cause 
 4< ' of his rout, and of his being taken ; though not design- 
 " * edly, but by ignorance, cowardice, and faction.' " It 
 is hardly worth observing that the words distinguished by 
 inverted commas in Mr. Rose's book, are not the precise 
 words of Mr. Fox. The material objections are that Mr. 
 Rose has misunderstood the passage, and has stated it to 
 contain an original accusation preferred by Mr. Fox, and 
 
 3 b 
 
370 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section the complaints, that Mr. Fox had not made a " candid 
 
 vr. 
 
 " inquiry" concerning him, and should have shewn 
 " some regard for such a character, &c." tend only to* 
 shew how strongly this erroneous impression had fixed' 
 itself in Mr. Rose's mind. 
 
 But often re- 
 peated 
 
 Seven times, in only four pages of Mr. Rose's in- 
 troduction, Mr. Fox is said to have " adopted" the 
 censure; in another place the " censure contained in 
 *'■ the third Chapter of Mr. Fox's work" is mentioned; 
 and again, he is said to " apply" the censure of 
 Argyle ; while in a more gentle mode of expression, in 
 another passage we have, •* Mr. Fox seems to sanction 
 " the reflections thrown upon his conduct by the Earl." 
 In the fifth Section now under consideration we find the 
 charges " to which Mr. Fox has given currency," " the 
 " heavy charges adopted in a work," &c. " the cruel 
 " imputation to which currency is thus given," and the 
 Rose, p. 165. « heavy accusation already alluded to, adopted in a 
 "• work, the name of the author of which ensured its being 
 " universally read, from whom it may be safely said, it 
 " should not have received countenance, without the most 
 " plain and positive authority." And when, at the conclu- 
 sion of the Section, Mr. Rose is about to take leave of the 
 Historical Work, he refers to his original motive for taking 
 any notice of it, and observes that Mr. Fox had rather 
 inconsistently pronounced Sir Patrick Hume, " in his own 
 '* opinion, an honourable man, having previously quoted 
 '* the Earl of Argyle's words, with acquiescence, if not 
 
 lb, p. 211. 
 
MR. fox's historical work. 371 
 
 " approbation, to shew him unfaithful to his friend, and section 
 " a betrayer of his cause." This last and a former quota- 
 
 Curious mis- 
 
 tion evidently point out the mistake, into which Mr. Rose take of Mr. 
 
 J i Ros«. 
 
 has fallen, and shew that he has confounded what Mr. Fox 
 has stated Argyle to have written concerning certain persons 
 
 described as friends, with what he wrote concerning two 
 
 persons whose names are left also in blank. Mr. Rose has 
 not disputed the propriety of the conjectures, which the 
 Editor has mentioned to have been made by Mr. Fox and 
 himself, as to the names with which these blanks are to be 
 filled up, and, if they are well founded, these latter com- 
 plaints made by Mr. Rose of injury done to the memory of 
 Sir Patrick, fall to the ground. For Argyle did not charge 
 him and Cochrane, but Cochrane s friends with being his 
 greatest enemies to betray and destroy him, they are the 
 persons described to be unfaithful to their friend, and be- 
 trayers of his cause. Thus so far from such a charge 
 against Sir Patrick Hume having been adopted, sanctioned, 
 or acquiesced in by Mr. Fox, he has never either made it 
 himself, or repeated it as made by any body else. That Cochrane and 
 
 Hume princi- 
 
 Cochrane, and Hume were the greatest cause of the P al causes of 
 
 Argyle's ruin. 
 
 rout, and of Argyle being taken, though not designedly, 
 cannot be denied, for it is fully proved by Sir Patrick 
 Hume's narrative; he, and Cochrane embarked in the 
 €\[ edition, upon principles so directly opposite to those 
 of their leader, and were pledged to Monmouth to act 
 upon a plan of operations so immediately contradictory 
 to his, that it was impossible almost it could be success- 
 
 3 B 2 
 
372 A VINDICATION Of 
 
 section ful. Unable to account for their perverse and teasing 
 
 — — conduct from any praiseworthy or honest motive, 
 
 Argyle makes the best excuse, which occurs to his mind 
 even in that season of extreme irritation and wounded sensi- 
 bility,, he acquits them of having occasioned his misfor- 
 tunes designedly, but attributes their conduct to ignorance, 
 cowardice, and faction. Of the first he might have 
 no doubt from the obstinacy, with which they obstructed 
 his plans in a country where they were strangers, and 
 he was at home, and among his vassals; the second he 
 might infer from their general opposition to the bold, 
 and perhaps desperate plans he had proposed in order to 
 extricate himself and them from their difficulties, and 
 from their final desertion of him; and of the last, he and 
 every one who has perused the narrative must have had 
 the fullest conviction. As an instance, when their little 
 v*5\V ' fleet was lying at Rothsay, and the Earl and his followers 
 were disputing whether they should attack Athol in the 
 highlands, or march to the lowlands, Sir Patrick Hume 
 says, " wee wer masters of the seamen, who wer ready 
 "" to obey us, whatever the Erie should contradict," but 
 he prevailed upon them to yield to the wishes of Argyle, 
 for which one of his reasons is expressed in these words 
 " I did really believe that he would oppose us by force, 
 " for he had commanded companies of Highlanders aboard 
 " all the ships." When we learn that the system of dis- 
 union and faction was so far advanced, even before 
 they had seriously commenced operations, we cannot 
 be surprized that the expedition should end disastrously. 
 
MR. fox's historical work. 373 
 
 But did Argyle himself make the charge, which is section 
 supposed to affect so materially the character of Sir Patrick 
 
 Delicacy to- 
 
 Humcr the only rational explanation ot the very ex- wards sir p. 
 traordinary conduct of the latter must attribute to him 
 one ©r more of the motives, which occurred to the mind 
 of Argyle, and he committed to paper; but was this 
 done with intention to rest the vindication of his own 
 conduct, upon the substantiating or circulating of these 
 charges? Far from it! his benevolent heart recoiled at 
 them, and he desired they might be struck out of any 
 account, which should hereafter be given of these trans- 
 actions. Mr. Fox, ending his extract from the MS. here, 
 it may be inferred that he considered these charges, as 
 having slipped inadvertently from the pen of Argyle, 
 and afterwards obliterated, for, in compliance with his 
 request, that ought to have been the case in any account, 
 which might be published from the MS. But Mr. Fox 
 did not chuse to omit the circumstance altogether, not 
 because it conveyed an imputation upon Sir Patrick 
 Hume, but because it placed Argyle's character in an 
 amiable point of view. If he had not considered it in 
 this light, he would not have omitted to notice the apo- 
 logy made by Argyle for using those epithets in these fox, p . 19s, 
 words, " only I must acknowledge they were not go- 
 " vernable, and the humour you found begun, continued." 
 Argyle having drawn the conclusion from the ungovern- 
 able conduct of Sir Patrick Hume and another person, 
 who had placed tbcmsclve- under his command, that 
 
374 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 VI. 
 
 they had not designedly, but through ignorance, cow- 
 - ardice, and faction, ruined the cause in which they 
 had embarked, is not pleased with these harsh epithets, 
 and desires they may be struck out, but in justifica- 
 tion of himself states the grounds upon which he had 
 made use of them. From their conduct he made the 
 inference, he had been harassed, perplexed, irritated, 
 and overruled in every measure he had proposed, from 
 their embarkation in Holland, to their final separation, 
 and in such circumstances he was anxious to adopt the 
 most natural and charitable reasons, which could be 
 suggested to account for their conduct. He did not de- 
 liberately make these charges against the companions 
 of his fortunes, on the contrary, he expressly desired 
 hey might not be published, and contented himself with 
 saying in substance, that they were so ungovernable and 
 perverse from first to last, that through them the expedition 
 was ruined, and its leader lost his life, 
 
 Mr. fox does g ut w hatever might be the wrongs Sir Patrick Hume 
 
 not reflect on c o 
 
 sir p. Hume. ^ a d su ff ere d from the pen of Argyle, he had sustained 
 none from that of Mr. Fox, who in his general estimation 
 of Sir Patrick Hume's character, as Mr. Rose exultingly 
 says, " does not venture to contradict the common opinion 
 " of the time," wishing to insinuate, that Mr. Fox would 
 
 atose, P . vi. j iave rejoiced in the opportunity of diminishing the respect 
 due to his character, if he had dared. Here the spirit 
 of candour and impartiality, with which Mr, Rose pro- 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 375 
 
 fessed to set out, must have been, unknown to himself, section 
 
 warped by the irresistible bias of his mind to find fault 
 
 with Mr. Fox. Such had been the constant habit of 
 his political life, and his best intentions and resolutions 
 could not withstand its influence when he became a com- 
 mentator. Let the following passage in Mr. Fox's book 
 be attended to, and then let it be said, whether it is 
 probable that he could have any inclination to detract 
 from Sir Patrick's reputation. After having stated that 
 a suspicion had arisen, that Sir John Cochrane had been 
 treacherous to Argyle throughout, he mentions, as a cir- 
 cumstance tending to disprove the charge, " that it must fox, p.215. 
 " be remembered that in Sir John's disputes with his Ge- 
 " neral, he is almost always acting in conjunction with 
 " Sir Patrick Hume, who is proved by the subsequent 
 *? events, and indeed by the whole tenor of his life and conduct, 
 " to Iiave been uniformly sincere and zealous in the cause of 
 " his Country." 
 
 It may be the duty of a historian to mention what one But only nar- 
 man has said of another, even though he is not satisfied ofArgyie. 
 that it has been truly said. If therefore Argyle had 
 written this of Sir Patrick Hume, might not Mr. Fox 
 be justified in relating that he had done so? but Argyle 
 instead of writing it of Hume, writes of a person for 
 whose name he leaves a blank. And when the historian 
 finds a censure passed upon that person by an eminent 
 character, may he not hazard a conjecture as to the 
 
S? 6 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 VI. 
 
 name by which that blank might be properly filled, without 
 meaning to give any opinion of the merits of the person 
 to whom it was meant to be applied. But Mr. Fox in his 
 character of historian does not do so much, for he pri- 
 vately states in a letter to a friend, not his opinion of who 
 deserved that censure, but who it was that Argyle meant to 
 censure. Mr. Rose first supposes the relation of Argyle's 
 opinion to be the expression of the opinion of the re- 
 lator, he then supposes the conjecture of the relator, as to 
 the names which should fill up the blank places to be 
 the same as actually filling them up, and he supposes 
 lastly, that the quotation from a private letter made by 
 the Editor is the same as if included in a work intended 
 for publication by the author. The result is, that Mr. Fox 
 is gravely accused of, " giving currency to charges against 
 '* Sir Patrick Hume," by the posthumous publication of 
 a conjecture contained in one of his private letters. 
 
 It was the duty of Mr. Fox to describe the conduct 
 and feelings of Argyle in his last moments, but.in doing 
 this he has abstained most cautiously from intermixing 
 any sentiments of his own. But Mr. Rose cannot be 
 aware of the extent, to which his argument would conduct 
 him ; if Mr. Fox is supposed to adopt and countenance 
 the paper of Argyle, in praise of which he has not 
 written a syllable, surely Mr. Rose must have adopted 
 and countenanced the narrative of Sir Patrick Hume, in 
 applauding which he has been most lavish. But that 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 377 
 
 is not all, as he severely censures Mr. Fox for not having section 
 
 made the necessary inquiries concerning the authenticity 
 
 and truth of Argyle's paper, we may presume that he 
 has not been deficient respecting Sir Patrick Hume's. 
 We conclude therefore, that upon full examination oft- 
 all the proofs, and due consideration of all the arguments 
 he is convinced, as Sir Patrick declared himself to be, Hume'sN.r. 
 
 p. 5, 7. 
 
 that a hellish popish plot had been evidently and distinctly 
 opened to the Parliament of England, and that it was 
 the duty of Scottes natives and christians, to endeavour 
 the rescue of their " religion, rights, and liberties, and the 
 " many distressed sufferers on their behalf, against the 
 " Duke of York, and others usurping upon, ruining, and 
 ** invading of the same, under pretext of justice, law, 
 *• and right." Yet this inference so necessarily the conse- 
 quence of the arguments of Mr. Rose, would not be correct, 
 for we cannot suppose that he is ready to declare his 
 belief in the truth of the popish plot, and he speaks of 
 Argyle's guilt, incurred by his being engaged in the Rose p.m. 
 same cause with Sir Patrick Hume. 
 
 The sum and substance of the offence committed by Mr. Fox 
 
 anxious to be 
 
 Mr. Fox is, that he has correctly stated the sentiments fu,| y informed, 
 of Airgyle without comment, but we will now suppose, 
 for the sake of the argument only, that this complaint 
 is well founded and silence culpable, provided it can 
 be shewn that Mr. Fox had not taken all the necessary 
 steps to inform himself fully upon the subject. The 
 first charge is. that " he did not find even the MS. to 
 
 3 c 
 
*? 8 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 VI. 
 
 " which he refers," but we are told by the Editor of the 
 Historical Work that he did all that lay in his power 
 to discover it, and if the search was ineffectual, is it to 
 be seriously imputed to him as a crime? The second 
 charge -is that, for want of the MS., this " cruel imputation" 
 rests only on the credit of Woodrow, an author high in 
 his esteem, but altogether unsupported. Perhaps there 
 are few authors, who may be more safely trusted than 
 Woodrow, he stood high, not only in Mr. Fox's esteem, 
 but his works Jiave always been held in great respect, 
 and, from his having free access to records and public 
 papers, no man had better opportunities of being correctly 
 acquainted with the facts he has related. That the con- 
 duct of Sir Patrick Hume was of a nature to justify, or 
 at least account for the suspicion of Argyle the narrative 
 itself leaves no cause to doubt. 
 
 The supposition of Mr. Fox feeling an inclination to 
 blacken the memory of Sir Patrick Hume is, according 
 to Mr. Rose's own uncharitable hypothesis concerning 
 Mr. Fox's principles and object, in the highest degree 
 improbable, for he wishes it to be understood that any 
 man who thought ill of kings, or was a republican, or 
 in arms against authority was sure to find favour in his 
 sight, and that no man of opposite principles could meet 
 with even justice, certainly not with indulgence, from 
 his pen. In a subsequent page of his book which will 
 be noticed presently, it is strongly insinuated that Mr. 
 Fox declined to write a panegyric upon Montrose, because 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 379 
 
 his chivalry had been kindled by his attachment to his section 
 king, and chose to write one upon Argyle, because his ■ - 
 zeal was inflamed by his indignation at the abuses of 
 monarchical power. But we may ask, Was not the zeal of 
 Sir Patrick Hume kindled by his indignation at tbe abuses 
 of monarchical power? and what then becomes of these 
 imputations so rashly and unjustly cast upon Mr. Fox : 
 If he gave currency to any unfounded charges against 
 Sir Patrick Hume, he must be acquitted, in that instance 
 at least, of having been swayed by the bias, which is 
 inconsistently alledged to have been uniformly operating 
 upon his mind, and colouring all his statements. The 
 severity with which Mr. Fox is supposed to have treated 
 Sir Patrick Hume, demonstrates that a zeal against mo- 
 narchical abuses was not alone sufficient in his mind 
 to atone for other defects. The superior interest and 
 regard, with which he contemplated the history of the 
 Earl of Argyle, arose from circumstances connected with 
 his character, which did not belong to Sir Patrick Hume's, 
 although they had embarked in the same cause. We 
 must not forget that the primary cause of Mr. Rose's 
 publication was his acute sense of Mr. Fox's injustice 
 to Sir Patrick Hume, but had Mr. Fox shewn half the 
 anxiety about the character of Argyle, that Mr. Rose 
 has done about that of Sir Patrick Hume, Mr. Rose 
 might have more reasonably inferred a predilection to 
 republican sentiments, but we are less uncharitable and 
 willingly acquit Mr. Rose of any such propensity. 
 
 3 C \: 
 
380 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 VI. 
 
 The third argument to support the complaint of Mr.. 
 
 Rose is introduced by some rather peevish observations, 
 
 servatioas of sufficiently betraying the influence, which unknown to 
 himself, guided his pen. " If Mr. Fox had found leisure," 
 Rose, P . 166. - t i s sa id, " for the investigation to which* we must believe 
 ff he was disposed, we should not have had reason to 
 " lament the little advantage derived to the public from 
 " his eagerness to trace all information to its original 
 " source ; of which it must be acknowledged, there are 
 f. few symptoms in the whole work, except some 
 *.' additional letters to, and from Barillon in the year 1685, 
 " which throw no light on any one interesting transac- 
 " tion : and yet there are undoubtedly many valuable 
 if papers, well worthy of the curiosity of the public, 
 " which would have considerably elucidated the history 
 " of his short period, that have not been published, 
 " and have been seen probably by very few, except 
 " those in whose possession they are.- To have acquired 
 " a title to superior correctness for his work, Mr. Fox 
 " should have used his best endeavours to have had 
 H access to these, and explored every source of information, 
 " not yet given to the world : or at least, to have carefully 
 " examined, and compared every thing already printed, 
 " respecting the subjects, on which he wrote." 
 
 Rose, p. r83. if Mr. Rose had always remembered that " We tread 
 " with reverence on the ashes of the dead," he might 
 have been inclined to treat the character of Mr. Fox and 
 
MR. fox's historical work. J8rJ 
 
 his posthumous work with a little more respect. He section 
 
 might rirfve spared the insinuation of a disbelief that he — 
 
 had a disposition for investigation, and the assertion that 
 there are few symptoms in tlic v/hoie work of his eager- 
 ness to trace information to its source, or that the additional 
 1 et ers to and from Barilton throw no new light on any one 
 interesting transaction. He might have given Mr. Fox 
 some credit for the pains he took and the researches he 
 made to discover the original MS. of King James's 
 diary, and whether Macpherson ever saw it or not; to 
 find out the original copy of Argyle's last paper ; and 
 to examine and copy the French correspondence. He 
 no doubt lamented with Mr. Rose that the public should 
 derive so little advantage from his efforts, but he made 
 them, and manifested that disposition and eagerness, which 
 Mr. Rose is inclined to deny him the merit of. With 
 respect to the importance of Barillon's correspondence, 
 enough has been said already in the Fourth Section. 
 
 These unfounded complaints form a sort of proemium Chargeagamii 
 to the charge against Mr. Fox of not having used his best J^yjjg* 
 endeavours to obtain access to many valuable papers, and 
 serve as an introduction to a display of Mr. Rose's know- 
 ledge of the Repositories, in which they are to be found. 
 Mr. Rose has a manner of making and arguing in favour of 
 objections quite peculiar to himself, and it is seriously 
 stated by way of aggravating the offence, that these same 
 valuable papers " have been seen probably by very few, Ro Se , P . ise. 
 
380 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section " except those in whose possession they are." Now, if 
 
 they were secreted from the world, how was Mr. Fox 
 
 to get access to them, or even be apprized of their exist- 
 ence. But says Mr. Rose with apparent displeasure at 
 the supposition of any author, besides himself, having a 
 claim to superior correctness, to support the title to such 
 a character, Mr. Fox should have used his best endeavours 
 to have had access to these papers, with the existence of 
 which he might for any thing we know be utterly 
 unacquainted. Mr. Rose is still more unreasonable for 
 he would have required him to have performed impossibi- 
 lities, to have " explored every source of information not 
 '* given to the world," or «* at least to have examined and 
 '•* compared every thing already printed, respecting the 
 " subjects on which he wrote." The absurdity of the 
 proposition is its best answer. But we have now obtained 
 from Mr. Rose's pen something like a definition of 
 superior correctness, and it is a pity but he had favoured us 
 also with the meaning of the expression official accuracy. 
 Perhaps, the person accustomed to it, is one, who makes 
 no researches or only very superficial ones himself, and 
 is contented with drawing the result from materials fur- 
 nished by the industry of others. It will then be easy 
 to understand why Mr. Rose is so often in a maze of 
 error when left to his own researches, and why he has 
 so little mercy on the supposed defects of others. 
 
 Mr. Rose then proceeds to remind the reader that he 
 has already brought into notice documents left by the 
 
MR. fox's historical work. 885 
 
 Lord Treasurer (Clifford), and to mention that some were section 
 
 ,• . • . , vi. 
 a tew year- ago in possession ot the late Earl of Shaftsbury, 
 
 yet to oooe of them is there any allusion " nor indeed, as 
 
 " already observed, even to authorities accessible to 
 
 " one;" what is meant by these last enigmatical words 
 
 we are left to conjecture, perhaps they refer " to every 
 
 " thing already printed," and yet that would not be cor- t 
 
 rect, tor many things, which are printed are not easy of 
 
 access, or even to be found at all when wanted. No 
 
 papers of the Argyle and Cochrane families, it is remarked, 
 
 are alluded to by Mr. Fox, and then comes this curious 
 
 paragraph. " It is certain no inquiry was made respecting 
 
 " the Marchmont papers. If there had, no political 
 
 " differences of opinion would have prevented the author 
 
 " of these sheets, from putting into Mr. Fox's hands, 
 
 " copies of such as would have been likely to be useful in 
 
 " an Historical Work; least of all such as would have had 
 
 " a tendency to shew the character of the man ennobled, 
 
 " and raised to great dignities by the deliverer of this 
 
 " Country, in the amiable and respectable light to which 
 
 " he is well intitled." 
 
 Mr. Fox it seems has offended because he has made no 
 allusion to any papers of the Argyle and Cochrane families, 
 which Mr. Rose does not assert to be in existence ; nor 
 to any of the Clifford or Shaftsbury families, which Mr. 
 Rose knows were existing a few years ago. What inquiries 
 were made after any of these papers we are not told, 
 
384- 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 VI. 
 
 and because these inquiries have not been mentioned it is 
 presumed that access to them was never sought. But 
 does Mr. Rose know that Mr. Fox was acquainted with 
 there being any papers of consequence preserved in these 
 respectable families, or that he did not apply for them ? 
 He may have been as anxious and eager to possess himself 
 of these treasures if they existed when he wrote, as Mr. 
 Rose has stated he ought to be in order to give to his 
 work a title to superior correctness. 
 
 Mr. Rose 
 never offered 
 the March- 
 mont papers. 
 
 But it seems, the Marchmont papers are jn the hands 
 of Mr. Rose, and therefore he is sure no inquiry was 
 made after them, and if there had been, copies of them 
 would have been at Mr. Fox's service. Did it never 
 occur to Mr. Rose, who would so liberally have opened 
 his stores, if he had been applied to, that possibly Mr. Fox 
 might not know that the Marchmont papers had been 
 placed in the hands of a stranger to that family? or that, 
 from the political differences to which Mr. Rose alludes, 
 and which have not lost their effect upon his mind at 
 this day, he might fear that the application would 
 be disagreeable, and probably not successful. Mr. Rose 
 knew perfectly well, for every body in the higher circles 
 of life knew, that Mr. Fox was writing the history of 
 the reign of James the Second and the Revolution, and 
 it would have been a becoming act of magnanimity in 
 the former to have inquired how far any documents 
 in his possession could be useful, and to have placed 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. S85 
 
 them unsolicited in the hands of the historian. If Mr. sE ction 
 
 Rose had done this, Sir Patrick Hume's Narrative might 
 
 have been interwoven into Mr. Fox's book, his character 
 preserved from all supposed obloquy, and Mr. Rose's 
 Observations spared. But Mr. Rose it seems stood upon 
 a point of etiquette, and the first application was to 
 come from the other side. But let it not go abroad Mr . Fox " M 
 
 anxious to 
 
 that Mr. Fox was not desirous to accumulate intelligence P rocure famil > 
 
 o papers. 
 
 wherever it was to be acquired, or that his friends were 
 not assiduous in their endeavours to assist him. But there 
 are obstacles to be surmounted in such pursuits, and none 
 perhaps so difficult to be overcome, as that indolence 
 which is natural to man. The possessor of a valuable 
 paper may be most ready to grant the use of it, and yet 
 feel an unconquerable reluctance to take the trouble to 
 search fork, especially if that trouble cannot conveniently 
 be delegated to others, or is to be attended with that of 
 copying it himself afterwards. The Author of this Work 
 knows, personally, that Mr. Fox did complain, that for some 
 cause or other it was more difficult to get at family 
 papers than he had expected, and perhaps on that ac- 
 count latterly, he was not so anxious as at first to procure 
 them. But the Author is happy to say, that there may Liberal con. 
 
 c i du£ tof the 
 
 be mentioned one person at least or the highest rank, EariofLont- 
 whose warm attachment to the principal political opponent 
 of Mr. Fox cannot be disputed, yet did not permit the ge- 
 nerous feelings of his own heart, to be restrained by the 
 punctilious etiquette which operated so strongly upon Mr. 
 
 3 n 
 
386 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section R ose » s# xhe present Earl of Lonsdale did not wait to 
 
 be solicited, but voluntarily requested a friend of Mr. 
 
 Fox to inspect the manuscript papers then in his pos- 
 session, which had belonged to the first Earl of Lonsdale, 
 whose memory must be dear to Englishmen, for the 
 active part he took in establishing the liberties of his 
 country at the revolution. This request was followed 
 with another, that their contents might be reported to 
 Mr. Fox, with the offer that all or any of them, which 
 he might think were likely to be useful in the prosecution 
 of his Work, should be sent to him whenever he pleased. 
 The friend of Mr. Fox, here alluded to, had been pre- 
 viously commissioned to apply to the Noble Earl for a 
 communication of these papers, but the wishes of the 
 historian being thus liberally anticipated, no application 
 of course was ever made. This instance shews that Mr. 
 Fox was not inattentive to the acquisition of information, 
 and that the cold ceremonious system of Mr. Rose has 
 not been universally acted upon. Of the usefulness of 
 these papers Mr. Fox justly entertained the highest 
 opinion, and that he did not send for them was owing, as 
 he himself declared, principally to his conceiving that 
 they would be of more use after he had advanced further 
 in his work, and also to his not chusing to have such 
 valuable documents in his possession, without having an 
 immediate prospect of, employing and returning them. 
 The Noble Earl after Mr. Fox's death printed and dis- 
 tributed, as already mentioned, the memoir of James 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. S87 
 
 the Second, which was one of the papers intended to section 
 
 be communicated to Mr. Fox, and which contains so much 
 
 new and interesting information, that under the circum- 
 stances which have occurred, it is much to be regretted 
 any delicacy should have prevented him from having 
 obtained the most early possession of it. 
 
 Mr. Rose in admitting that the different parties, who ., _ 
 
 © i Mr. Rose un- 
 
 met in Holland, had probably "a mixed consideration for ^^ves'to'sir 
 " the public, and themselves," accounts in some degree for j^"™ 6 '^, 
 {he extraordinary conduct of Sir Patrick Hume through 
 the whole business. The selfish views of the parties con- 
 cerned explain why the expedition was so rashly under- 
 taken, as Mr. Rose stales it to have been, and how it 
 came to be so unfortunately conducted afterwards. But 
 after Mr. Rose has made this observation, it is not very Ibid - p- in- 
 consistent to say that, " he must therefore be a severe 
 " judge of the actions of men, who would impute to 
 " him," i. e. Sir Patrick Hume " an unworthy motive 
 " for embarking in the undertaking." Mr. Rose would 
 save a world of trouble, if he would speak out plainly, 
 for to what he alludes here it is impossible to form any 
 conjecture. Argyle imputed to Sir Patrick ignorance, 
 cowardice, and faction after he had embarked, and Mr. 
 Fox has from himself made no accusation, except of 
 deserting Argyle in his last extremity. Mr. Rose alone 
 has hinted at an unworthy motive for his embarking, and 
 told us that, probably, he acted from a mixed considera* 
 (ion for the public and himself. 
 
 3 d c l 
 
Mr Rose visits 
 the sin of the 
 Eoitor upon 
 the Author. 
 
 38S A VINDICATION OF 
 
 vi. A Mr. Rose upon several occasions has, unconsciously, 
 
 identified the historian and his editor, and remarked upon 
 the observations of the latter, as if made by the former; 
 but we have now an instance of his selecting a passage 
 for animadversion, which would have been protected by 
 its insignificance, if the account of Argyle's expedition had 
 not been pointed out by the editor as a proof of the industry 
 of Mr. Fox in investigating facts. This is rather hard 
 upon an author, who unfortunately left his work in an 
 unfinished state ; his memory has been repeatedly charged 
 with sins committed, if committed at all, by a living of- 
 fender, but now he is to be chastised for a trifling offence, 
 which would have been passed over unnoticed, if an 
 affectionate relative had not ascribed to him a merit, to, 
 which he is most justly entitled. For whatever may be- 
 come of the observation alluded to, Mr. Fox's character 
 rheExciama for general industry will remain unimpeached. It seems 
 zyie. that he discredits the story of the Earl exclaiming, when 
 
 taken, " unfortunate Argyle," and then discovering him- 
 self, saying, " besides that there is no authority for it, 
 ''■ it has not the air of a real fact, but rather resembles 
 " a clumsy contrivance in some play." Mr. Rose, to 
 prove there was authority for it, quotes a paper printed 
 at the time at Edinburgh, which we may put out of 
 the question, because he admits it might not be known 
 to Mr. Fox, but he then tells us that in the Gazette it 
 is found. That it might have occurred to Mr. Fox to 
 look into the Gazettes of the time is very possible, but 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 389 
 
 whether he had the power pf obtaining access to them, section 
 
 or whether he procured them, and was not satisfied, \ 
 
 or whether he had intended to have examined them, or 
 never thought at all about them, it is impossible for 
 any man alive to say. The most uncharitable conjecture 
 is that, which Mr. Rose has adopted, that he was not 
 sumciently industrious in investigating facts, and therefore 
 never inquired after the Gazeu.es. Mr. Rose it seems 
 relies upon one of them, and Mr. Fox might have 
 thought that alone was not in those days an authority 
 to be trusted, when the manly temper and firmness of 
 Argyle is taken into consideration, and it is recollected 
 that whether the exclamation was made or not could 
 be known only to himself, and the militia men who 
 took him, and that in his own account he makes no 
 mention of it. Mr. Rose states that Mr. Fox gives some 
 weight to the Earl's silence, but it is not, he observes, 
 extraordinary that he should not think it worth while 
 to mention such an exclamation. So far from agreeing 
 with Mr. Rose, the reader may think that, as by means 
 of that exclamation he was discovered, it made one of 
 the most important features of the transaction, and, it 
 it had been uttered, would in all probability have found 
 a place in his narrative drawn up subsequently, which 
 Mr. Fox has cited and principally followed in the 
 Historical Work. 
 
 Turning now from the venial offence of Mr. Fox 
 
$90 A VINDICATION OP 
 
 section in stating that there was no authority for a fapt supposed 
 to have happened in Scotland, notwithstanding- it was 
 
 pares the s^t narrated in a London Gazette, we have next to notice an 
 
 of Montrose . r . • ■» «• r» i • 1 • i 
 
 andArgyie instance ot inaccuracy in Mr. Rose, which might surprize 
 
 only from their . i •/* i i i 11 
 
 verses when the reader, it he had not had so many instances of a 
 
 under sentence 
 
 ofdeath. similar kind presented to him before. Mr. Fox is stated 
 to say, that the courage of the Marquis of Montrose " was 
 
 Rose,p. 173. « more turbulent; that of Argyle more calm and sedate." 
 And then Mr. Rose observes, " This is the only mention 
 " of that distinguished nobleman in the work before us, 
 " although he lived in the period of Mr. Fox's introductory 
 " Chapter" By these last words an insinuation is 
 intended to be conveyed that Mr. Fox had wilfully, and 
 therefore culpably avoided to mention Montrose ; but, 
 without intending it, Mr. Rose in them offers a satisfactory 
 reason for the omission, even though the observation had 
 been well founded ; for Mr. Fox professes to enter into no 
 minute discussion of facts within the period, to which 
 that chapter is confined, and for that reason had only 
 incidentally mentioned the death of the Marquis of 
 Argyle, the rival and prosecutor of Montrose. But Mr. 
 Rose has altogether mistaken the passage, for Mr. Fox, 
 mentioning some verses made by Argyle for his own 
 epitaph the evening before his execution, is naturally Jed 
 to compare these with the verses made by Montrose under 
 similar circumstances. He says the poetical merit of the 
 respective pieces is nearly equal, and in neither con- 
 siderable, and adds " they are only in so far valuable, as 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 391 
 
 '•" they may serve to convey to us some image of the section 
 " minds, by which they ivere produced. He, who reads ■ 
 
 " them with this view will perhaps be of opinion, that the 
 " spirit manifested in the two compositions is rather equal in 
 " degree, than like in character; that the courage of 
 " Montrose was more turbulent, that of Argyle more 
 " calm and sedate." He is not comparing the general 
 characters of these noble personages, or declaring a pre- 
 ference of the one to the other, he does not even com- 
 pare their courage, but confines himself to the spirit, with 
 which they bore their calamities, and by which their 
 conduct was directed, when under sentence of death. 
 Nor does he found the character he gives of that spirit 
 from his own observation or information, but simply infers 
 it from their respective poetical effusions, in situations 
 extremely similar. Mr. Fox thinks that from these verses 
 may be discovered that the courage, with which Montrose 
 met the approach of death, was turbulent, that of Argyle 
 more calm and sedate. The nature of their military 
 talents and atchievements could not be drawn from their 
 verses, and therefore was not in Mr. Fox's contemplation 
 when he made this comparison. 
 
 It might not be necessary to notice the ensuing obser- urfjustcharge 
 rations upon the conduct and character of Montrose, if iffCS' 
 his sufferings and character had not been compared with SST* M ° n " 
 those of Argyle. Mr. Rose is not content with making 
 Montrose into a hero, he is nothing, unless he is greater 
 
392 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section than Argyle, and to prove this not only the former must be 
 
 — '. exalted, but the latter depreciated. " We tread," says he, 
 
 Rose, P . 183. <t w j t k rever e nce on t ue ashes of the dead ; it might other- 
 
 '* wise not be difficult to shew that Argyle was not altoge- 
 '* ther that hero, which Mr. Fox's partiality has made 
 him." It is then admitted that he was possessed of an amiable 
 disposition, gentleness, and equanimity ; but it is objected 
 that his talents were not fitted to conduct the enterprize he 
 undertook, his bravery not always guided by discretion, 
 his decision did not yield sufficiently to the opinion of 
 others, and the smallness of the party which joined him 
 in Scotland, " marks of itself the distrust of his ability to 
 " conduct them ; and from his landing in Orkney to his 
 " final discomfiture, his measures seem to have been 
 " adopted without any plan, to ensure their success, or 
 " to extricate himself and his followers, if misfortune 
 Host, p. 18* « should attend them. The heroism of his death may, 
 " however, excuse Mr. Fox for the warmth of his pane- 
 " gyric ; yet in the short comparison, which he has 
 *' introduced between Argyle and Montrose, he has 
 " resisted the same feeling towards the latter nobleman, 
 " whose death was not less heroic, and whose atchieve- 
 " ments were much more brilliant than those of the 
 *? former. If the chivalry of Montrose had not been 
 " kindled by his attachment to his King, as the zeal of 
 " Argyle was inflamed by his indignation at the abuses 
 " of monarchical power, it must have given Mr. Fox an 
 " opportunity for such eulogium as historians, even 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. J9 * 
 
 " adverse to the royal cause, have allowed to that gal- section 
 " lant royalist." 
 
 The imputation conveyed in this passage is that, though 
 the atchicvements of Montrose were much more brilliant 
 than Argvle's, yet Mr. Fox has withheld the eulogium 
 due to him, because his chivalry had been kindled by 
 his attachment to his King, while he panegyrized Argyle, 
 because his zeal was inflamed by his indignation at the 
 abuses of monarchical power. In defence of Mr. Fox 
 it might be urged, as has been done before, that if he had 
 thought as highly of the character of Montrose, and 
 as meanly of that of Argyle, as Mr. Rose does, the plan 
 of his history did not admit of his entering into a discussion 
 of the merits of Montrose and sketching out his character, 
 for he was dead before the period at which the History 
 begins. Is it not possible that blinded not merely 
 with that childish love of Kings which has been imputed 
 to Mr. Hume, but with a similar affection to every body 
 who felt attachment to them, Mr. Rose may have 
 estimated too highly the character of Montrose? It has 
 been proved, that his judgment was misled by this parti- 
 ality in the case of Monk. It would not follow because 
 Montrose's death was as heroic as Argyle's, and his 
 atchievements more brilliant, that he would have had 
 equal claim with Argyle to the praise of Mr. Fox. The 
 character of Argyle depended upon many other circum- 
 stances, to which Mr. Rose makes no allusion. Mr. 
 Rose knew well that all the Historians, friendly to the royal 
 
 3 E 
 
S94 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section cause, did not think that he was entitled to unquali- 
 
 tied praise, for he mentions himself that the character 
 
 given of him by Clarendon is " certainly more admirable* 
 R 0Se , P . iw. than am i a ble." 
 
 characters of From Mr. Laing's History, we learn that Montrose be- 
 
 Moni rose and , . , . - . , . . . . , 
 
 Argyie. gan lire without any settled principle ; he took the cove- 
 
 nant himself, and in 1639, was employed with Lesly in 
 forcing it upon others, and was distinguished by his ex- 
 treme severity in performing the service : but two years 
 afterwards, jealous of the superiority of Argyie in the 
 senate, and Lesly in the field, he was suspected to have 
 set up, or at least encouraged, a false accusation of Argyie, 
 
 taing, iii. ann " thrown into prison, where *\ disgusted alternately at 
 " the court, and the covenant, his spirit, indignant at the 
 " disgrace of imprisonment, was fixed irrecoverably in 
 " its last resentment." The character of Montrose was 
 not such as to be likely to induce Mr. Fox, to go out. 
 of his way to write his panegyric. For however enter- 
 prizing and intrepid his spirit, however brilliant his exploits, 
 they were tarnished by his general violence and severity, 
 by his having first betrayed his party, and then per- 
 secuted it with unrelenting and merciless cruelty, and 
 by his not only having recommended assassination, as 
 an expedient to secure his Sovereign upon the throne, 
 but offered himself to use the poniard*. From the con- 
 
 * He advised the assassination of Hamilton and Argyie in 1641, 
 and undertook to execute it himself. Laing iii. p. 208. and in 1643,- 
 when his desperate counsels prevailed, a massacre of the chief cove«~ 
 nanters was projected. Ibid. p. 235. 
 
 p. ?48. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 39.5 
 
 temptation of such a character, Mr. Fox must have section 
 
 VI. 
 
 turned away with disgust, while the mild and benevolent 
 
 spirit of Argyle, so congenial with his own, seems to 
 have excited in him a high degree of affection as well 
 as admiration, and roused the tenderest sympathy. He 
 could not describe unmoved his undeserved sufferings, 
 and it would have been unjust to withhold the language 
 of panegyric, when recording the most interesting oc- 
 currence of the life of a man, of whom he thought so 
 highly as to say, " Let him be weighed never so scru- Fox>p .204, 
 " pulously, and in the nicest scales, he will not be found, 
 " in a single instance wanting in the charity of a christian; 
 «' the firmness, and benevolence of a patriot; the integrity, 
 " and fidelity of a man of honour." 
 
 tor- 
 
 Mr. Rose does not correctly state Mr. Fox's argument, "*"'« 
 when he says, that from the words, " that you take all tureArgyie. 
 '* ways to know from him those things which concern 
 " our government most," in the warrant for the Earl 
 of Argyle's execution, Mr. Fox is induced to believe it 
 was intended to apply torture, for Mr. Fox was induced 
 to such belief, not merely from the insertion of those 
 words, but also from torture being at that time in common 
 use in Scotland, and the persons to whom the warrant 
 was addressed having often caused it to be inflicted, and 
 therefore the meaning ot' those words well known to 
 them. Mr. Rose observes that torture had been in com- 
 mon use in Scotland, was inflicted in the reign of William 
 
 3 e 2 , 
 
896 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 VI. 
 
 Ro*e, p. 182. 
 
 Tox, App. 
 p. cxjv. 
 
 the Third, and not prohibited by law till after the Union. 
 But he is not content to confine his history of torture to 
 Scotland, but makes an excursion into England, and at 
 last comes to a conclusion, which is warranted by nothing 
 that goes before, and therefore possibly some quotations 
 respecting the proceedings against Argyle, or some pas- 
 sages meant to be inserted in the observations may have 
 been accidentally omitted. <» On the whole," he says, 
 " upon the most attentive consideration of every thing 
 " that has been written on the subject, there does not appear 
 * to have been .any intention of applying torture in the 
 " case of the Earl of Argyle." When Mr. Rose gave the 
 subject the most attentive consideration, or what were the 
 documents he considered, or how he got access to every one 
 of them we are not told; for these words certainly cannot 
 refer to the quotations he has favoured us with, relating 
 to the use of torture in general in this island. But Mr. 
 Rose has omitted to notice a passage in one of Barillon's 
 Letters, which it must be presumed is included in his 
 description of "every thing that has been written on 
 " the subject," which proves to -demonstration that there 
 did exist an intention to apply the torture to Argyle, 
 and goes further, for it furnishes the reason why it was 
 not inflicted. The Letter is dated the 16th of July, 1685, 
 and has this passage, " The Earl of Argyle has been 
 " executed at Edinburg, and has left a full confession 
 " in writing, in which he discovers all those, who have 
 *f assisted him with money, and who have aided his 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 397 
 
 designs; that has saved him from the torture.'"* Argyle section 
 
 himself does not deny that he made discoveries, but in 
 
 his letter to Mrs. Smith writes that he had mentioned- 
 no names, except hers and a few others, which it was 
 impossible to conceal. 
 
 Passing over Mr. Rose's Observations upon the use Torture in 
 
 r • « m • 11 ■ - 1 ■ ■ 11111 common use 
 
 or torture in Scotland, it may be remarked that he does >n England to 
 
 c • i • i i i • i* extort con " 
 
 not seem to be perfectly acquainted with the history of fessiou. 
 
 torture in the southern part of this island. To the Law 
 
 of England he is certainly justified in saying, from the 
 
 highest authority, that it is utterly unknown, but he is 
 
 not accurate in stating the case of Felton, who murdered Rose, p. isi. 
 
 the Duke of Buckingham, to be the only instance of 
 
 an attempt to exercise it here, except when there was 
 
 a design to introduce the civil law in the reign of Henry 
 
 the Sixth, and except also the actual application of the rack 
 
 in some cases of treason in Queen Mary's time, mentioned 
 
 in a note preceding his Appendix. If Mr. Rose had 
 
 referred to Mr. Justice Blackstone's Commentaries, as bi. com. 
 
 we find him doing upon other occasions, he would have ' 
 
 learnt that the use ot the rack was not confined to the 
 
 few instances mentioned by him. In the reign of 
 
 Henry the Sixth, the rack or brake had been placed 
 
 * Le Co.nte D'Argile a 6te execute a. Edinbourg, et a laiss6 une 
 ample confession par ecrit, dans laquelle il ci6couvre tous ceux qui 
 Font secouru d'argent, et qui ont aide ses desseins ; cela lui a sauv6 
 la question. 
 
398 
 
 A VINDICATION OP 
 
 SECTION 
 VI. 
 
 Fuller's Wor- 
 thies, p. 317. 
 
 Burnet's Re- 
 orm. i. p. 325. 
 ii. p. 382. 
 
 by the Earl of Exeter in the tower, when he and the 
 Earl of Suffolk had formed the design of introducing the 
 civil law into England. It was called Exeter's daughter, 
 and remained afterwards in the tower, " where it was occa- 
 '*■ sionally used as an engine of state, more than once in the 
 " reign of Elizabeth" It may be suspected, from Mr. Rose 
 having borrowed in part the expression of Blackstone, 
 that he was aware of the before mentioned passage, but 
 misunderstood it. Though the use of the rack does 
 not appear to have been known in this country until 
 the 26th year of the reign of Henry the Sixth, and though 
 it was never authorized by the law, yet to borrow the 
 expression of Mr. Justice Blackstone, as " an Engine 
 *f of State," it was occasionally used to extort confession 
 from state prisoners confined in the tower, from the time 
 of its introduction, until finally laid aside in consequence 
 of the decision of the Judges in Felton's case. One 
 Hawkins was tortured in the reign of Henry the Sixth. 
 And it is surprizing that the interesting case of Anne 
 Askew in the reign of Henry the Eighth, could have 
 escaped the memory of Mr. Rose; the Lord Chancellor 
 Wrottesley, went to the tower to take her examination, 
 and, upon the Lieutenant refusing to draw the cords 
 tighter, drew them himself till her body was nearly torn 
 asunder*. In Mary's reign, Mr. Rose has observed that 
 
 * There is a small book printed in black letter, containing an 
 account of the treatment and trial of Anne Askew, which contains 
 many curious particulars. 
 
MR. FOX S HISTORICAL WORK. 399 
 
 several persons were racked in order to extort confessions, section 
 
 VI. 
 
 which was upon occasion of Sir Thomas Wyatt's rebellion. 
 And Barrington mentions that in Oldmixon's History of fatrod,*""' 
 England, (p. 284.) one Simpson is said to 'have been 
 tortured in 1558, and a confession extorted. 
 
 In the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth, the rack coii.Ecc.Hist, 
 
 rr . ii. P-591. 
 
 was used upon state offenders, among others, Francis Murden'sstat. 
 
 . . Pap. p.9,101. 
 
 Throgmorton ; in 1571, upon Charles Baillie an attendant 
 upon the Bishop of Ross, Mary's Embassador, and upon 
 Banastre, one of the Duke of Norfolk's servants, and 
 Barker another of his servants was brought to confess 
 bv extreme fear of it. In 1581, Campion the Jesuit coil. ecc. Hist. 
 
 , ii. p. 139. 
 
 was put upon the rack, and in 1585, Thomas Morgan Murden'sstat, 
 
 1 l & Pap. p. 452. 
 
 writes to the Queen of Scots, that he has heard D. Atslow 
 was racked in the Tower twice about the Earl of Arun- 
 del. This is the last instance, which I have found, of 
 the actual application of torture, to extort confession. 
 
 For the greatest part of this reign, the application of 
 torture in the examination of state offenders seems to 
 have been in common use r and its legality not disputed. 
 Mr. Daines Barrington says, that among the MS. papers obs. on ancient 
 of Lord Ellesmere, is a MS. copy of Instructions to note. ' P ' 
 him, as the Lord President of the Marches, to use it 
 on the taking of some examinations at Ludlow; and st.Tr.i.199. 
 Sir Edward Coke himself,, in the year 1600, (the 43d 
 of Elizabeth's reign) then being Attorney General, at 
 
400 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section the trial of the Earls of Essex and Southampton, boasted 
 
 of the clemency of the Queen, because though the re- 
 bellious attempts were so exceeding heinous, yet out of 
 her princely mercy " no person was racked, tortured, 
 ff or pressed to speak any thing further than of their 
 
 12 Rep. P . 96. «« own accord," And in the Countess of Shrewsbury's 
 case (10 Jac. 1.) when Chief Justice, in enumerating the 
 privileges of the nobility, he mentions as one, that their 
 bodies were not subject to torture in causa criminis lasa 
 
 obs. on stat. majestatis. Barrington justly observes there was a regular 
 establishment for torture, for, at his trial, in the first year 
 
 sta^tTr.i. of James the First, Sir Walter Raleigh stated that Kemish 
 had been threatened with the rack, and the keeper of 
 the instrument sent for. Sir William Wade, who with 
 the Solicitor General had taken his examination, denied 
 it, but admitted they had told him he deserved it, 
 and Lord Howard declared " Kemish was never on 
 " the rack, the King gave charge that no rigour should 
 " be used." 
 
 p. 92. 
 
 obs. on stat. Barrington mentions that Sir John Hay ward, the his- 
 torian/ was threatened with the rack, which Dr. 
 Grainger confirms; and the former also remarks that it 
 is stated in King James's Works, that the rack was 
 shewn to Guy Faukes when under examination. 
 
 Down to this period we do not find the legality of 
 the practice had been questioned, though it has been 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 401 
 
 said by high authority, as will be stated presently, section 
 
 that some doubts had been suggested to Queen Eli ■ 
 
 zabeth. State prisoners were confined usually in the 
 Tower, and commissioners attended by the law officers 
 of the Crown were sent to examine them, who ap- 
 plied the rack at their own discretion, or according to 
 the orders of the Privy Council or the King, without 
 any objection being made to their authority. 
 
 In the third year of the reign of King Charles the 
 First, Felton was threatened with the rack by the Earl of 
 Dorset in the Tower, and Laud repeated the threats in 
 council, but the King insisted upon the Judges being 
 consulted as to the legality of the application, and they 
 being unanimously or' opinion that it was illegal, it was 
 never attempted afterwards. The answer, which Felton 
 made to Laud's (then Bishop of London) threats, is well 
 worthy cf attention ; when Laud told him " if he would 
 " not confess he must go to the rack,' he replied, *' if it 
 " must be so, he could not tell whom he might nominate 
 " in the extremity of torture, and, if what he should say 
 " then was to go for truth, he could not tell whether his 
 " Lordship (meaning the Bishop of London) or which 
 " of their Lordships he might name, for torture might 
 ** draw unexpected things from him." 
 
 In the year 1680, (32 Car. 2.) Elizabeth Collier was st. n ii 
 tried at the Old Bailey before Mr. Baron Weston for the P " 
 
 3 F 
 
402 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section publication of a libel, in which many circumstances were 
 - — — — related for the purpose of inducing a belief that Prance, 
 when a prisoner in Newgate, had been tortured there, and 
 he was produced to prove the falshood of the publication. 
 The learned Judge in summing up the evidence to the 
 Jury said, " But you must first know the laws of the 
 " land do not admit a torture, and since Queen Eliza- 
 " beth's time there hath been nothing of that kind 
 " ever done. The truth is, indeed, in the twentieth year 
 " of her reign, Campion was just stretched upon the 
 " rack, but yet not so but he could walk ; but when she 
 " was told it was against the law of the land to have 
 " any of her subjects racked, (though that was an ex- 
 " traordinary case, a world of seminaries being sent over 
 '*■ to contrive her death, and she lived in continual danger) x 
 " yet it was never done after to any one, neither in 
 " her reign, who reigned twenty-five years, nor in King 
 " James's reign, who reigned twenty-two years after, nor 
 " in King Charles the First's reign, who reigned twenty- 
 " four years after ; and God in Heaven knows there 
 " hath been no such thing offered in this King's reign; 
 " for I think we may say we have lived under as lawful 
 " and merciful a government as any people whatsoever, 
 lt and have has little bloodshed, and sanguinary executions 
 " as in any nation under heaven." The Jearned judge 
 may have been mistaken when stating Campion to be the 
 last person racked, for in Murden's state papers, as before 
 observed, one Atslowe is mentioned to have been tortured 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 403 
 
 tour years afterwards. Mr. Baron Weston states that, section 
 
 upon a suggestion made to Queen Elizabeth of the ilie 
 
 galtty of the practice, it was discontinued in her reign, 
 and thus we may account for Campion being racked 
 with so little severity, as to be able to walk afterwards 
 and to manage the conferences with protestant doctors 
 during his confinement in prison. 
 
 Two incidents connected with the last hours of Argyle, Tvvo incidents, 
 and mentioned by Mr. Fox, are doubted and observed last houn Ik*. 
 upon by Mr. Rose, viz. that Argyle cautioned Mr. Char- Kose,'p.iM. 
 tens ft not to try to convince him of the unlawfulness of Fox 'P- 200 ' 
 " the attempt, concerning which his opinion was settled 
 " and his mind made up," and that one of the Members 
 of the Council, on finding the Earl in a sweet sleep a few 
 hours before his execution, went away in great agitation- 
 Hut it is sufficient for the justification of Mr. Fox for 
 having noticed them, that the first is mentioned by 
 Bishop Burnet, who possessed the means of obtaining 
 good information upon the subject, and for the latter he 
 has the authority of Woodrow, who Mr. Rose had before 
 described to be " remarkably industrious in searching Rose, p. 23. 
 " records and collecting anecdotes, especially such as 
 " affected leaders in" the Presbyterian party, and who 
 alledges he had the anecdote from an unquestionable 
 authority. But in order to discredit Woodrow, it is said Ros(:> ,,. i M . 
 he " was a respectable man but a zealous partizan, and 
 '* we find from daily experience that when an author If 
 
 3 f 2 
 
*04 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section « desirous of believing a fact himself, he will give credit 
 — -— -~=- " to an authority, which on another occasion he would 
 ■" not rely on." The observation is perfectly correct, 
 and we deeply regret that Mr. Rose himself, in many 
 instances, should have afforded practical proofs of its 
 truth. But he has produced no evidence of such weak- 
 ness ever belonging to the character of Woodrow. 
 
 Mr. Fox in his interesting relation, and eloquent com- 
 ment upon the conduct of this member of the council 
 candidly admits that the evidence is liable to that degree 
 of doubt, which necessarily attends all traditional history, 
 but he adds that the event is not improbable, and that the 
 moral it inculcates, and the reflections it suggests would 
 lead one to a wish that it was true. Mr. Rose questions the 
 truth of the anecdote, and denies, or rather doubts its pro- 
 bability. Upon this occasion then, Mr. Rose is at issue 
 on a point of reasoning with Mr. Fox, he differs with 
 him upon the probability of an event to be drawn from 
 a knowledge of the human character. On such a ques- 
 tion Mr. Rose has informed the reader that Mr. Fox is 
 an authority more to be relied upon than himself, yet 
 in this instance he has departed from that resolution, 
 which, on some other occasions also, he has unfortunately 
 broken, of not contending with Mr. Fox in argument. 
 
 That morbid insensibility is not to be envied, which can 
 lead to the questioning the possibility of a person who has 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 
 
 been instrumental in either procuring, pronouncing., or 
 executing an unjust sentence of death, feeling the oeepest 
 jemorse, and being agitated with the strongest emotions 
 of shame, and horrour at a scene, which should at once 
 remind him of the consequences of his base compliance 
 with tyranny, and the undeserved sufferings, and calm 
 serenity of the victim. Mr. Rose may think it impossible 
 for a man to reach the summit of power, or to become 
 the instrument of it, unless he lias grown too callous to 
 feel remorse, too insensible to shudder at the sight of 
 injured, oppressed, and expiring innocence. But Mr. 
 Fox, who was less familiar with the change which the 
 habits of office, the subserviency to power, and the exercise 
 of authority may produce, and who could therefore only 
 judge of the feelings and motives of men from common 
 observation, and from an examination of his own warm 
 and benevolent heart, drew a very opposite conclusion, 
 and inferred from his view of human nature, that even 
 the instruments of oppression themselves might retain 
 such a sense of moral right, as to shudder at the conse- 
 quences of their iniquity, when accidentally brought full 
 in view before their eyes. 
 
 But Mr. R.ose does not argue that the sight of Argyle, 
 in the situation described, might not excite some feelings 
 of compunction and remorse. He contends only that the 
 acquiescence of this member of the council in the 
 unjust command of the King, probably could not have 
 
 SECTION 
 VI. 
 
A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section been attended with so much agitation as Woodrow and 
 — — Mr. Fox have described, because " the execution of a 
 
 Rose, P . 187. « rrian notoriously guilty of high treason would not be 
 " likely to have excited exactly the same sensation, as the 
 " murder of an innocent man." But if this member of 
 the council thought, with Mr. Rose, that the sentence 
 was an unjust one, and if he had happened to be a man 
 of more delicate nerves, and a more tender conscience 
 than usually belonged to persons placed in his situation, 
 he might have been agitated to the extent described, or 
 at least somewhat more than might be expected in 
 common cases. He might not feel himself justified in 
 ordering the execution of a man, under an unjust sen- 
 tehee, or no sentence at all, merely because he was an 
 eminent leader taken in open rebellion against his King. 
 
 Rose, P . 188. This view of the subject, Mr. Rose says, he cannot 
 notcaiuou 8 put entirely out of consideration, however the motives 
 edIgai?ist°Ar- of the actors in the enterprize may be approved of, " but 
 " which Mr. Fox's zeal seems to have made him dis- 
 " regard entirely, for in describing the situation of Argyle, 
 " when it was becoming desperate, he calls the regular 
 " soldiers and militia pursuing the persons so in arms against 
 " 'tile King, authorized assassins." 
 
 Such are the words in Mn Rose's book, but the fact- 
 is, that Mr. Fox, in describing the situation of Argyle 
 when desperate, does not call the regular soldiers and 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 407 
 
 militia pursuing the persons so in arms against the King SSPW9SJ 
 " authorized assassins." The term certainly occurs but — — —*— 
 not in that part of the work, or in that connection, nor 
 is it, as we shall proceed to explain, applied to the soldiers 
 and militia, so (i. e. with Argyle) in arms against the 
 King. This gross and important mis-representation of 
 Mr. Fox's words and meaning we shall charitably impute 
 to that inattention and carelessness, which have been so 
 frequently pointed out, and pity the ludicrous situation 
 of the champion of prerogative fighting the phantoms 
 of his own imagination, and using his keenest weapons 
 of argument, insinuation, and sarcasm against an adver- 
 sary, as unreal as the gigantic foe of the Princess Micome- 
 cona. But the Knight of ia Mancha was asleep when he 
 fought, and he engaged but once, but Mr. Rose is broad 
 awake, and has returned again and again to the charge. 
 If we were justified in assuming that the distortion of the 
 words, the perversion of the sense, and the mis-quotation 
 of the passage are wilful, no terms would be too strong 
 to express our indignation, and we might rejoice that 
 the effort to calumniate Mr. Fox has been as clumsy 
 in its execution, as it was disingenuous in its design. 
 Upon either hypothesis, the official accuracy of Mr. Rose 
 is equally conspicuous. 
 
 The passage in which alone the words objected to by 
 Mr. Rose are found, relates to the disappointment of 
 those expectations, which Argyle might have naturally 
 
408 A VINDICATION OP* 
 
 section entertained on his first landing, of being joined by various 
 
 classes of disaffected persons. The words themselves are 
 
 applied, not to the soldiers, who either dispersed or 
 pursued the followers of Argyle, but to those who 
 before and at the time of his landing had been employed, 
 or were then actually employed in keeping down the 
 disaffected in different parts of the country. 
 
 Fox, p. 121. My p OXj \ n an earlier part of his work, has given a 
 
 most striking account of the desperate situation, to which 
 the Cameronians and other prosecuted persons had been 
 driven. Twelve counties had been given up to a sort of 
 military execution, and the brutality of the soldiers is 
 
 ii>. p. 122. described to have been " such as might be expected from 
 *' an Army let loose from all restraint, and employed to 
 '* execute the poyal justice, as it was called, upon 
 *' wretches." " The carnage became every day more gene- 
 " ral and more indiscriminate ; and the murder of peasants, 
 " in their iiouses or while employed at their usual ivork in 
 " the field, by the soldiers was not only not reproved or 
 "punished, but deemed a meritorious service by their supe- 
 ? rio?'s." This was the dreadful state of a large portion 
 of the population of Scotland, and the description is given 
 in the words of Mr. Fox that there may be no possibility 
 of a mistake as to his meaning, which Mr. Rose has so 
 
 tb. p. 188. distorted. After reprobating a perverse disposition, which 
 he supposes to have prevailed among, and influenced the 
 conduct of these unfortunate wretches, he says in the 
 
MR, FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 
 
 passage alluded to by Mr. Rose, " hence, those even, section 
 
 " whose situation was the most desperate, who were — 
 
 " either wandering about the fields, or seeking refuge 
 " in rocks and caverns from the authorized assassins, who 
 " were on every side pursuing them, did not all join in 
 " Argyle's cause with that frankness and cordiality, which 
 41 teas to be expected.*' It is immaterial lo inquire whether 
 Mr. Rose approves, or not, of .the application of these 
 epithets to soldiers thus employed in the carnage of 
 unresisting subjects. It is sufficient on the present occasion 
 that the imputation upon Mr. Fox is not supported by any 
 proof produced, and that Mr. Rose has exhibited not only 
 a fresh specimen of incorrectness and inaccuracy, but 
 of inconsistency also in expressing displeasure at the 
 armed agents of a King, when employed in the work of 
 assassination, being described by an appropriate appella- 
 tion, after he has himself described that King to be a 
 traitor to his country. 
 
 ; not re- 
 
 Mr, Rose still combating the phantoms existing only d, cs , 
 in his own disturbed imagination, as a sort of a corollary f,^ n te « e of 
 from that opinion, for which we have shewn there was no K ' nss " 
 foundation, observes, " To what a state must that country ^ 
 " be reduced when every soldier who takes up a musket 
 " in defence of a legitimate Prince shall be considered 
 " as an assassin, if that Prince shall in any instance have 
 '■ exceeded the just limits of his prerogative." It would 
 indeed be a miserable state for the country, and still more 
 
 3 G 
 
V 
 
 410 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section miserable for the soldier ; but what would Mr. Rose say 
 — — — if the soldier should, with wanton cruelty and brutality, 
 exceed the orders of his King, and yet be applauded, and 
 encouraged by him in such dreadful excesses ; what 
 would be the proper appellation for such a soldier, and 
 what Mr. Rose's opinion of such a Prince ? It is perhaps 
 hardly fair to put the question, for when he sets up Monk 
 and Montrose as virtuous characters, or at least as fit to 
 be compared with such, because they committed brilliant 
 crimes in the service of Kings, it would be unjust in him 
 to withhold from their most humble agents the proportion 
 of praise due to subordinate wickedness in the same 
 Cause. 
 
 Mr. Rose seems to have forgotten his reverence for 
 Kings, when he boldly says, "' Rebellion is generally 
 " Justice and Patriotism in the belief of the Rebel," but 
 he also tells us that impartial history in examining its 
 title to those attributes " is not to forget the probable 
 " motives or feelings of that party, with whose political 
 " opinions those of the author do not accord. This part 
 " of an historian's duty Mr. Fox seems to have over- 
 " looked. He is the accuser rather than the judge of 
 " every man attached to the government of the time." 
 Here Mr. Rose evidently alludes to the appellation he 
 has so incorrectly supposed Mr. Fox had applied to the 
 soldiers, who had opposed Argyle's designs. But if it is 
 meant to include persons of a higher description, Mr.. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORIC.^, WORK. #lf 
 
 Rose may perhaps upon consideration think that he has section 
 
 been too hasty in casting this reproach upon Mr. Fox. 
 
 He is writing an account of one of the most disgraceful 
 reigns to be found in the English History, equalled only, 
 perhaps, by the one which preceded it, of which also he 
 gives a Sketch. The Ministers and Servants of bad Kings 
 generally partake of the vices and are involved in the 
 crimes of their Masters, yet because they are attached to 
 royalty in Mr. Rose's system a general amnesty is to be 
 granted, and their characters and conduct to pass without 
 reprobation or chastisement ? Not so with Mr. Fox ; in 
 his Historical Work he has fairly and candidly weighed 
 the merits of all, who were attached to the Government 
 of the time, of which he treats, and if unfortunately he 
 finds little to praise and much to blame, can it be justly 
 imputed to him as a fault? He has not overlooked his 
 duty in this respect, but has performed it faithfully. 
 
 It may have occurred to the reader that the discussion Mr. Rose give* 
 here provoked by Mr. Rose is somewhat extraordinary. Hume. 
 He professes to be the zealous friend, of the Patriot Sir 
 Patrick Hume, yet upon his own system Sir Patrick was 
 a rebel, and though his conscience might pronounce him 
 innocent, yet there was a guilt incurred by him against 
 the existing Government. If instead of Argyle, Sir 
 Patrick Hume had been condemned to death, and he had 
 been taken in open rebellion, so that nobody could enter- 
 
 3 g 2 
 
412 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section tain a doubt about his guilt, the conscience of a counsellor, 
 
 Mr. Rose must argue, who should have unjustly ordered 
 
 his execution, could not have been excited to any strong 
 feelings of remorse, at least the sensation would not have 
 been the same, as if it had been the murder of an innocent 
 man. But. this attachment to the memory of the ances- 
 tor of Mr. Rose's friend is so powerful as to supersede for a 
 moment his attachment for Kings, for though in order to 
 Rose 190 inculpate Argyle, he says, " whatever James's conduct 
 " might have been as Duke of York, he had at the time 
 " of Argyle's invasion done no one act in the least degree 
 " blameable,- except that of levying his brother's revenue 
 " by his own authority," which the Parliament did not 
 resent, but granted it with unanimity, yet Mr. Rose had in 
 the preceding page given us to understand that afterwards 
 the full measure of the Monarch's tyrannical usurpation 
 made resistance a duty paramount to every consideration 
 of personal or public danger. Mr. Rose at last discovers 
 that he is a Whig and acknowledges that, notwithstanding 
 his affection for Kings and Ministers, resistance may 
 become a paramount duty: we may now presume, that if 
 the measure of James's tyrannical usurpation had been in 
 Mr. Rose's opinion full when the counsellor was so much 
 agitated at seeing Argyle asleep, there would have been 
 nothing wonderful in it. Had Mr. Rose been that Coun- 
 sellor, upon his own principles, he must have contempla- 
 ted the sleeping hero not as a criminal and traitor, but 
 a patriot. His feelings at viewing the victim he had 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 413 
 
 unjustly condemned might not only have been diminish- section 
 ed by the recollection of his having been found in arms - ■—■■ 
 against his Sovereign, but might have been roused to 
 an extreme degree of agitation by the recollection that 
 he had done an act, which was to operate not merely 
 to the destruction of the life of an innocent and highly 
 deserving man, but to deprive his country of the impor- 
 tant advantages he had risked his life to procure for it. But 
 upon these principles, will Mr. Rose say that resistance 
 may not become a duty under possible circumstances, 
 without a King having done more than one arbitrary act? 
 Upon this point we will content ourselves with observing 
 that in the declaration of rights, many acts of Charles the 
 Second are enumerated among those which justified the 
 Revolution in the ensuing reign ; and Sir Patrick Hume, 
 makes his own justification to depend principally upon Hu me's n,™-, 
 the apprehensions, he entertained, of James carrying on p " 7 " 
 " his terrible work of settling and rivctting popery and 
 " tyranny in, and eradicating Christianity and liberty, the 
 " chief blessings of a society, out of these nations." 
 
 Mr. Rose, when professing to tread with respect on sir Patrick 
 the ashes of the dead, denies that Argyle was the hero embarked : 
 
 i-1-.cr- i -i l- i • i ii under Argyle, 
 
 which Mr. Fox descrioes him to be, mentions the small- Kose p 183 . 
 ness of the number of persons he was able to attach to 
 his fortunes after he left Holland, as marking the distrust 
 of his ability to conduct them, but forgets that in this 
 statement he pays no compliment to the sagacity and 
 
*14 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 SECTION 
 VI. 
 
 discernment of Sir Patrick Hume, who had so rashly 
 placed himself under his command. It appears also by 
 his narrative now published, that Sir Patrick before he 
 engaged in the expedition was not satisfied that Argyle 
 was assured of being properly supported when he should 
 arrive in Scotland, that he repeatedly applied to Argyle 
 for satisfaction upon this point, and notwithstanding his 
 most earnest solicitations was never indulged with any 
 satisfactory information. He therefore embarked in the 
 expedition, according to Mr. Rose, not only without a 
 just cause for resistance, but without any rational prospect 
 of success, as far as his own personal knowledge could 
 extend, and under a leader, whom Mr. Rose characterizes, 
 as deficient in ability to conduct such an expedition. 
 
 Want of in- 
 formation 
 about Mon- 
 mouth's in- 
 vasion. 
 
 Rose, p. 190. 
 
 Mr. Rose introduces the subject of Monmouth's in- 
 vasion, by lamenting again " the want of materials on 
 " the part of Mr. Fox." This was a source of regret to 
 him also, and if Mr. Rose had favoured him with a 
 copy of the interesting paper from the Buccleugh family 
 which he has now presented to the public, it would 
 have been most thankfully received. But whether it 
 was known to Mr. Fox or not, or why if known to him 
 he had not the opportunity of perusing it, neither Mr. 
 Rose, nor any body else can now possibly ascertain. 
 
 Fox, p. 228, 
 •348. 
 
 Mr. Fox informs us that his account of Monmouth's 
 expedition is taken chiefly from Wade's Narrative, which 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 415 
 
 is published in the second volume of die Hardwick State section 
 Papers, he compliments Wade upon the authenticity of ' 
 
 the document, but observes that it is imperfect, because 
 the author relates only those circumstances of which he 
 was an eye witness. It is observable that Wade's Narra- 
 tive is entitled his " Further Information," and the pre- 
 ceding part being lost, we have no account from him 
 of any communications made to Monmouth, before his 
 embarkation, of the state of that part of England in 
 which he landed, nor, from his confining his information 
 to what he saw himself, are we made acquainted, with the 
 steps taken by the people in the country to support 
 Monmouth after his arrival. Mr. Fox also mentions 
 that the time when Monmouth quitted the field, and 
 the conduct of Lord Grey after the defeat, with many 
 other particulars are very difficult to be made out. To 
 supply these defects in some degree, an account of the 
 rebellion of the Duke of Monmouth in a letter to Dr. 
 James, from the Reverend Mr. Andrew Paschall of 
 Chedsey in Somersetshire is inserted in the Appendix to 
 this Work. It is to be found among Bishop Gibson's 
 papers preserved in the British Museum.- The residence 
 of Mr. Paschall was close to the field of battle, and he 
 professes to give some account of the ; preparations made 
 for Monmouth's reception, and then what fell out next in 
 that part of the country, which from his being present he 
 had an opportunity to observe himself. In the Hardwick 
 State Papers we have not only Wade's Further Information, 
 
4*6 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section Dl U another narrative supposed to be drawn up by King 
 — — — — James himself, but as Mr. Paschall's account is the only 
 one known to be written by a person upon the spot 
 and on the side of the King, it is inserted in the Appendix 
 to this work, and will he found to supply many interesting 
 particulars hitherto not laid before the public. 
 
 R«e. akeofM '' Mr. F° x 's account of Monmouth's invasion having 
 in general escaped without animadversion, we shall only 
 point out a single mistake into which Mr. Rose has 
 
 Rose, P . 205. fallen, in stating that Mr. Fox supposes that Monmouth 
 had given up all hopes of pardon on quitting James 
 
 Fox, P . 260. after their interview. Mr. Fox copies Bishop Kennett's 
 relation, " who has been followed by, most of our mo. 
 " dern historians," stating that " he rose up from his 
 " Majesty's feet with a new air of bravery and was carried 
 " back to the Tower." Upon which Mr. Fox remarks 
 that H the demeanor attributed to him upon finding the 
 " King inexorable is consistent enough with general 
 " probability, and his particular character.'' 1 We have 
 seen repeated instances of Mr. Rose's inattention upon si- 
 milar occasions, his charge against Mr. Fox of having 
 adopted the supposed censure upop Sir Patrick Hume, 
 which was the cause of his writing the Observations is 
 one, and here Mr. Fox has barely stated what Bishop 
 Rennet has said, with an observation that it is not 
 unlikely to be true. The conduct of Monmouth in 
 .".cherishing the hope of pardon probably surprized his 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 417 
 
 friends, and those who with him, wished to see a change section 
 
 of government, and the religion and liberty of their 
 
 country rescued from danger. Among them the opinion 
 of James's possessing a severe and inexorable heart was 
 deeply rooted,, and formed one of the principal grounds 
 for their apprehensions. But that Monmouth did en- 
 tertain these hopes seems to have been generally agreed. 
 Lord Lonsdale in his Memoir says " he was brought Lonsdale's 
 **• up to London, dined at Chivinck's lodgings, where he 
 *' saw the King, and both there and by letters asked 
 " for pardon. What argumejits he had to hope it would 
 " be granted, were not certain*. 
 
 * Dalrymple mentions a family tradition, that on the morning of .. „ 
 Monmouth's execution, James breakfasted with his Dutchess and p. 1*4. 
 delivered her a grant of her great family estate, which had fallen to the 
 Crown by her husband's attainder. In an abtsract of royal grants in 
 the possession of the Author of these sheets, it is stated that in the 
 month of January, 1674/5, 36 and 37 Car. 2. a grant was made 
 to the Trustees of the Manors of Spalding and Holbech for 99 years, 
 from the death of his Majesty's Royal Consort at the rent of £b. 
 per annum, and also of an acre of land near the Mews, and stables 
 built thereon, for 29 years from the 15th of August, 1689, at the 
 like rent, for the life of the Dutchess of Monmouth, for her separate 
 use, with remainders over to her children. And there is the abstract 
 of another grant in the same month to the same trustees, of all the 
 Chattels real, Goods and Chattels, "forfeited by the Duke of Mon- 
 fff mouth" (except the leases before mentioned) in trust that the 
 trustees " shall convey the lease of the house, which the said Duke 
 " had building for him in Soho Square, to Anthony Ward and Andrew 
 •' Care, upon their payment of .£1200, to the Dutchess of Monmouth. 
 " And as to the rest of the Chattels and Goods shall suffer the 
 
 3 H 
 
SECTION 
 VI. 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 The public are under obligations to Mr. Rose for pre- 
 senting them in his Appendix with a very interesting 
 account of the actions and behaviour of Monmouth, from 
 the time of his being brought to London to his execution, 
 which has been mentioned before. It is the more valu- 
 able, because it fills up a chasm in the history of this 
 unfortunate Nobleman, which historians have generally 
 lamented, and among them Mr. Fox. Bishop Kennett, 
 but not Mr. Fox as Mr. Rose states, says that Monmouth 
 upon quitting the King after their interview gave up all 
 hopes of a pardon, and prepared himself for death, 
 and this Mr. Fox adds is consistent with probability and 
 his general character. But this document informs us 
 that he employed the greatest part of his time on the 
 evening of that day, and during part of the next, in 
 soliciting his friends and making interest in every possible 
 channel, that his life might be spared, or his execution 
 
 '■' Dutchess to enjoy them so long as she lives, with further appoint- 
 " ments thereof to her children." But in January, 1685/6, a grant 
 is mentioned to have been made to Ann Dutchess of Buccleugh and 
 her heirs, of the great House or Lodge, and Park called Moor Park, and 
 Messuages and Lands lying in Rickmansworth, in the County of Herts, 
 or near thereunto adjoining, " forfeited to his Majesty by the attainder 
 ** of James late Duke of Monmouth." Whether Moor Park ever had 
 been part of the family estate of the Dutchess is not stated. The 
 date of the two first of these entries must be incorrect, for the grants 
 are supposed to have been made in the reign of Charles the Second, 
 and six months before Monmouth's attainder, possibly they ought to 
 have been dated as of the January in the subsequent year, when the 
 grant of Moor Park was made. 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 419 
 
 respited. And when he was satisfied that all his efforts s£ ction 
 
 were ineffectual and his execution must take place on the — 
 
 morrow, he assumed a firmness of mind, and conducted 
 himself in all the trying circumstances of the remaining 
 hours of his life with a degree of fortitude and resolution, 
 which has seldom been equalled, and cannot be surpassed 
 in history. 
 
 It would have given great pleasure to the author of 
 this work, L Mr. Rose had ended his fifth section and 
 closed his labours w'-w Monmouth's invasion. We have 
 gone on for so many pages in good humour, that it is 
 mortifying to be called again to hostilities. Mr. Rose thinks 
 it necessary to conclude with a sort of recapitulation of 
 his motives for writing the Observations, and in doing this 
 repeats the supposed errors and defects in the Historical 
 Work, which have called for animadversion. Again he 
 boasts of his impartiality, and prides himself upon the 
 caution and delicacy, with which he conceives he has 
 performed the task. Mr. Rose no doubt believes that he 
 is entitled to the praise he claims, but to the reader it is 
 left to say whether still living in the atmosphere of party 
 he has been, or upon his own principles can be, a com- 
 petent judge of his own feelings and conduct. 
 
 Of Mr. Rose's original motive for criticising Mr. Fox's Mr. Fox does 
 work, now repeated for the tenth time, enough and more Monarch*, 
 than enough has been said already. But, ** as a friend 
 
 f H 2 
 
420 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section «'t the British constitution," it seems that Mr. Rose, 
 
 VI. 
 
 in the course of his investigation met with a more public 
 and general kind of object which he " became equally 
 " solicitous to attain." He tells us, what in theory sounds 
 well, that the equipoise of the component parts of our 
 Rose, p. ai9. constitution, " the Monarchical, the Aristocratical, and 
 <e the popular, is the basis of the system : — that equipoise 
 ■•'■' will be in danger of being lost, or its useful exercise 
 " very much impeded, if the people shall be taught con- 
 " temptuous notions of any of these component parts, 
 v or aggravated ideas of its probable abuse." As it 
 might be difficult to prove that the equipoise, here 
 alluded to, ever existed, it is not necessary to inquire what 
 might be the consequence in case it should be in danger 
 of being lost, or its useful exercise impeded. 
 
 Rose,p.ais. Laying aside all trifling and verbal criticisms, we 
 acknowledge that Mr. Rose at last speaks out and avows, 
 that he wrote, because Mr. Fox's book seemed to be 
 calculated, or rather to have a tendency to degrade and 
 vilify a limited monarchy in the minds of the people. Yet 
 with his usual inconsistency, he begins his recapitulation 
 of the proofs he has produced by an observation, which 
 would be a complete justification of Mr. Fox's conduct, 
 if it had been such as he has described. He says 
 *' Mr. Fox's work exhibits royalty at a time, and amidst 
 *' a train of events in which the tyranny of the Sovereign 
 /,' at home was not redeemed or alleviated by glory or 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 421 
 
 " success abroad." Under these circumstances is Mr. sect,' 01 * 
 
 Fox to blame, if he can say nothing good of these Kings ? — — — — - • 
 or why is he to be charged with having written to degrade 
 and vilify monarchs in general, because he has traced the 
 prevailing vices of some who have disgraced a throne in 
 terms less offensive than Mr. Rose himself has done ? 
 does Mr. Rose claim the exclusive right of describing 
 these vices ? or of prescribing the terms in which others 
 shall do it? The next complaint is that Mr. Fox speaking 
 incidentally of Cromwell's usurpation, has only noticed its 
 energy and not its injustice. Mr. Rose however, justifies 
 Air. Fox for only mentioning it incidentally, by ad- 
 mitting, that it does not fall within the period to which he 
 had limited himself; and it is also acknowledged that, 
 glory and success attended it. 
 
 The remaining facts mentioned have been fully dis- Mr. Foxdew 
 cussed and answered already, except the last, which is fromthe a Revo- 
 noticed in terms intelligible perhaps to some of our rea- 
 ders. The words are, " and professing admiration of Rose, p.au. 
 ■" the revolution of 1688, he has deprived it of some of 
 Xi those honours which every inhabitant of this favoured 
 " country is bound to acknowledge with that reverence 
 -" and attachment due," &c. of what honours Mr. Fox 
 has deprived the revolution, or in what manner we are 
 not informed. And to what part of Mr. Fox's work this 
 observation is intended to allude, it is not easy to conjec- 
 ture ; for he thought most highly of the revolution? 
 
4*2 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 section an d manifested his partiality to it by selecting it as the 
 object of his Historical Work. He would not willingly 
 have deprived it of any honours, which Mr. Rose could 
 wish it to be distinguished by. Possibly, but it is mere 
 conjecture, Mr. Rose had in view the compliment sup- 
 posed to be paid to the year 1679, as the great aera of 
 theoretical perfection. But it has been shewn in the 
 first section that, perfect as the constitution was in theory 
 in that year, it is not disputed that there were still further 
 improvements made at, and after the Revolution. 
 
 Mr. Rose then renews his assurances, that though 
 he has differed from Mr. Fox with freedom and zeal, 
 yet he hopes he has done it temperately, and with 
 fairness and candour. That he has done it with freedom 
 and zeal, and thinks he has done it with fairness and can- 
 dour, may be admitted. 
 
 Mr. Fox has 
 sot sacrificed 
 the truth of 
 history. 
 
 Mr. Rose in his concluding paragraph boasts of his 
 speaking " impersonally," and he hopes it will be al- 
 lowed justly, when he makes a ..general observation res- 
 pecting the proper province of history, but the last 
 sentence evidently shews that though he might be 
 speaking justly he was not speaking impersonally, if 
 Rose, P . 215. by that word is meant, without reference to any per- 
 son. His words are " But history cannot connect 
 " itself with party without forfeiting its name ; without 
 '* departing from the truth, the dignity and the use- 
 
MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK. 423 
 
 fulness of its functions.'* After the remarks he has section 
 
 made in some of his preceding pages, and the apo~ ■ 
 logy 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 in- 
 sinuated 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 use- 
 fulness 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 re- 
 spect to its meaning. If it is 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 is 
 the character which Mr. Rose would give to ftlr. Fox's 
 labours, he has not treated 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 observation should be applied 
 to all histories, the authors of which have felt strongly 
 the influence of political connections and principles, 
 
424 
 
 A VINDICATION OF 
 
 ' E vi! 01 what must become of most of the histories of England? 
 Is the title of historian to be denied to Mr. Hume? and 
 in what class are to be placed Echard, Kennet, Rapin, 
 Dalrymple, or Macpherson? In this point of view the 
 principle laid down is too broad. A person, though 
 connected with party, may write an impartial history 
 of events, which occurred a century before, and, till this 
 last sentence, Mr. Rose has not ventured to intimate that 
 Mr. Fox has not done so. On the contrary, he has 
 declared his approbation of a great portion of the Work, 
 and his attempts to discover material errors in the re- 
 mainder, have uniformly failed in every particular. If 
 it might be assumed that there existed in the book no 
 faults, besides those which the scrutinizing eye of Mr. 
 Rose has discovered, it might be justly deemed the 
 most perfect work that ever came from the press; for 
 not a single deviation from the strictest duty of a his- 
 torian has been pointed out, while instances of candour 
 and impartiality present themselves in almost every page, 
 and Mr. Rose himself has acknowledged and applauded, 
 many of them. 
 
\ 
 
 APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 I. Historical Account of the Tenure, by which the Judges held then- 
 
 Offices under the House of Stuart, and List of most of those, who 
 were removed for political causes. 
 
 II. Letter from Charles II. to the Chancellor, concerning the Execu- 
 
 tion of Sir Henry Vane. 
 
 III. Letter from Mr. J. Aprice to Mr. William Linwood, giving an 
 Account of the Reconciliation of Charles II, to the Romish 
 Church in his last Illness. 
 
 IV. Account of the Duke of Monmouth's Invasion by the Reverend 
 Mr. Andrew Paschall, of Chedsey. 
 
 V* Defence of Bishop Burnet's Veracity in the Statement of Historical 
 Facts, and Circumstances. 
 
 3 1 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 I. Historical Account of the Tenure by xohich the Judges held their 
 Offices under the House of Stuart, and List of most of those, 
 who were removed for Political Causes. 
 
 IT is stated by Mr. Rose, that on a search in the Rolls, it appears that Rose> p 35j 
 
 during the reigns of Elizabeth and James the First, " the commissions note- 
 
 " of the Chief Justices of the King's Bench were general, without any 
 
 « specification of the tenure," and of course they were removeable at 
 
 the pleasure of the King. Sir Francis Bacon in a paper addressed to Bacon'sWorks, 
 
 James the First, advising about the displacing of Sir Edward Coke from 
 
 this office, considers this power as a personal prerogative of the King ; 
 
 his words are, " considering he holdeth his place but during your will 
 
 * and pleasure, nor the choice of a fit man to be put in his room are 
 
 " council Kkble matters, but are to proceed wholly from your Majesty's 
 
 " great wisdom and gracious pleasure. So that it is but the significa- 
 
 " tion of your pleasure, and the business is at an end as to him." Mr. 
 
 Rose also "informs us that the puisne Judges of both the King's Bench, 
 
 and Common Pleas, held by the express words of their patents, quam 
 
 diu nobis placuerit*, that the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas held 
 
 also by the same tenure, but that the Chief Baron, and other Barons 
 
 of theExchequer were appointed quam diu se bene gesserint. 
 
 • It rs hardly worth noticing that this is not the usual expression, by which a 
 tenure ai the will of the Crown is described. 
 
 3 12 
 
iv APPENDIX. No. I. 
 
 Charles the First took an early opportunity of manifesting the arbi- 
 trary notions, which had accompanied him to the throne, by the removal 
 of Sir Randolf Crew from the office of Chief Justice of the King's Bench, 
 in the second year of his reign. He also displaced Sir Robert Heath 
 Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, but was baffled in his attempt to 
 remove Sir John Walter, who was Chief Baron of the Exchequer, for 
 he refused to surrender his patent, which was guam diu se bene gesserit, 
 and continued in office till his death, though upon the command of the 
 King he had declined sitting in Court. His successor Sir Humphrey 
 Davenport, as Mr. Rose says, in the sixth year of the reign of Charles, 
 accepted a patent by which he was made to hold at the pleasure of the 
 King, and is probably the first Chief Baron of the Exchequer, who ever 
 was so appointed. Mr. Rose says, that the patents of the other Barons 
 «' were afterwards conformable" to his, whence it might be concluded 
 that they so continued, at least for the remainder of this reign. But 
 the patents of the Chief and other the Barons of the Exchequer, 
 soon afterwards ceased for a time to be determinable at will, as will 
 be stated presently, though for some years after the change made in 
 Sir Humphry Davenport's case, all the Judges without exception held 
 their offices at the pleasure of the King. 
 
 When the House of Commons in a subsequent period of this reign, 
 were making inquiries respecting the conduct of the Judges, and pre- 
 paring to impeach some of them for their judgments in the case of ship 
 money, and other supposed offences, the alteration which the King had 
 Rusbw. iii. made in the tenure of these great judicial offices, and the arbitrary re- 
 movals which had taken place naturally fell under the consideration of 
 the House of Commons. And when Mr. Hollis went up with the articles 
 of impeachment, he prayed in his concluding speech, in the name of 
 the House of Commons, that the Lords would join them in an address 
 to the King on the behalf of Sir Randolf Crew, who had been long re- 
 moved from his office of Chief Justice of the King's Bench. The Lords 
 seem not to have noticed this application, but to have taken up the 
 business of the patents of the Judges without asking the concurrence, 
 or having any communication with the Commons, for in the Journals 
 of the latter are no entries concerning them. But the Lords' Journals 
 
 1358. 
 
 Pari. Hist. ix. 
 
APPENDIX. No. I. ^ 
 
 contain very satisfactory information. On the lith of January, 1640, Lords' joum 
 
 Lords' Committees were appointed to consider about a particular bill, v ' p " 
 
 and likewise to consider of Judges holding their places durante 
 
 bene placito. On the 12th, certain Lords were deputed " to attend his lb. p. no 
 
 " Majest}-, and present the humble desires of this House," that he 
 
 would be pleased, " that the Justices of the King's Bench and Common 
 
 " Pleas, and Barons of the Exchequer, and Attorney of the Court 
 
 " of Wards and Liveries may hold their places by patent, quam diu 
 
 " se bene gesserint, and not durante bene placito." On the 13th, the n>. p. m. 
 
 Lords were appointed to wait upon the King in the afternoon ; and lb. p. 132 
 
 on the 1. 5th, the Earl Marshal and the Lord Chamberlain reported 
 
 that they had presented to his Majesty the humble desire of the 
 
 House, " that all the Justices of the King's Bench and Court of 
 
 " Common Pleas, and the Barons of the Exchequer that go circuits, 
 
 ct may hold their places by patent from his Majesty quam diu se bene 
 
 " gesserint, and not durante bene placito ; unto which request his Majesty 
 
 " is graciously pleased to condescend." 
 
 In consequence of this arrangement the patent of Thomas Mallet, Rymer, Feed 
 one of the Justices of the Common Pleas, dated the 1st of July, 1641, xx- P- - 517 - 
 was made quavi diu se bene gesserit. And four days afterwards, when R lls h, 
 the King gave the royal assent to the bills for taking away the High p ' :5<i6 
 Commission Court, and regulating the Court of Star Chamber, he said 
 in his speech, " If you consider what I have done this Parliament, 
 u discontents will not sit in your hearts; for I hope you remember, 
 " that I hare granted that the Judges hereafter shall hold their places 
 " quam diu se bene gesserint. " The King probably was faithful to his 
 promise, and the patents of the Judges altered for the remainder of his 
 reign. Besides Sir Thomas Mallet, there were, according to the Poli- 
 tical Index, (which with respect to the judicial lists, is so inaccurate 
 as not much to be relied upon) the following Judges made between 
 the time when the King assented to the alteration, and the end of 
 his reign, viz. on the 23rd of January, 1640, Sir Robert Heath a 
 Judge of the King's Bench ; on the 29th of the same month, Sir John 
 Banks Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; and the 3tst of January 
 
 1W. Ill 
 
APPENDIX. No. T. 
 
 1643, Sir Robert Brerevvood a Judge of the King's Bench. But the 
 Parliament was not satisfied, and, in the petition and propositions for 
 peace of both houses presented to the King in the latter end of 
 January, 1642, desired the King to restore Sir John Bramston, who 
 had been removed from the office of Chief Justice of the King's 
 Bench, and fill all the Judges places with persons named by them, 
 and also that they, and all the Judges for the time to tome, might 
 hold their places quam diu se bene gesserint. 
 
 During the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, either the patents of the 
 Barons of the Exchequer and of the other Courts must have been 
 made out durante bene placito only, or he disregarded them alto- 
 gether, for he removed a Baron of the Exchequer, and a Judge of 
 the Court of Upper Bench, (which was the name then given to the 
 Court of King's Bench,) as appears from the following list. 
 
 Charles the Second, for some time after his restoration, continued 
 p. 1366. the alteration his father had adopted, and Hyde was made Chief 
 
 Justice of the King's Bench, Bridgman first Chief Baron and then 
 Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Forster a Judge of the King's 
 Bench, and then Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and they, 
 as well as others who were raised to the Bench, held their offices 
 quam diu se bene gesserint. But for what period of time the pa- 
 tents of the Judges were continued in this form, I have been unable 
 Ventr. Rep. i. to trace. It is probable that a change was made before Dighton's 
 case, which came before the Court of King's Bench in Trinity Term-, 
 22 Car. II. (1670) for then the offices of judicature in West- 
 minster were mentioned by the Court to be held only durante bene 
 placito. But it was not till the year 1672, after the Duke of York 
 had declared his conversion to the catholic religion, and the King 
 was driven to extremities, that a formal- attack was made upon 
 the independency of the Judges ; steps were then taken to remove 
 Archer one of the Justices of the Common Pleas, he resisted, 
 relying upon, his patent from the reigning King,, which was quam 
 diu se ben-e gesserit, but submitted, to the King's order not to appear* 
 
 Rusbw. iii. 
 
Vlt 
 
 APPENDIX. No. I. 
 
 in Court. It is probable that without any noise being made upon the 
 subject, all the subsequent patents of the Judges were made to hold 
 at the pleasure of the King. Wei wood remarks that the better to hold 
 a rod over the Judges, the clause guattn din se bene gesserit was left 
 out of their patents, and a new clause durante bene placito inserted, 
 but he does not fix the time when that alteration was made. The 
 attempt to remove Archer, was made in the Christmas vacation of 
 1672, and Sir William Wild, who was appointed a Judge: of the 
 King's Bench in the next Hilary Term, and- Sir Robert Atkins, whn 
 was placed on the Bench of the Common Pleas in the succeeding 
 Easter Term, were both removed by the King in 1679, without 
 any contest, while none of the Judges, appointed previous to 1672, 
 appear to have been disturbed in their offices. 
 
 The first removal of Judges, holding under these new patents, 
 was in the year 1679, when there was a change of measures, and 
 an appointment of a popular privy council. Four Judges were 
 then removed without Historians having assigned any particular 
 reason for it, but the Duke of York describes them as loval subiects DaL Mein -*' 
 
 i i r i_ • . , . , . J J » p. 266. 
 
 and speaks or their successors as appointed with intention to fall 
 upon him, and being men, who would find what they please to be 
 law. The following list renders it unnecessary to state the par- 
 ticulars of each separate removal in this, or the ensuing reign. 
 
 In the year 1680, the leaders of the popular party in Parliament Mac P h - Stat - 
 
 Pap. i 111. 
 
 were desirous to be upon good terms with the King, and, among the 
 propositions they offered, one was that the patents of the Judges 
 should be altered, and made quam diu se bene gesserint, but a change 
 of administration taking place shortly afterwards, Charles returned 
 to his former arbitrary system of Government, and the Judges con- 
 tinued to hold at his pleasure. In the remainder of his reign it will 
 be seen by the list, that he made several removals. 
 
 Upon the demise of a King the patents of all the Judges expired Show. Rep. 
 of course, and it so happened that Charles the Second dying about "' p " 25 
 ten in the morning upon Friday the 6th of February, 1685. when 
 
viii APPENDIX. No. I. 
 
 the Courts were sitting, the intelligence vas brought, and they all 
 rose. The next morning the patents of ail the Judges were renewed, 
 they were svVorn in at the Lord Keepers House, and came into Court 
 as usual and heard a few motions, the King's Counsel being without the 
 bar, because their patents were not then renewed. In the reign of 
 James, the prerogative of the Crown was frequently exercised in the 
 removal of judges, for in the short space of four years thirteen were 
 made to feel their dependence upon the Crown. But three of these 
 were removed by the King when, reduced to the last extremity, he 
 endeavoured to preserve his throne by submitting to the wishes of his 
 people and may be deducted from this number. Considering that many 
 of the remaining ten were promoted in this reign, and that no means 
 were left untried to make them subservient to the pleasure of the 
 King, it is matter of surprise that there should be found so many de- 
 ficient in courtly pliancy. In the year 1686, four, whom Sir John" 
 Reresby describes as gentlemen of great learning and loyalty, were 
 dismissed at once, because when closetted by the King they had the 
 courage to refuse to give their opinion in favour of the power of the 
 Crown to dispense with penal statutes. Two were removed in 1687 
 for resisting the illegal execution of a convicted felon, a transaction 
 which reflects the greatest ignominy on the character of James, and 
 stains his memory with one of the foulest of crimes. And in 1688 
 two more were dismissed, because they gave opinions upon the Bench 
 in favour of criminals tried before them. It is remarkable that of 
 the Judges discharged from their offices, in this and the preceding 
 reign, there does not appear to have been one, who by any flagrant 
 act of immorality or corruption, was in the general opinion of the 
 public unworthy of filling a seat upon, the Bench. 
 
 James, just before his flight, recalled the Patents of one of *&ie 
 Judges of the King's Bench and two of the Barons of the Ex- 
 chequer, and left vacant the seat of one of the Barons, who had 
 died not long before. 
 
 skin. Rep. King James did not withdraw himself till the llth day of De- 
 
 p ' " cember, 1687-8, after the close of Michaelmas Term (4 Jac, 2.) but 
 
APPENDIX. No. I. i« 
 
 the Judges who were in tovrn continued to act, and in some counties skm. Rep. p. 
 a session of the peace was held, and writs were issued tested the last 
 day of Michaelmas term. The Judges who happened to he in town, 
 viz. Street, Stringer, and Rotheram, intended to have held the Es- 
 soigns regularly on the Essoign day, hut they were forbid on the day 
 before. There seems to have been a difference of opinion, whether 
 the King's privately retiring beyond sea was to be considered as a de- 
 mise of the crown or not ; some held that it was, and consequently that 
 the commissions of the Judges were determined and none of them 
 ou^ht to have acted afterwards. In fact, however, Hilary term was Mod. Rep. iii. 
 not kept ; and King William and Queen Mary afterwards appointed 
 new Judges to "fill the benches of all the Courts, as if the commissions 
 of the old Judges had expired regularly by a demise of the crown. 
 And this was d* Be', Burnet tells us, so as to give universal satisfaction. Bum. O. T. ii. 
 The Kin» ordered every Privy Counsellor to make out a list of twelve p * ' 
 names, and out of them " twelve very learned and worthy Judges 
 " were chosen." On the first day of Easter term, 17th of April, 168!) , 
 the Courts were opened, and Sir John Holt and Sir William Dolben Clar . Diary, 
 sat in t,.e Court of King's Bench, the former as Chief Justice ; in the p- 183 - 
 Common Pleas, Sir John Powell and Sir William Gregory ; and in the 
 Exchequer, Sir Robert Atkins as ChiefTJaron, and Sir Edward Nevill ; 
 for as Lord Clarendon says, " These were all the Judges who were yet 
 " made; the rest who were designed not being yet Serjeants." As Sir 
 William Gregory was undoubtedly one of the Judges of the King's Moil . j^p. ;•;. 
 Bench when its number was full, there either must be a mistake in the P- s53< 
 Earl of Clarendon's statement, or Gregory must have been immedu 
 ately removed into the King's Bench ; and, according to Beatson, 
 (if he could be trusted,) that was the case ; for he states him to have 
 been made a Judge of the Common Pleas on the 17th of April, and of 
 the King's Bench on the 20th. Wynne also seems not to be correct, wvnne,p.89. 
 when, in his Treatise upon the Degree of Serjeants at Law, he men- 
 tions the name of John Powell a s orrfi oi mti called upon this 
 occa- ion, and as being now appointed one of the Judges of the Common 
 
 Pleas; for the Earl of Clarendon says, that Sir Poivell (unques- ^ 
 
 tionably meaning Sir John Powell,) sat in the Court pf Common Pleas 
 on the first day of Easter term, but the Sir John Powell, mentioned by 
 
 3 K 
 
x ^APPENDIX. No. I. 
 
 Wynne, was not made a Judge till some years afterwards. The fact is, that 
 there were two Powells, who were knights and had the Christian name 
 p< 1 1 ep ' of John ; and what is rather remarkable, they both sat together afterwards 
 (Hil. 7 W. 3.) as Judges of the Common Pleas, and thus the mis- 
 take may be easily accounted! for. The change made at the Revolu- 
 tion was so complete, that, of the Judges appointed by King James, 
 there does not appear to have been, a single one who was allowed to 
 resume his seat; and Sir William Dolben, Sir William Gregory, Sir 
 John Powell, Sir Robert Atkins, and Sir Edward Nevill, who had all 
 been displaced by him, were restored to the Bench. 
 
 l.dR ay, ii. 
 
 The writ of Sir John Holt was made out quamduc se bene gesserit, 
 and it is not to be doubted that the commissions of all the other Judges 
 p. 747. were made out in the same form, and so they probably continued till 
 
 the end of the reign of Queen Anne. This was done by order from 
 the crown, not in consequence of any interfere nee' of the legislature 
 for the statute of the 12 and 13 W. III. c. 2. s. 3. did not take effect 
 till after the decease of Queen Anne and King William, without issue. 
 By that act, which limited the crown to the Princess Sophia, Electress 
 and Dutchess Dowager of Hanover, and her descendants, it was enacted, 
 that after that limitation should take effect the commissions of the Judges 
 should be made guamdiu se bene gesserint, but that, upon an address of 
 both houses of parliament, it should be lawful to remove them. By the 
 7 and 8 W. 3. c. 28. s. 21. the commissions of the Judges were made to 
 remain in force for six months after the death or demise of the King, or 
 any of his successors. Upon the accession of Queen Anne, Sir John 
 Holt conceiving his appointment to be revoked, notwithstanding the 12. 
 and 13 W. 3. he and all the other Judges ceased to sit, and new com- 
 missions were issued to all of them except two; and though the Judges, 
 upon the accession of George the First, in consequence of this act, be- 
 came irremoveable by the Prince who called them to the bench, yet their 
 commissions continued as before to terminate upon a demise of the crown. 
 At the accession of George the First, three Judges were omitted in the 
 new appointments ; and at that of George the Second, being the first 
 after the before. mentioned limitation had taken effect, one Judge only 
 was not reappointed. 
 
APPENDIX. No.l. xi 
 
 When his present Majesty ascended the throne^ all the Judges who 
 had been in office at the demise of the late King, were without any 
 exception called upon to resume their seats. And on the 3d of March, 
 1761, his Majesty was pleased to point cut from the throne the incon- Com. Jouvn. 
 venience of the offices of the Judges being determined upon the 
 demise of the crown, or at the expiration of six months afterwards. 
 He declared that he looked upon " the independency and uprightness 
 " of the Judges of the land as essential to the impartial administration 
 " of justice, as one of the best securities to the rights and liberties" 
 of his loving subjects, " and as most conducive to the honour of the 
 " crown." He, therefore, recommended provision to be made to 
 prevent the inconvenience in future, and that he might be enabled to 
 grant such salaries to the Judges as he should think proper, so as to 
 be absolutely secured to them during the continuance of their commis- 
 sions. In consequence, the 1 Geo. III. c. 23. was passed, whereby 
 the Judges are continued in their offices during their good behaviour, 
 notwithstanding any demise of the crown, and their full salaries abso- 
 lutely secured to them during the continuance of their commissions ; 
 reserving, however, to the crown power to remove any Judge upon 
 an address from both Houses of Parliament. 
 
 Of the importance of the acquisition made by the acts just men- 
 tioned in favour of the liberty and happiness of the people of this 
 country, it is scarcely possible to think too highly. A perusal of the 
 following list /nay give some faint idea of it : 
 
 In the reign of James the First, 
 
 Sir Edward Coke was made Chief Justice of the King's Bench, on cro. Jac. in- 
 the 23d day of October, 1613, and was discharged by writ on the 15th trod 22 7 ro ' b^ 
 day of November, 1616. (14 Jac.) He was succeeded by Sir Henry con's Works, 
 Montague. His arrogance and overbearing temper made him disliked, v i. 72.121, 
 and he had the misfortune to be the rival and enemy of Sir Francis 391, kc " 
 Bacon for manv years of his life. He was appointed Chief Justice of 
 the Common Pleas on the 30th June, 1606, and in Reasons why he 
 should be removed and made Chief Justice of the King's Bench (upon 
 
 3 K 2 
 
*ii APPENDIX. No. I. 
 
 the vacancy occasioned by Sir Thomas Fleming, who died aboufr 
 August, 1613,) drawn ujtfby Sir Francis Bacon, it is said, " Besides 
 " the remove of Sir Edward Coke to a place of less profit, though it 
 (e be with his will, will be thought abroad a kind of discipline to him 
 " for opposing himself inj*he King's causes ; the example whereof 
 " will contain others in rnHpiwe." It seems that this expedient was 
 not successful, and Sir Edward Coke continued to act in the same 
 manner in his new office as had before provoked the displeasure of the 
 court. And besides other offences, real or imaginary, which may 
 have been imputed to him, there is preserved in Lord Chancellor 
 Bacon's works, a list of innovations introduced by him into the laws 
 and government. In short, he was charged with having, while he 
 was on the Bench, acted in derogation of the rights of the church 
 and the royal prerogative, and the jurisdiction of other courts, and his 
 books of reports were examined, and many exceptionable passages 
 pointed out. He was, on the 30th of June, 1616, convened before 
 Lord Ellesmere, then Lord Chancellor, and Sir Francis Bacon, then 
 Attorney General, assisted by some of the Judges and the King's 
 learned Counsel, but not behaving. in a satisfactory manner, he was 
 commanded, until their report was made and the King's pleasure 
 known, to forbear to sit at Westminster or go the circuits, but not to 
 be restrained from exercising his office in private. He was allowed 
 to take the long vacation for reviewing his reports, and was to retract 
 or explain the objectionable passages to the satisfaction of the King. 
 On the 17th October, he was called again before the Chancellor, when 
 he was told the errors he had admitted, and the excuses he had made 
 were not satisfactoiy ; and five questions, founded on so many specific 
 cases, were pointed out for his particular consideration. Sir Edward 
 gave separate answers to each, and repeated an offer he had made 
 before to explain them so as not to affect his Majesty's prerogative, 
 and if that offer should not be accepted, then to refer it to all the 
 Judges of England. The King,: however, was not satisfied, and Sir 
 Edward was removed from his office as above-mentioned, on the 16th 
 of November following. 
 
APPENDIX. No. I. iriii 
 
 In tlie reign of Charles the First. 
 
 Sir Randolph Crew, appointed Chief Justice of the King's Bench w. joncs Rep. 
 
 the 26th of January, I6.H, (22 Jac.) was removed by writ under the wilitel. Mem. 
 
 great seal, on the lOih o! November, 1G26, (M. 2 Car.) and succeeded P- 8 - Cro.Car. 
 
 ;.'._', , p.52. Rushw.ii. 
 
 in the next term by Sir Nicholas Hyde. Sir George Croke says, he p. 1352. Pari. 
 
 was removed " for some cr.use of displeasure conceived against him, ,S - ,X, P- 
 
 " but for what was not generally known." But Whitelocke informs 
 
 us that it was occasioned by his resisting the illegal mode of raising 
 
 supplies by loans and benevolences. Mr. Hollis, on the 6th of 
 
 July, 1641, in his concluding speech, when the Commons carried 
 
 up their articles of impeachment against the Judges for their conduct 
 
 in the case of ship-money, prayed in the name of the Commons the 
 
 concurrence of the other house in a joint address to the King, to 
 
 give to Sir Randolph Crew such honour, as might be a noble mark 
 
 of sovereign grace and favour, and to remain to him and his posterity ; 
 
 and might be, in some measure, a proportionable compensation 
 
 for the great loss he had with so much patience and resolution 
 
 sustained. He also stated the profits of the office in the fourteen years, 
 
 during which Sir Randolf Crew had been deprived of them, to amount 
 
 to £26,000 or thereabouts. 
 
 2. Sir John Walter was appointed Loid Chief Baron of the Ex- White! Mem. 
 chequer in 1625*. (1 Car. I.) In the year 1628, according to White- Car'p.20.;.'., 
 lock, he was put out of his place, but his patent being quanrdi'u se a * ;lu '"''• 
 
 i i • m ■ i .•-..*" Jones R< p, 
 
 bene gessent, he refused to surrender Ins omce without a scire facias p. 228. 230. 
 to shew what cause of forfeiture he had committed ; so that he con- or Mk- ju k.-^ 
 tinued Chief Baron till his death, on the 18th of November, 1630. attl "?end. 
 {6 Car.) But at the beginning of the Michaelmas term, (.5 Car.) 
 before he had taken his seat, the King commanded him, by message, 
 to forbear from the exercise of any judicial authority in Court, which 
 command he obeyed, and never sat in the Court afterwards. He was 
 discharged for not having dealt plainly with the King with respect to 
 
 * According to Sir George Croke, but Sir William Jones says u was in the 
 fifth of Charles's reign. 
 
xiv APPENDIX. No. I. 
 
 « 
 
 the imprisoned members, as if he had given his opinion privately, so 
 as to encourage the King to proceed against them, and afterwards 
 deserted him and embraced another opinion. There was " some speech" 
 of making Sir James Whitelocke, who then was a Judge of the King's 
 Bench, Chief Baron in his place, if he had vacated, but Whitelocke 
 did not chuse to meddle with the office when Walter stood upon the 
 form of his patent. And this gave rise to what is mentioned by Sir 
 William Jones, that Whitelocke had a promise of the place in the life 
 time of Walter, but missed it. Upon his death, Sir Humphry Daven- 
 port, one of the Justices of the Common Pleas, was (P. 7 Car.) made 
 Chief Baron, and took his patent durante bene placito only, being the 
 first instance of any person holding that office by such a tenure. 
 
 Rushw.p.253. 3. Sir Robert Heath, Chief Justice of the Court of Common 
 Y/2W.%w. P ' Pleas, was sworn in on the 27th of October, 1631, and according 
 Cro.Car.p.225. to Sir William Jones, was removed on the 30th, but according 
 to Croke on the 14th of September, 1634. (10 Car.) He was 
 succeeded in Michaelmas term following, by Sir John Finch, who, 
 Croke tells us, had been appointed two days after his removal, 
 was made Serjeant on the first day of Michaelmas term, (10. Car.) and 
 sworn in on the Thursday following, which was the 16th of October. 
 This sudden advancement of Sir John Finch occasioned much obser- 
 vation, but the issuing of the writ for ship-money, on the 20th of 
 October, only four days after he was sworn in, gave rise to a general 
 belief that he was to be instrumental in advancing this favourite object 
 of the court. Sir Robert Heath had been Recorder of the City of 
 London, and Solicitor, and Attorney to the King; and after his re- 
 moval had a licence to practice behind the bar, but had precedence 
 only as he was in antiency of Serjeants, that is, he was puisne Serjeant. 
 This was granted by the King upon his petition, by advice of the 
 Lords of the Council; and he might plead in all the King's Courts at 
 Westminster, except the Star chamber. He appeared at the bar 
 on the first day of the term in his place of Junior Serjeant at Law, and 
 continued to practise as such. 
 
§ 
 
 APPENDIX. No.I. xr 
 
 4. Sir John Brampston was sworn into the office of Chief Justice W. Jones Rep. 
 of the Court of King's Bench on the 18th of April, 1635, and was Hist ii". p. 4ft! 
 removed in 1642, (18 Car.) because being bound by recognizance to J, 81 : R y ,ner 
 attend the parliament on an accusation preferred against him, he could 536. 
 not be present at a commission of Oyer and Terminer, held at Killing- 
 worth Castle, to attaint the Earl of Essex and others of high treason. 
 He hold ad placitum nostrum, and the writ for his removal is preserved 
 in Rymer's fcedera, tested the 10th of October, (18 Car.) 1642. His 
 successor was Sir Robert Heath, one of the Justices of the Court of 
 King's Bench. Lord Clarendon describes Sir John Brampston to have 
 been a man of great integrity and learning, and to have been removed 
 without any purpose of disfavour, but as the Lords and Commons in 
 theirpetition and propositions presented to the King at Oxford, in the 
 end of January in the same year, proposed that he should be restored 
 to his office, suspicions may arise that his removal was occasioned by 
 political motives, and therefore his name is placed in this list. 
 
 In the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell. 
 
 1. FitANCis Thorpe was by the parliament voted to be one of the Whitel. Mem. 
 Barons of the Exchequer in June, 1640, but he was removed in May, g ar( j Re ,, p 
 1655, for not serving, as Whitelock savs, the Protector's pleasure in all i 62 - Noble's 
 
 U- , ■ ri i u V c i i i> HoweofCrom- 
 
 bis commands. It is not unlikely that he was afterwards made a Joaron well, i. p. 434. 
 of the Exchequer, for one of the name of Thorpe was in that Court 
 in Hil. 1659. 
 
 2. Richard Nev.d.gate was a Judge of the Court of Upper Bench Stv R ep , ,,. 
 in Hil. 1654, and in Mav, 1655, was removed for the same reason as 4r '-''- Sl ',';.','' 
 
 - ' ' p. 92. 16*. 
 
 Thorpe. He was probably restored to his office, for one of his name Noble, i. p. 
 was the puisne Judge of that Court in T. 1658, and so continued till 
 Hil. 1659, when he is mentioned as being the Chief Justice. 
 
 3. Henry Rollf. was ordered by the parliament to be made Chief WbiteLMem. 
 
 Justice of the Court of Upper Bench, in October 1648, and surrendered ciar Hi«t.ifi 
 
 his office, on his refusal to sit on the trial of Penruddock and others in P- * 35 - Sl ' ''• 
 
 Rep. p. 452. 
 May, 1655. He was succeeded by John vj'.ynn, in October 1656, S Sid. p. 159 
 
xvi APPENDIX. No. I. 
 
 who died in 1659, and was succeeded by Newdigate, as before-men- 
 tioned. 
 
 In the reign of Charles the Second. 
 
 T. Ray. Rep- h JOHN Archer was appointed a Judge of the Court of Common 
 T Jones Re^ ^ eas on tHe 4tn of November, 1663, and was removed in the Christ- 
 p, 42. Rushw. mas vacation of 1672, (24 Car. 2.) beintj then the senior puisne Jud<je, 
 
 iii d l^fiS 
 
 and was succeeded by Sir William Ellis. Sir Thomas Kaymond says 
 Archer was removed, pro quibusdam causis mihiincogniiis, but having 
 a patent quam diu se bene gesserit he refused to surrender it without a 
 scirefacias. Notwithstanding he was prohibited from sitting in the Court 
 or exercising his office elsewhere, he continued to be a Justice, and 
 received a share in the profits of the Court as to fees and other pro- 
 ceedings, and his name was used in fines, &c. when Rushworth wrote, 
 and until his death. Sir William Ellis sat in Court on the first day of 
 Hilary Term, 1672; and on the same day, Sir Hugh Windham, who 
 was the puisne Baron of the Exchequer, also took his place as senior 
 Judge of the Common Pleas, Wild being removed from the Common 
 Pleas into the King's Bench, to fill up the Vacancy occasioned by- 
 Morton's death. These removals were made at the desire of Sir Ed- 
 ward Thurland, who chose rather to be a Baron of the Exchequer, 
 than a Justice of either of the other Courts, and the Chancellor in his 
 speech complimented him upon his modesty, " in that he chose rather 
 " to be serviceable than rich." 
 
 Freem. Rep p. 2. Sir William Ellis was appointed one of the Justices of the Court 
 Ve T a5i ay ' °f Common Pleas in 1672, removed in the long vacation in 1676, and 
 407. Maeph. succeeded by Sir William Scroggs, who was sworn in on the first day of 
 
 St. Pap. i. p. . i i /» 
 
 105. Michaelmas term. Sir William Ellis was afterwards made one of 
 
 the Justices of the Court of King's Bench, with precedency to Sir 
 Thomas Jones, and Sir William Dolben, Justices of that Court, be- 
 cause they were "put in after his turning out;" but this was only 
 signified verbally by the King, and not expressed in his patent. 
 He died in that situation on the 3:1 of December, 1680, aged seventy - 
 one; though upon the Duke of York's return from Scotland in that 
 year, the cavaliers were displeased that he was not turned out. 
 
APPENDIX. No. I. acvii 
 
 3. Sir Thomas Twisdfn, was appointed a Justice of the Court of t. Ray„R e p. 
 King's Bench in :660, and in 1678, his attendance was dispensed with Mod. Rep. iii. 
 on account of his great age. He still continued to be a Judge, and, as £*■. 
 
 ° . Noble, p. 431. 
 
 was said, had a pension of o£500 a year. Sir William Dolben was ap- 
 pointed a Judge of this Court, and sat, instead of Twisden, till his death, 
 which happened in 1682, he died aged 81 years. Sir William continued 
 to be Judge of this Court after Twisden' s death, but only for a short 
 time before he was himself removed. Noble, in his Memoirs of the 
 Protectoral House of Cromwell, says of Twisden, that " being too 
 " virtuous for the place he held he received his quietus, after sitting 
 " upon the Bench 20 }-ears." 
 
 4. Sir Robert Atkins, was made a Justice of the Court of Common T. Jones. Rep. 
 
 P 42 
 
 Pleas in 1672, (E. 24 Car. 2.) and displaced upon the day before Hilary Mod. Rep. iii, 
 Term 1679, bv writ under the Great Seal. He was succeeded bv Sir F; 4 * u - t 
 
 ' •> J Cora p. Hisf.. 
 
 Thomas Raymond, a Baron of the Exchequer. The cause of his re- '"'• P- ^ 9 - 
 moval probably was that he was connected with Lord Russell and the 
 Whigs, who withdrew from the Council Board about this time, being 
 displeased with the King and the majority of the council for treating 
 lightly the Popish Plot. In the New Biographical Dictionary it is 
 said, that " from a foresight of very troublesome times, he resigned 
 «' his office, and retired into the country." At the Revolution he 
 was made Chief Baron of the Exchequer. 
 
 5. Sir William Wild was appointed a Justice of the King's Bench T.Jones. Rep. 
 in 1672, (24. Car. 2.) and sworn in upon the day before Hilary Term ^w. Rep 
 began, and removed in 1679. (P. 31 Car. 2.) His successor was Sir " P-23. 
 
 6 Keb. Rep. iii. 
 
 Francis Pemberton. p. 102. 
 
 6. Francis Bra.mpston, a Baron of the Exchequer, was appointed ii a ym. Rep. 
 in the year 1:678. (T. 30 Car. 2) and removed in April 1679. And p ' 244 > 
 was succeeded by Sir Edward Atkyns. 
 
 7. Sir Francis Pembf.rton, a Justice of the King's Bench, was Ra ym . Rep. 
 appointed in April, and sworn in the 5th of May, 1679, was removed ghow' ii 31 
 
 3l 94. ' 1>P ' ' 
 
xviii APPENDIX. No. £ 
 
 in the month of February following, (32 Car. 2.) and succeeded 
 by Sir Thomas Raymond. He practised again in all the Courts of 
 Westminster Hall, but without the bar, as a Serjeant. 
 
 Vent. i. p.329, 8. Sir William Scroggs, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, was 
 
 354 • • 
 
 Show. ii.p.i 55. appointed in 1678, (T. 30 Car. 2.)» and removed in 1681, in the 
 
 Macph.stat E a&ter vacation, (33 Car. 2.) being succeeded by Sir Francis Pem- 
 
 Pap. i. p. 106. ' » ' o J 
 
 statTr. iv. berton. In 1680, the House of Commons fell upon the Duke of York's 
 friends, and among the rest Lord Chief Justice Scroggs, they resolved 
 that he should be impeached of high treason, and articles were pre- 
 pared and qrdered to be sent to the Lords, but the King prorogued 
 the Parliament on the 10th of January, and dissolved it on the 20th. 
 And in the Easter Term following, Scroggs who had declined to sit 
 in Court, for several preceding Terms, was discharged from his office, 
 in order that Fitzharris might be tried, but was recompensed with 
 a pension. 
 
 show. ii. p. 232, 9. Sir Francis Pemberton, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, 
 T R 478 was a PP omte d ' n 1681, for the trial of Fitzharris, and made Chief 
 T.Joncs,p.23i, Justice of the Common Pleas on the day before the first day of Hilary 
 
 333 
 
 Mod. iii. p. 38. Term, 1683, (34 Car. 2.) in the room of Sir Francis North, who on 
 St.Tr.ni. the death of Lord Nottingham about Christmas had been appointed 
 Keeper of the Great Seal. Sir Thomas Raymond says, he changed to 
 the Court of Common Pleas at his own desire, " for that it is a place 
 " though not so honourable, yet of more easeand plenty, as the Lord 
 " Keeper said in his speech to Saunders." But it is probable that he 
 was compelled to make the change in order that Sir Edmund Saunders 
 might preside at the decision of the great Quo Warranto case against 
 the City of London, in which he had drawn all the pleadings for the 
 Crown. The Demurrer in that cause was filed in the same term, on 
 *he first day of which he took his seat as- his successor, namely, (Hilary 
 Term, 34 Car. 2.) 1683; he died in the next Trinity Term, 19th of 
 June, 1683, and Sir George Jeffries succeeded him, and sat on the 
 Bench in Michaelmas Term, 1683. 
 
APPENDIX. No, I. jyx 
 
 to. Sir Francis Pemberton, made Chief Justice of the Common T. Jones, 
 Pleas in Hilary Term, 1683, (35 Car. 2.) was removed in the long comph Hist 
 vacation. of that year, and Sir Thomas Jones a Justice of the Court of iii,p - 4l *- 
 King's Bench succeeded him, and sat in Court at the beginning of 
 Michaelmas Term, 35 Car. 2. The removal ol Sir Francis Pemberton 
 has been supposed to be occasioned, by the honourable manner in which 
 he had conducted himself, when presiding at the trial of Lord Russell 
 on the 13th of July preceding, or, as Kennet says, by his not " being 
 " able to go into all the new measures of the Court." His fate is 
 rather singular, he filled three judicial offices, was removed from each 
 returned twice to practice at the bar, and died at last a puisne Serjeant. 
 
 11. Sir William Doi.ben, a Justice of the King's Bench, was ap- 
 pointed in 1677, (29 Car. 2.) and received a supersedeas to his com. 
 
 mission on the 20th of April, 1683, (35 Car. 2.) being succeeded by Sir T.Ray. P .496. 
 Francis Wythens, who was sworn in on the first day of Easter Term, Show. ii. p. 283. 
 the 25th of April, in the same year. After the Revolution he was Mod. iii.p.253. 
 restored to his office. A message was sent from the Lords on the 
 19th of February, 1688, by Serjeant Dolben, so possibly he had xiv, p. 129. 
 returned to the bar. 
 
 T. Ray. p.431. 
 
 12. Thomas Street, was made a Baron of the Exchequer in 1681, 
 
 (33 Car. 2.) sworn in the 23rd of April, and was discharged in 1684. Mod.iii.p.220. 
 He was succeeded by Sir Robert Wright, but appears to have been a 
 Justice of the King's Bench in (T. 4 Jac. 2.) 1688. 
 
 In the reign of James the Second. 
 
 1. Sir Cresswell Levinz, was made a Justice of the Common Pleas Lev. ii. p. 257 
 in 1680, (Hil. 32 Car. 2.) and being removed in '685, two days before 26 °* 
 the end of Hilary Term, (I &2 Jac. 2.) was succeeded by Sir Edward Show.ii.p.47i. 
 Lutwyche, as is said in 2 Shower. The removal was by supersedeas 
 under the Great Seal, and he returned again to the bar, where he con- 
 tinued to practise so late, at least, as Trin. 8 Will. 3. and his reports 
 down to that time are published. 
 
 2. William Greoouy, made a Baron of the Exchequer in 1679. comp. Hitt. 
 was removed in the beginning of 1*85, (2 Jac. 2.) and on February »'• ?•***• 
 
 3 L 2 
 
XX APPENDIX. No. I. 
 
 Mod.iii.p.253. the 13th his place was supplied by Sir Thomas Jenner. At the Revo- 
 lution he was made a Justice of the King's Bench. 
 
 Skin. p. 251. 3. Sir Thomas Jones, made Chief Justice of the Common Pleas 
 Mo°d W *iii'. P 9*. 71 ' in 1683 > ( 35 Car - 2 -) was discharged the day before Easter Term in 
 Comp.Hist. 1686, (2 Jac. 2.) and succeeded by Sir Henry Bedingfield. The 
 
 in. p. 451. . "; ' ... 
 
 cause of his removal was, notwithstanding the application of the 
 King, his positively refusing to support the dispensing power of 
 the Crown. 
 
 Show. ii.p.47i. 4 - William Montague, appointed Chief Baron of the Exchequer 
 Mod. iii. P . 99. j n ,67 6} (28 Car. 2.) was removed in Easter Term, 1686, (2 Jac. 2.) 
 and succeeded by Sir Edward Atkyns one of the Barons of that Court. 
 This removal was occasioned by his refusal to support the dis- 
 pensing power. 
 Comp. Hist* 
 
 show. ii. p. 94. 5. Sir Job Charlton, was Chief Justice and one of his Majesty's 
 Council at Ludlow for the marches of Wales, with which he had a pen- 
 sion because he did not practice at the bar. Sir George Jeffryes being 
 Recorder of London, and desirous to enjoy his place, prevailed upon 
 him contrary to his inclination, to become one of the Justices of the 
 Common Pleas in April, 1680, and then obtained the appointment 
 with the same pension, though he still continued to practice, and to be 
 Dalr. Mem. Recorder of the City of London. This is one of the signal frauds in 
 Parti? p 103. tne P UD ^ C revenue mentioned by Lord Keeper North. Sir Job Charlton 
 Mod. iii. p. 99. was removed in 1686 for resisting the dispensing power, but upon hi* 
 
 Show.ii. p.471. .. -' ' ', „ , .. .. - * 
 
 petition was replaced in his former situation with a patent or precedency 
 as he had been a Judge, and to wear a Judge's robe at Chester. He 
 was succeeded according to 2 Shower's Reports by — —Powell. 
 
 Show.ii. p. 434, 
 
 *??' ,,„» 6. Sir Edward Nevill, was made a Baron of the Exchequer in the 
 
 Skin. p. 237. • ' ■ ' . 
 
 long vacation 1685, (1 Jac. 2.) and was removed in the Christmas 
 
 vacation of 1686, for resisting the claim to the dispensing power, and 
 
 was succeeded by Sir Thomas Jenner. At the Restoration he resumed 
 
 his seat in that Court. 
 
APPENDIX. No. I. XK { 
 
 7. Sir. Edward Herbert, was made Chief Justice of the King's show.ii.p.434. 
 Bench in the long vacation of 1685, (I Jac. 2.) and removed into the comb."i>.47. 25 ' 
 Common Picas and made Chief Justice of that Court, on the 21st of 
 April, 1687. (P. 3 Jac. 2.) The removal of this Judge, and Sir Francis 
 Wythens from the same Bench, forms one of the most serious charges 
 against James the Second. In prosecution of his arbitrary and bigotted 
 designs, he had deem. I it necessary to have a well disciplined standing 
 ami)- at his command, and for the purpose of keeping his soldiers in a 
 state of strict subordinc' ; jn to their officers, and enforcing a prompt 
 obedience >.o bis commands, had determined to revive an obsolete Inst iii. p . 86. 
 statute*, and .soldier of the name of Beale, (or Dale) was indicted Mod. Re P 'fiii' 
 for deserting, tried at Reading, convicted, sentenced to be hanged, p- 12 *< 
 and respited. The King was extremely anxious that the sentence p. 511. 
 should be put in execution at Plymouth, where the troops were in the 
 garrison, to which the prisoner belonged, that his example might make 
 a stronger impression upon the soldiers there, as well as upon the army 
 in general. For this purpose the Attorney General on Saturday the 
 15th of April in Easter Term, 1687, moved in the Court of King's 
 Bench, where Sir Edward Herbert presided, and Wythens, Powell, 
 and Holloway were Justices, (all of whom, it is observable, were re- 
 moved from that Bench within little more than a year afterwards) that 
 execution should be awarded against the prisoner, and that he might 
 be executed at Plymouth. The Chief Justice in some heat refused the 
 motion, as irregular, the prisoner not being before the Court. The 
 Attorney General then moved for and obtained a Habeas Corpus to 
 bring up the prisoner, and on Tuesday the 18th of April it was moved 
 again. The Chief Justice and Wythens were of opinion, that the law 
 did not authorize the Court to make the order, for the prisoner could 
 be executed only in the proper county where the trial and conviction 
 was, or in Middlesex where the Court of King's Bench sat. The order 
 being refused, the prisoner was committed to the prison of the King's 
 
 * The statute is not mentioned in either of the reports of the case, but the prosecu- 
 tion mu;t have been founded upon either the 7 H. 7. c. 1. or the 3 H. 8. c. 5. 
 See Co. Rep. vi. p. 27. 3 Instit. p. 86. 
 
j«ii APPENDIX. No. i. 
 
 Bench. But James was determined to carry his point*, and on the 
 20th, of April, two days, afterwards, Sir Francis Wythens was removed, 
 and Sir Richard Allibone appointed in his room, and on the 21st, Sir 
 Edward Herbert was obliged to change situations, with Sir Robert 
 Wright, who had been appointed Chief Justice of the Court of Common 
 Pleas in the preceding Term. On that same day, so indecently anxious 
 was the King, Sir Robert Wright took his seat as Chief Justice, 
 Holloway and Powell Justices being also on the Bench, but Sir Richard 
 Allibone not making his appearance, .and the prisoner being again 
 brought up, an order was granted for his execution at Plymouth, 
 which was accordingly carried into effect. 
 
 •show. ii. 5i«. 8* Sir Francis Wythens was made aJusticeof the King's Bench in 
 ^omp^Hist | 683 . removed in 1687, (E. 3 Jac. 2.) on the 26th of April, for the 
 567. same reason as Sir Edward Herbert, and succeeded by Sir Richard 
 
 Wynn. p. 87. Allibone. He came on the next day to Westminster Hall, and prac- 
 ticed as a Serjeant. In the year 1680 he had been expelled the House 
 of Commons, for preferring a petition to the King against the right of 
 the people to petition, and was excepted out of the general act of in- 
 demnity after the Revolution. 
 
 Skin. p. 122. 9 " ^ R KJCHA 110 HOLLOWAY was appointed a Justice of the King's 
 
 * 86 - Bench in the long vacation in 1683, (35 Car. 2.) and removed in 
 
 Mod. iii.p.239. . ° '»,.,., , 
 
 Comb. p. 95. Trinity vacation, 1688, (4 Jac. 2.) for his honest conduct in the Trial 
 
 of the seven bishops ; and succeeded by Sir Thomas Powell, a Baron 
 
 of the Exchequer. 
 
 * The extreme anxiety of James about his army may be traced in a case, which 
 occurred previously to that mentioned above. Browne was an Attorney, and being 
 employed by one Corbet, had arrested a soldier without leave, and both of them had 
 been committed to the custody of a messenger for so doing. They were brought 
 into the King's Bench by Habeas Corpus in the Michaelmas Term, 2 Jac. 2. buc the 
 warrant being under the hand of the King, without any Seal, or mention of any 
 officer it was held to be illegal, and they were -discharged. — Rose v. Browne, 
 -and others, Show. Rep. ii. p. 484. 
 
APPENDIX. No. I. xxiii 
 
 10. Sir John Powfll was appointed one of the Justices of the King's Comp. Hist. 
 Bench in 16S7, and removed in Trinity vacation, 1688, for the same Modai^pfsb^ 
 reason as Sir Richard Holloway ; and was succeeded by Sir Robert Comb. p. 95. 
 Baldock. At the Revolution, he was made a Justice of the Common 
 
 Pleas. 
 
 11. Sir Christopher Milton was a Catholic, and appointed one Comp.ETist.iti. 
 of the Justices of the King's Bench in April, 1631 ; aud in July, 1638, p ' 468i 486, 
 he had a writ of ease, for which the ostensible reason was his great 
 
 age and infirmities ; but they must have come upon him suddenly, for 
 
 he was made a Baron of the Exchequer only in Easter term. 1 & 2 skin - P. 521. 
 
 Jac. 2. He was removed in good company, with Holloway and 
 
 Powell. Perhaps it might be thought that, however strong his wishes 
 
 to serve the prerogative and further the royal cause, it might not be 
 
 prudent to leave him the senior puisne Judge. He was succeeded by 
 
 Sir Thomas Jenner, a Baron of the Exchequer. 
 
 12. Sir Richard Heath was made a Serjeant in 1683; appointed Comp.Hist.iii. 
 
 one of the Barons of the Exchequer in April, 1686 ; and removed the p ' t 51 ' , Beat - 
 
 ^ i , , so " s Po1 - Ind - 
 
 3d of November, 1688. He was succeeded by John Rotherham, whose Wynne, p. 87. 
 
 call to be a Serjeant is no where recorded. 
 
 13. Charles Ingleby was a Catholic, and made a Baron of the Mod.iii. P 23fc 
 Exchequer in Trinity vacation (4 Jac. 2.) 1688. He was removed Beatson - 
 "November the 3d, in the same year ; and the vacancy does not appear 
 to have been filled up before James abdicated the throne. 
 
xxiv APPENDIX. No. II. 
 
 II. Copy of a Letter written by Charles the Second to the Chan- 
 cellor, concerning the Execution of Sir Henry Vane, with 
 Observations. 
 
 No single act of Charles the Second has left so foul a stain upon 
 his memory, as his having sought the execution of Sir Henry Vane. 
 He had not been one of the Judges of the late King, and therefore his 
 jife ought to have been spared according to the King's Declaration sent 
 from Breda, and his confirmation of it afterwards in Parliament. But 
 besides this, the Commons having shewn repugnance to except him out 
 of the Act of Indemnity, the Lords through the medium of the 
 Chancellor, who acted as their manager at a conference, had intimated 
 viir^sa 11 ' tnat though on account of Vane being " of a mischievous activity," 
 133. they desired to have him left to the mercy of the King, yet the}' 
 
 would be ready to join with the Commons in a petition, that, in case 
 he should be attainted, he should not be executed. Upon this intima- 
 tion the Commons passed the bill, and it afterwards received the royal 
 assent. Accordingly a petition from both houses was presented by the 
 Chancellor to the King, reminding him of his declaration, and praying 
 
 Lords' journ. tnat if Vane and Lambert should be attainted, yet execution as to their 
 xi. p. 163. . j 7 
 
 lives might be remitted, and the King acceded to their request. When 
 
 a new Parliament met, the Commons as Sir Henry Vane says, instigated 
 
 by persons who wished for his estates, and by his own tenants, insisted 
 
 upon indictments being presented against him, and he was brought to 
 
 Com. Joum. txi& \ on t h e 6t jj Q f June 1661, and found guilty. From his trial having 
 
 wiii. p. 368. 
 
 been postponed so long, and the backwardness of the Crown to bring it 
 on, it may be inferred that the King would have been satisfied to have 
 continued him in confinement, and had no wish to take away his life. 
 Sir Henry Vane himself mentions an unfortunate circumstance which 
 Stat. Tr. ii. happened at his arraignment, four days before his trial, and made an 
 
 r\ AST A^G * * 
 
 impression to his disadvantage; he then used the expression, " Sove- 
 " reign power of Parliament," which he says, "Mr. Attorney General 
 <* writ down, after he had promised at my request no exception should 
 
 p. 457, 458. 
 
APPENDIX. No. 11. .u\ 
 
 '• be taken at words." The ensuing letter was written by the King on 
 the day after the trial, but whether after he had seen the Judges who 
 tried him is not clear, for Sir Henry Vane who mentions the circum- 
 stance of their going to Hampton Court, makes use of an equivocal 
 expression as to the time, saying it was " after the day of my 
 trial." Charles, finding that Sir Henry Vane still persisted in his 
 republican notions, feared his talents and his influence too much 
 to permit him to exist. But, however valid such a justification may be 
 for taking away life in the ethics of tyrants, the want of feeling with 
 which he makes the detestable proposal to the Chancellor admits of no 
 palliation. Here we find him, acting solely from the dictates of his own 
 heart; ready and willing to break through the most solemn engage- 
 ments, and desirous to shed blood unjustly for the better security of 
 his power. Whether the Chancellor resisted the wish of the King, 
 or gave way to it, or ultimately approved of it does not appear, but as 
 he had upon other occasions insisted upon the strict performance of 
 the declaration from Breda, and had himself proposed to the Commons 
 the expedient of a petition to the King, we would hope that he did 
 not give his sanction to this perfidious conduct. Sir Henry Vane was 
 executed on the 14th day of June, and the House seem to have been 
 satisfied with his fate, for we find no steps taken in his favour, or 
 complaints made of the royal breach of faith. The Letter which makes 
 the subject of this article was addressed to the Chancellor, and was as 
 
 follows : — 
 
 Hamton courte, Saturday two in the Aftemoone. 
 
 The relation that has been made to me of SirH.Vane*s carriage 
 yesterday in the hall is the occasion of this letter, which if I am 
 rightly informed was so insolent as to justify all he had done, acknow- 
 ledging no supreme power in England but a Part : and many 
 things to that purpose. You have had a true accounte of all, and if 
 he has given new occasion to be hanged, certaynly he is too dangerous 
 a man to U.tt live, if we can honestly put him out of the way, thinke of 
 this and give me some accounte of it to morrow, till when I have no 
 
 more to say to you. 
 
 C. R. 
 3 M 
 
xxv i APPENDIX. No. II, 
 
 The beginning of the direction is torn off, but the words " the 
 " Chancellor," in the King's hand,remain. The Chancellor has indorsed 
 " The King's," and two or three words illegible after. And Mr. West 
 has made this indorsement, " This Letter was wrote by the King, 
 7 June, 1662, and that day seven night Sir Henry Vane " was be- 
 headed. J. W." 
 
 English Royal Letters in the Lansdowne Collection, deposited in 
 the British Museum, p. 125. 
 
APPENDIX. No. III. XXvfj 
 
 III. Copy of a Letter of J. Aprice a Romish Priest, to Mr. William 
 Lynwood at his house in Deane, Northamptonshire. 
 
 Referred to at page 325 
 Dear Brother. February 16, 1685. 
 
 J HE great change which is made in our nation since last I writ to you, 
 is the wonder of all men. If we consider that 'tis the divine providence 
 that rules over kingdoms and the hearts of men, we shall the less wonder. 
 Who could have say'd a while agoe, that these eyes of mine should 
 have seen two Catholick Kings reign over us in this nation ? But that 
 same God that preserved our late King of blessed memory, by soe many 
 wonderfull miracles all his life time, did alsoe at his death call him to 
 his mercy, by making him to be reconciled to his holy church, which 
 he did in this manner. The day hee fell ill, which was the Monday, 
 he was noe sooner recovered of his fit, but his trusty loving brother, 
 our now most gracious Souveraine fearing a relapse, putt him in mind 
 of bis soul : which advice hee immediately embraced, and desired noe 
 time might be lost in the execution of itt. Whereuppon Mr. Huddleston 
 was commanded to attend incessantly thereabouts, but the great 
 affairs of the nation coming perpetually before them, time could not 
 possibly be found till Thursday. But then the King finding his 
 natural strength decay, commanded of his own accord all to retire out 
 of the room, telling them he had something to communicate to his 
 brother. Then Mr. Huddleston being brought in, that great work 
 was done, and with that exactness, that there was nothing omitted 
 either necessary or decent, and as Mr. Huddleston himself has told me, 
 by a particular assistance of God's grace, the King was as ready and 
 apt in making his confession and all other things, as iff he had been 
 brought up a Catholic all his life time; and from that moment till 
 eight of the clock the next day, att which time his speech left him, 
 he was heard to say little, but begging Almighty God's pardon for all 
 hie offences and the like, so that we may joyfully say, God have 
 mercy of his soul, and make him eternally participant of his Kingdom 
 
 pf Heaven. 
 
 3M 2 
 
xxviii APPENDIX. No. III. 
 
 As for our present King, he dayly gives us by his actions new hopes 
 of a great deal of future happiness ; for besides the great content and 
 subjection which seems to bee in every body here, wee in particular have 
 reason to praise God for giving him so much courage and resolution to 
 confess his faith publickly, which he did yesterday in a most eminent 
 manner, for on Friday last he declared to the Councell, that hee was 
 resolved too make known publickly to the world of what religion hee 
 was ; and yesterday hee came with the Queen to the Chappell, attended 
 by all the Nobility and Gentry about Court, and there recived 
 together with the Queene from the hands of her Almoner, the most 
 precious body and blood of our Saviour, with as much devotion as 
 ever I saw in any man, and heard, all the time upon his knees, tow long 
 masses This ceremony I saw, and will always esteem the day holy, 
 wherein it was donn, for above this 126. years the like has not binn 
 seen in England. 
 
 The Maior and Aldermen of London came on Saturday last, with an 
 address to the King in name of the City, wherein the} 7 promise to stand 
 by him with their lives and fortunes, which I hope will be a good 
 example to all others to do the like. 
 
 This is all but my true love to my dear sister, and all yours from- 
 
 Dear Brother, 
 Your affectionate Brother and Servant 
 
 J. Aprice. 
 
 Note of the Bishop of Lincoln. 
 
 The original Letter is now in the hands of Mrs. Eyre of Stamford, and 
 J. Aprice above mentioned was a Romish Priest and relation of hers; 
 as also'Mr. Lynwood, to whom the Letter was written. 
 
 Manuscripts in the British Museum, Vol. 4164. No. 39. 
 
APPENDIX. No. IV. xxix 
 
 IV. Account of the Rebellion of the Duke of Monmouth in a 
 Letter to Dr. James, from the Reverend Mr. Andrew Paschall 
 of Chedsev in Somersetshire. 
 
 Referred to at page 415. 
 
 There is reason to believe that we may impute it to the town of Aysc'ough 
 
 Taunton, that the rebellion did break out in these parts, and that we No. 4162, 
 
 . No. 20. 
 
 owe it to one tradesman in this place in a particular manner. His (Bp. Gibson's 
 
 father before him there, was eminent for an unspotted and a persevering ^\ eTS ' 
 
 lovalty, throughout all the times of the great rebellion. He trod in 
 
 his father's steps till perverted, about the year 1678. 
 
 In the beginning of the year 1680, while seditiously promoting the 
 petition he let fall words, for which he was indicted, fined and sen- 
 tenced to imprisonment till he should pay the fine of £500. Not 
 lon°" after by the favour of a Parliament he was sent for up to London, 
 when he found an opportunity of taking that liberty, which he could 
 not obtain from the King> and so he fled into Holland. By the 
 briskness of his air and the boldness of his spirit, and now by his 
 sufferino-s, he became exceedingly endeared to the party, and under 
 colour of being their factor for their serges, he served to the main- 
 taining- of the correspondence held between the malcontents abroad, 
 and their friends here at home. This man got into the affections of 
 the Duke of Monmouth, and came over with him to Lyme where he 
 lost his life. This accident went very near to the Duke, and was 
 looked upon as ominous. Some said, that the Duke never cast off 
 the sadness, which he contracted on this occasion. And perhaps, 
 all things considered, he could not have had a greater loss in the 
 death of any one man, than he suffered by this person's being killed 
 so soon after his landing, because of his interest in the party, his 
 knowledge of the country, and his industry and resolution in whatever 
 he undertook. 
 
 Before our troubles came on, we had some such signs as used to be 
 deemed forerunners of such things. In May 1680, here was that 
 
xxx APPENDIX. No. IV. 
 
 monstrous birth at IU-Browers, a parish in this county, which at that 
 time was much taken notice of. Two female children joined in their 
 bodies from the breast downwards. They were born May the 19th, 
 and christened by the names of Aquilla and Priscilla - May the 29th, 
 I saw them' well and likely to live. About the same time, reports went 
 of divers others in the inferior sorts of animals both the oviparous, and 
 the viviparous kinds. But perhaps many of these, and other odd things 
 then talked of, owed, if not their being, yet their dress to superstition 
 and fancy. — In the January following, Monday the 3rd", about seven in 
 the morning, we had an earthquake, which I myself felt here. It came 
 with a whizzing gust of wind from the west end of my house, which 
 it shook. This motion was observed in Bridgwater, Taunton, Wells, 
 and other places, and near some caverns in Mendip Hills, and was 
 said to be accompanied with thundering noises. In the end of the year 
 1684, December the 21st, were seen from this place at the sun-rising, 
 Parhelii, and this when, in a clear, sharp, frosty morning, there were 
 no clouds to make the reflection. It was probably from the thickness 
 of the atmosphere. The place of the fight which was in the following 
 summer, was near a line drawn from the eyes of the spectator to these 
 mock-suns, 
 
 We had many indications and forewarniugs of what ensued among 
 us, as the time drew near, but those were of another kind. Not to stay 
 upon particulars, I remember that in this private place from many 
 observations made, I saw cause to write in haste June the 1st, 1685, to 
 a person in an eminent station, and who, I thought, might have ready 
 access to the King to represent to him my apprehensions, and to intreat 
 him to beseech his Majesty to cast an eye this way. 
 
 To pass over the Duke's landing at Lyme, June II, with 82 men, 
 whom the report of them next day coming to us made to be 10,000, as 
 also the carriage of the Militias, first in Dorset, which might easily 
 have crushed the serpent in the egg, but did indeed give them repu* 
 tation as if very formidable. Next in Devon, which, with their thou- 
 sand of well armed should have done more than face that raw rout of 
 
APPENDIX. No. IV. xxxi 
 
 not many hundreds at Axminster. Lastly in Somerset, where the Militia- 
 men did too soon shift for themselves, and leave the country open ; so 
 that, by Thursday, June 18, they entered Taunton in triumph, with an 
 army of 3,000, and Bridgwater on Sunday, June 21, with 5,000; 
 from whence the next day they marched to Glasson, declaring with 
 great assurance, taken from their sudden growth into this bulk, that 
 God was with them, and that by the Saturday following they would be 
 in London, and place their new King in his throne. I say, to pass these 
 things over, — that about which I am most willing to refresh your 
 memory is, what fell out next in this part of our country, which by 
 being present I had opportunity to observe, and of which others may 
 not have taken so much notice. 
 
 On Tuesday, June 23, a rumour of many men landing upon the 
 Severn coast toward Bristol gave us an alarm. By this and their fresh 
 observation of the Rebels making very bold, as they did the day before, 
 with their provisions in their houses, and their horses in the commons, 
 the countrymen were disposed to meet together, in order to the making 
 up of a club army, that so as occasion should call, they might stand 
 together for their mutual defence. Two persons were desired to ride 
 presently from this place toward that where the invasion was said to 
 be, that they might learn and inform their neighbours of the truth. 
 These brought back word that there were a considerable number of 
 club men met upon the hill, but they were about to go home, for 
 that it appeared, that that which made all the noise, was nothing but 
 a few men coming ashore out of a Bristol vessel. And, indeed, 
 their business was only to cruise upon the coast and to get 
 intelligence ; for which purpose they were sent from the city. 
 Upon this news all grew quiet with us, hoping that the storm 
 was cone from us, and would trouble us no more. But a Quaker, 
 a cunning and busy fellow, who was at this club-meeting on the said 
 Tuesday, seeing how easily the people were now to be into motion, 
 rides from thence immediately to the camp at Glassen, tells the Duke 
 all the country was vising for him, desires a commission from him, not 
 doubting but that he should raise suddenly thousands for his service. 
 The Q'laker was not looked upon as a person fit to be trusted with the 
 
xxxii APPENDIX. No. IV. 
 
 formality of a command, but they who were about the Duke being 
 willing to lay hold upon any thing that promised the least advantage to 
 their design, a paper was drawn up in the name of their King, in which 
 this infant and short-lived Majesty approved of their doings, &c. The 
 Quaker intrusted herewith, returns in the afternoon, and all night 
 sends his agents to as many places as they could reach, to assure the 
 people that the news of the invasion was most certainly true, that we 
 were in extreme danger of having all our throats cut, and to exhort all 
 to meet again next morning, that they might consult and join together 
 for their common safety. This second alarm reached this place, and 
 raised us up out of our beds, Wednesday morning, June 24, before 
 sun rising. Observing that some of our meanest people met together, 
 talked insolently, and in a menacing way demanded my two men, who 
 were young and stout men, to go along with them to the hill; I went 
 with tender relatives into the neighbouring town, taking my two men 
 with me. Soon after I was gone, the people of this place marched in a 
 body of about 80 persons, young and old, with their club arms, to 
 the Quaker's rendezvous. A friend of theirs, when he heard what 
 they were doing, sent a man after them to advise them to return home, 
 and to take heed that they do nothing against their allegiance. They 
 answered, that they would go on to the meeting to see how things were, 
 but would remember their duty. When I came home at night I found 
 them returned. They told me the names of the prime agitators there ; 
 which confirmed me in the supposition which I had before, that the 
 thing was managed craftily to draw the country in to take part with the 
 Duke. They informed me, that the Quaker had procured, and that 
 another person whom I knew to be an ill man, had read to them the 
 *s - O" above-mentioned paper ; and that this paper* did offer himself to lead 
 
 them on against the Duke of Albemarle, then at Taunton, ten or eleven 
 miles off from them, with the Devonshire militia. The people told me 
 that they had there openly declared against this, and so did take a 
 final leave of them and their meetings. The club men also parted* 
 but with resolutions and agreements to meet again, as they did several 
 times before the Duke's return to his overthrow. One- whom I knew, 
 finding things to be thus, did the next day, Thursday, June 26, send 
 
APPENDIX. No. IV. xxxui 
 
 a messenger over to Taunton, on purpose, with a letter to one of the 
 militia Colonels, whom he knew, then with the Duke of Albemarle, 
 to let him know what was doing here. He hoped this might occasion 
 the Duke of Albemarle's coming with his forces on to Bridgwater, 
 which would have dashed the club design, and so have prevented the 
 temptation which the Duke of Monmouth had from thence to come 
 back. But the Duke of Albemarle being sent for back to Exeter, went 
 thither. The above-mentioned Colonel called at my house, Friday, 
 where he had the copy of the above-said commission to the club men, 
 that he soon after presented to the King. Before he came hither, he 
 had the same day, June 26, sent a troop of horse to take up the person 
 who read the commission, and offered to lead the club men against the 
 Duke of Albemarle, as also the above-said Quaker. That troop met 
 the former, who was committed to prison to the great regret of the 
 rebel's army. But they missed the Quaker, who from this time, as 
 vexed for his comrade and sensible of his own danger, increased his 
 diligence in factorins: with the Duke of Monmouth, and for him in the 
 club design. He rides to the Duke, and persuades him that he has 
 great numbers in readiness for him. He comes back to the club men, 
 and puts them on with all possible earnestness to do their utmost. 
 When the Duke was returning, he drove in divers countrymen to him, 
 bv telling them, that if they did not join they would most certainly 
 be undone. 
 
 Saturday, June 27, we heard by deserters, of the difficulties 
 which their companions in the rebel army laboured under in their 
 motions eastward ; when we began to be in pain, as thinking it possible 
 that they might return to their old quarters, the country being left 
 open as it was, and the club men being ready to receive and join 
 them. 
 
 Monday, June 29, I persuaded my relatives to go with me into the 
 town of Bridgwater, to divert them from those melancholy thoughts, 
 which the rebels' rudeness when here, and the present cloudy face of 
 things had so disposed * them in this private place, that they could * Mc Orig. 
 
 3 N 
 
xxxiv APPENDIX. No. IV. 
 
 not sleep quietly at home. While here, we found three militia 
 Captains, with their rallied companies again shewing their heads. 
 
 On Tuesday, June 30, they, the said Captains sent a messen- 
 ger with a letter to the cluh men, that day met together. The purport 
 of it was to inquire after the cause of them so assembling, and to re- 
 quire them in the King's name to repair to their several homes. The 
 messenger brought back word, that among those people he could meet 
 with no head of them to give him an answer. But he understood from 
 some of them, that the Duke was expected back into Sedgmoor the 
 next day ; and that they were resolved to meet him there. At the 
 same time I was informed, by two of my neighbours and brethren that 
 came into the town, as for their lives, that the above-said Quaker came 
 from the Duke with a party of about 16 horse; had been in their 
 parishes, and had taken up some, and had been seeking to make them 
 prisoners ; and that he, the Quaker, was going farther to adjust mat- 
 ters with the club men. Thereupon, I sent a servant over the hill to 
 one of the houses where the Quaker and his party had been, to know 
 the truth. He brought word, that the Duke and his army was certainly 
 returning, and would be speedily in Bridgwater. Upon this the town 
 was in a hurry. I rode with my charge and friends as far as I could 
 westward. The militia soldiers, at first, went about to fortify the town, 
 as if they meant to keep it against the Duke; but it was not long be- 
 fore they left it open to him, and followed us in our western progress. 
 While we were upon the borders of Devon, hiding and shifting as well 
 as we could, we learned that, Saturday, July 4, the above-mentioned 
 Bristol vessel, with another cruising on the coast, and landing some 
 men as they had done nearer our home, occasioned such an alarm 
 there as had been with us, and that hundreds of the country people 
 were running together, made to believe that no less than 8000 French, 
 &c. were landed ; till messengers, sent about on purpose, did assure 
 them that the report was not true. 
 
 Sunday, July 5, a party of about 80 or 100 horse came, not far from 
 us, to Dunster and Minehead, from Bridgewater to fetch horses and 
 
APPENDIX. No. IV. xxxv 
 
 arms, and the guns that lav upon the Kay at Minehead. We, hearing 
 of their motions so near, and finding how the temper of the country 
 was generally favouring the rebels, rode up to Honiton, where we met 
 the good news given that morning in this place. 
 
 The next day we through danger rode safe home, where, using my 
 best diligence to learn the truth of that great and important action, 
 which by God's infinite mercy and blessing did put an end to that 
 rebellion, I attained that notion of it, which I think to be pretty near 
 the truth, and which I am in the next place to present you withall. 
 
 His Majesty's proclamation of pardon, to such as should within the. 
 prefixed time lay down their arms, came forth while the Duke of Mon- 
 mouth was in the eastern part of the country ; at Frome, I think. Upon 
 this, divers of his chief men met to advise about what might be best 
 for them to do. The result was, that seeing they could make nothing 
 of their enterprize, they would persuade the Duke to go to some port, 
 and take ship, and endeavour to save himself for a more favourable 
 time, and leave all the army to take the benefit of the pardon offered 
 to them. Thev repair to the Duke with this issue of their consulta- 
 tion. He is said to have been more heartily pleased with this motion, 
 than with any thing that had happened to him since he left Lyme. 
 But there were about him who overruled the business the other way; 
 and resolutions being taken up to go on, all care was taken to hide the 
 pardon from the multitude, and now they are upon their return west- 
 ward. 
 
 The club men were appointed, as was said, to meet the Duke, 
 Wednesday, July 1, in Sedgmoor. Many were there expecting him 
 many hours before he came. Late that day he came and encamped in 
 Pedwell Plain, a place toward the easterly and upper part of that moor.. 
 When there, some persons, members of the corporation, were sent to 
 him from Taunton, to desire him that he would not bring his army 
 back again thither, (which they feared about to do*) for that their town * Sic Orij. 
 would be utterly juined, as being exceedingly impoverished already, 
 
 3 n 2 
 
xx xvi APPENDIX. No. IV. 
 
 The Duke is said to have replied, " They had done well not to desire 
 " me to come from Lyme to them." One of them who came with 
 this address is reported to have brought with him a copy of the King's 
 proclamation of pardon, and to have so made it known among the 
 soldiers, that the next morning, when they were called over, there 
 were found to be a thousand of their men wanting. The Duke inquir- 
 ing into the reason, and hearing how it came to pass, a party of horse 
 was sent to Taunton to take up that person ; who, being brought to 
 Bridgwater, a prisoner, was threatened with death for his offence in 
 publishing the proclamation. He was carried into the fight to take 
 the fortune of war there ; but met an opportunity of getting his liberty, 
 and so made his escape. 
 
 On Thursday, July 2, the rebels marched into Bridgwater. It is 
 said, that the Duke left his army to be led by the Lord Grey, and that 
 himself giving it as a mark of particular kindness, did lead the club 
 men. It was well for one, who was reported to have procured the 
 troop of horse for taking up the Quaker and his companions mentioned 
 above, that he was not at home and in their way. For some of their 
 eminent men, who knew, used all their skill to learn where he was ; 
 one would give 40 guineas, pretending a desire to save him from dan- 
 ger; another, offered a troop of horse to guard him if he could be found 
 out; so every common soldier passing through the parish, asked his 
 neighbour where he was, and made proffers of five pounds to any that 
 would discover him. And Friday, July 3, in the evening, the Duke 
 himself sent a party of 30 or 40 horse to take him and his man up. 
 These made a diligent search in every corner of his house for him. I 
 mention this the rather, for it is an evidence that their minds were very 
 much intent upon this club design, for otherwise it is not likely that 
 they could have been so much concerned about one, whom they thought 
 to have acted to their prejudice therein. 
 
 When come into Bridgewater, their first thought seems to have heen 
 for fortifying of the town ; for which purpose, divers hundreds of 
 labouring men were summoned in out of the country to begin a work. 
 
APPENDIX. No. IV. XXXVii 
 
 But the chief men of the Duke's friends in the town, represented to him 
 that they had not provisions for a siege, and that it would be easy for 
 the King's army to fire the place, and therefore they desired the Duke 
 to leave the town, and so save it from rum. The labourers are pre- 
 sently neglected, and permitted to go home. And now, probably, 
 they took up the resolution of marching toward Bristol, which (though 
 they amused the people with an opinion as if they intended to move 
 toward Taunton, or uearer the coast westward,) it is, I think, certain 
 they were resolved upon Friday, July 3. 
 
 Upon Sunday, July 5, the King's army, consisting of about 4000 
 men, marched from Somerton. About noon they encamped in Zog, 
 in the parish of Chedsey under Weston, 2000 foot, in five regiments, 
 lodge in the camp ; 50O horse quarter in Weston ; 1500 militia men 
 took up their quarters in Middlesoy, Othery, &c. a mile or two distant 
 from Weston. One of the parish of Bridgwater being in the moor to 
 look after his cattle, saw their coming and manner of incamping, goes 
 into the town to the Duke, tells him all that he had seen, informs him 
 of the way to the camp through North Moor, and was rewarded by 
 the Duke with a guinea for his pains. The Duke forthwith goes up to 
 the church tower, views all lying open to him there with a perspective 
 glass. Coming down, he calls a council of war, in which it was agreed 
 upon to assault the King's camp. The news of this flew among the 
 Duke's friends, insomuch, that at a place 12 or 14 miles from Bridg- 
 water, where had been risings of club men and meetings, one of them 
 calls to the people coming out of church after evening service that 
 very afternoon, with all speed to hasten to the Duke's assistance; for 
 he had the King's army in a pinfold, under Weston ; adding that if 
 they should not make haste, they would certainly slip away from them. 
 That evening, between nine and ten of the clock, the Duke leads his 
 army out of Bridgwater with great silence. He did not take the 
 nearest way to Weston, which was three miles in length, by which he 
 went, June 22, and returned July 2, but he took the long causey, and 
 so made bis march near five miles long before he could reach the 
 King's camp. He left the way by that short causey through Chedsey, 
 
xxxviii APPENDIX. No. IV. 
 
 though that was nearer and much more commodious, probably to avoid 
 the danger of being discovered. For though he might possibly expect 
 at first as much assistance from Chedsey as the people were able to 
 give him, paiticular notice was taken that not one person went thence 
 first to last into his army. Hence, it is likely, he might tail into a 
 diffidence as to this place. His advantage must needs have been 
 much greater if he could have confided in the inhabitants there, so as 
 to have gone through their street. Avoiding them, therefore, who 
 knew, generally, nothing of his march, he went by Bradney Lane ; 
 which lane he also soon left, probably that he might not come too near 
 to a loyal man's house at the end of that lane, where it turns into the 
 moor, so by Marsh Lane, which was further about, and less commo- 
 dious, he led the army much incumbered, and retarded by the narrow- 
 ness of the lanes into the North Moor. 
 
 As for the King's army, care was taken, and great diligence used 
 upon their encamping, to set guards and centinels, not only in the 
 common road from Weston to Bridgwater, and in several ways and 
 lanes on that side of Chedsey, (by which was the nearest passage from 
 Bridgwater through Chedsey and Weston,) but also in that very way 
 round about by which the enemy did march. There were also two, 
 and perhaps more, considerable parties of horse sent out in the after- 
 noon from the King's camp to scout that way, though it be somewhat 
 difficult to explain, how it was possible for one of those parties espe- 
 cially to miss the discovering of the enemy, as they were coming from 
 the long causeway through the lanes into the moor. A trumpeter is 
 said to have been sent into the town to challenge them forth to fight, 
 or in case they refused, to threaten them with firing the town about 
 their ears the next morning. But then it must be confessed, that 
 though informations were brought to the camp, that the Duke would 
 come forth that night to visit them, and was actually preparing so to 
 do, yet the above-mentioned guards and centinels were all gone from 
 their several posts before bed-time, which all the country people saw 
 and affirm to be true. The guards on the south side of Chedsey 
 retired to the tamp The horse guard, of about 12 or 16, at Lang* 
 
APPENDIX. No. IV. XXXix 
 
 moor Stone, accompanied that party of horse which went through 
 North Moor into Baudrip. And now the camp was all quiet and at 
 rest, as believing no danger near. Only Captain Mackintosh, in the 
 Scots regiment, believed over night, and would have ventured wagers 
 upon it, that the Duke would come. He, in that persuasion, marked 
 out the ground between the tents and the ditch, where his men should 
 stand in case of an attack, and gave directions that all should be 
 readiness; and it was well he did so ; for his regiment being in the 
 ri°ht wing was to recene the first assault and main shock, which to give 
 them their due they did with great courage, as also did the rest of 
 those valiant men. The occasion of this seeming error of those brave 
 men seems to have been this : There was among them throughout the 
 Kind's army, a persuasion that the rebels, who had always been shift- 
 ing from them, would then steal away to Taunton, or Bristol, and 
 seeing thev accepted not the challenge to fight that Sunday, when 
 the day was over, there could be no action till next morning, against 
 which time it was seasonable to refresh themselves, wearied with that 
 day's march. Parties of horse being abroad to scout, and a watch of 
 eio-ht men set in Chedsey Street, to give notice if the enemy should 
 come that way, all was judged secure on that side. And the most ne- 
 cessary "uard at Langmoor Stone might be thought was left there, 
 seeinu- the party of horse, which took that guard along with them, 
 were "-oing to meet whatever danger might be coming that way. So 
 it fell out, by the Divine Providence ordering it, that the rebels thus 
 had a <rreat temptation tc draw them into this adventure as into a snare, 
 and were as near to an entire victory as men could well be and miss it. 
 That so it might be seen, that in truth God was not theirs, as they had 
 boasted, nor did then stand neuter. 
 
 To return to the Duke's army which we left in North Moor, they 
 had placed 42 waggons in the ascent of Bulden Hill in Bristol road, 
 with orders to drive on to Axbridge. They bring with them now 
 three °reat guns, and march with great silence. The Lord Grey 
 led the horse, supposed to be about 8C0. When they were come 
 to Langmoor Side or near it, a pistol was discharged, Captain Hacker 
 
xl APPENDIX. No. IV. 
 
 is said to have owned it at his trial, as done by him to give the King's 
 army notice of their danger near. Presently a trooper, unknown, 
 rode from them full speed as is supposed, "because seen to come that 
 way from the camp. He, standing on the outside of the ditch, 
 called with all possible earnestness to the Scots regiment to beat up 
 their drums, and tells them the enemy was come, and having re- 
 peated 20 times times at least, as loud as he could, rides back the 
 same way he, came. It was this person, and not the pistol, which 
 gave the alarm. 
 
 Now the camp awakes, runs to arms, gets into as good order as 
 they may, and stands ready to receive the enemy. The horse, which 
 the Lord Grey led marched towards the upper Plungeon. Missing 
 that passage over the ditch 1 he leads them on the outside, till they 
 come to the Scots regiment, by which 500 of these horse pass, pre- 
 tending that they were friends, and came from the Duke of Albemarle. 
 At length they are discovered by the other regiments and fired at. 
 They then wheel off, had a skirmish with their own men, and go 
 back by Langmoor Stone, and thus discouraging the rest of their 
 own army fled. Sir Francis Compton stood with a guard at the 
 upper Plungeon. One Jones was commanded with a party of horse 
 
 to beat him from that passage. He played his part with so much 
 valour, that for the same he was thought not unworthy of a pardon 
 from the General. But Sir Francis, though hard beset and wounded 
 yet kept his post so well, that the rebels horse behind, said to be 
 300, went backward on the outside of the ditch toward Sutton Mill, 
 near which they took up their station to see the issue of the fight. 
 When it appeared how things went, they shifted for themselves. 
 Whether Sir Francis were there before the 500 horse missing their 
 way went down toward the camp, or came to the Plungeon after- 
 wards, and so had his encounter with Jones as belonging to 
 the latter 300 horse we do not know. To be sure that worthy 
 gentleman did great service, for had the horse gone over there, not- 
 withstanding the alarm, all might have been lost. It was not above 
 half a quarter of an hour, before the foot continuing their march 
 
APPENDIX. No. IV. xli 
 
 appear to the Scots, first in three bodies, then the third lesser body 
 joins with one of the other two. Of these there were 2000 of their 
 prime, and principal]}* Taunton men, led by Wade. By these the 
 fis;ht was managed. The Kind's soldiers 2"ave them the commend- * 
 ation of stout men, 2000 more, among whom were 1000 scythe men, 
 stood at a distance between Lang Moor Stone and them. These 
 2000 came not to the fight. Many are said to have been behind 
 them, who being hindered by the lanes, through which they marohed 
 could not come up, before they met cause to run with their fellows. 
 The fight continued not much above half an hour. It is said that 
 victory seemed to be inclined to the rebels, and that the King's 
 army was almost in despair. We are next to give an account of 
 the following happy alteration. 
 
 The Duke of Moumonth and his company gave divers manifest 
 tokens that they were disheartened, though a good face was put on 
 to animate their friends to hurry the multitude to their assistance. Many 
 things concurred to this discouraging of him. They had met dis- 
 appointments at sea, as to the time of their landing, by which they 
 missed several considerable advantages. They were sensible of a treat 
 loss in Mr. Dare's being killed at Lyme, for no man had so great 
 an influence upon the Duke's friends in Taunton, as he Informations 
 were sent to his Majesty time enough to raise the militias, and to send 
 the Tangier and other forces against them, so soon, as proved much 
 to their prejudice. The Taunton men falling short of their promises, 
 as to men, money, and arms, by which promises they had done their 
 part to tempt him over, and draw him in, was not pleasing to the Duke. 
 He is reported to have expostulated with them about it when there* 
 His taking upon himself the title of King as he did, June the 20th 
 at Taunton, a thing besides his pretences in his printed declaration, 
 was very displeasing to some of the most active of his complices. 
 After this, some were heard to complain that now they had made him 
 a King, he was grown unwieldy and ungovernable. And there were 
 who scrupled not to own it, that they had fought against three Kings 
 but did not doubt that they should too against this fourth. They were 
 
 3 O * % 
 
xlii APPENDIX. No. IV. 
 
 troubled that greater men did not shew themselves, who it was thought 
 were so cautious and wise, as to stand behind the curtain to wait and 
 see what the rabble could make of the business, before they would 
 venture to appear openly. Some of the Duke's grandees were over- 
 heard, when he was first in Bridgewater, speaking to this purpose 
 in his presence, '* We wonder the gentlemen come not in. Well we 
 " will do the work without them, and then we will have their estates 
 " too." That they had heard no tidings of any insurrection in any 
 other places of the kingdom, this was besides a sad disappointment 
 of their hopes. They took it ill that the Clergy did not yield to any 
 motions nor close with any incitations, though some of them were 
 earnestly solicited and courted, with very high promises of favour 
 and preferment. They felt a scarcity of (not men such as they were, 
 but) provisions, and ammunition. They went with great expectations 
 and confidence eastward, but met at the same time ill success in 
 their own affairs, and to them ill news ofArgyle's defeat in Scotland. 
 They were uneasy at the happy union and agreement between the 
 King, and his Parliament. The proclamation of pardon coming in, 
 as it did, softened many into more yielding dispositions than they 
 were, which they began withall, and abated in them the courage, 
 that is in men who are desperate. The towns of Taunton and Bridge- 
 water were not desirous of their company a second time, and the 
 latter was soon weary of them. The club men did not appear so 
 considerable, as the Quaker had pretended they would do, and as 
 probably they might have done had the Duke, according to his first 
 intention, marched through their country for Bristol upon the approach 
 of the King's army. The Duke was observed under a constant cloud 
 of melancholy, and was heard often to express his despair of ever 
 doing any thing with such men as those were, which he had about 
 him. It is said that the Quaker, noting it once at Glastonbury, took 
 the boldness to clap him on the shoulder, and calling him by his 
 name bid him be of good heart, for he had so many thousands, 
 meaning the club men to fight for him. Some observed, that there 
 were, as they judged, a thousand women come into Bridgewater, 
 before the fight, (for the news that it would be was spread on that 
 
APPENDIX. No. IV. sliH 
 
 side) to take their leave of husbands, and other relations in the 
 rebellion, who were thought not to have added, however zealous 
 for the cause, to their courage. When they were resolved on fighting, 
 Sunday afternoon, they gave the soldiers to drink plentifully of the 
 plundered liquors, and many came forth half drunk. But the valour, 
 which this gave them might easily evaporate, in the time they spent 
 in their march in so long away, and such narrow lanes. It is conceived 
 that all these things might contribute more remotely to the preparing 
 of such a company for such a rout, as theirs was, when there should 
 be occasion. 
 
 But to come nearer, the 2000 foot which made the assault were 
 first commanded to run over the ditch. This was as is likely, upon 
 a presumption that the horse, going over the Plungeon, and so into 
 Weston, would have given the alarm behind the King's camp. 
 Accordingly they marched in* the Moor with a persuasion that the * Sic Orij. 
 King's army was running. So Wade is said to have told his men 
 they were; silence they would have broken, though commanded 
 silence, and shouted, had not he, doubting their circumstances, 
 restrained them. But when these foot were come to the ditch, things 
 were found to be otherwise than they hoped, and they were commanded 
 pain of death not to go over. And this might easily put them into some 
 confusion and consternation. It is also said, that the Duke left them 
 fighting upon a rooted distrust that he had of their sufficiency against 
 the King's soldiers, whom he very well knew ; and that being asked 
 to return to the said foot fighting to encourage them, he said, " All 
 u the world cannot stop those fellows, they will run presently," as 
 the failing of the horse in their design might have an ill effect upon 
 the foot in the front, so their running irreclaimably away at the 
 beginning kept the foot in the rear from coming up, and occasioned 
 many of their running, while the others were fighting. 
 
 Thingsbeing thus, the immediate cause of the rout was this. Upon 
 the alarm the King's horse, said to be 500 quartered in Weston, get 
 »p, made ready their horses, and mounted as soon as they may, and 
 
 3 o 2 
 
xliv APPENDIX. No. IV." 
 
 get together, and as is said, designing to go to the camp and fight, 
 miss their way, and ride into Weston town, out of which they pass 
 into the Moor by the road-way leading to Bridgewater, and now they 
 are in the outside of the ditch. By this time three of the King's guns 
 are drawn from the place where they stood altogether, and planted on 
 the inside of the ditch, between it and the tents, v These, being fired, 
 made lanes among the rebels, and at the same time with great courage 
 and fury the King's horse break in upon them. This was presently 
 followed with a total rout of the rebels, running every way, and leaving 
 to the King's army an intire victory. 
 
 The Duke of Monmouth's Co?nmission, procured by the Quaker, and 
 published at the meeting of the Club men, on Pealden Hill 
 Wednesday June, 24, 1685. 
 
 James. R. 
 
 Whereas we are given to understand that our faithful and loyal 
 subjects, in and about Brent Down and Uphill, and other places 
 adjacent in our County of Somerset, have taken arms, and in defence 
 wf our person and of the righteous cause we are engaged in, we could 
 act but in a particular manner take notice of their affection and 
 commend their zeal, which they have given such early marks of against 
 popery and tyranny. And therefore we do hereby justify, and allow 
 whatsoever they have already acted on our behalf. And further we 
 do authorize them or any of them, and by these presents give them 
 our royal warrant and commission to arm themselves in the best 
 manner they can, and to disarm, seize, take, prosecute, and kill, and 
 with force and arms subdue all manner of person and persons, that 
 shall appear in arms for James Duke of York, the Usurper, or that 
 shall act by any authority derived, or pretended to be derived from 
 * <,■ .- him. And persons * whatsoever, whether French or Irish, papists or 
 others, that shall land upon the coast, and in a more particular 
 manner to prosecute, subdue, and kill Christopher Duke of Albemarle, 
 
APPENDIX. No. IV. xlv 
 
 and his adherents, whom we have already declared rebels and traitors. 
 And we do hereby likewise authorize, and require all our loving 
 subjects, in all other parts and places upon the coast in the said County* * Sic Orig. 
 of Somerset and Devon, toward the said coast which will otherwise 
 be speedily invaded by French and Irish papists, sent for over, and 
 called in to that purpose, which will be to the utter ruin and de- 
 vastation of our kingdom, and all our loving subjects. Dated at our 
 camp at Glastonbury, the 23rd of June, ]685, the first year of our reign. 
 
 A Copy of a Warrant for Scythes. 
 
 James. R. • 
 
 These are in his Majesty's name to will and require you, on sight 
 hereof, to search for, seize, and take all such scythes, as can be found 
 in vour ty thing, paying a reasonable price for the same, and bring 
 them to my house to morrow by one of the clock in the afternoon, 
 that they may be delivered in to the commission officers, that are 
 appointed to receive them at Taunton by four of the same day, and 
 you shall be reimbursed by me what the scythes are worth. And 
 hereof fail not, as you will answer the contrary. Given under my 
 hand this 20th day of June, in the first year of his Majesty's reign. 
 To the Tithing man of Ch*. 
 
 * Probably Chediey. 
 
sdvi APPENDIX. No. V. 
 
 V. Deience of the Veracity of Bishop Burnet in his Statements 
 of Facts and Circumstances. 
 
 Referred to at Page 88. 
 
 BlSHOP BURNET's History of his Own Times, has put his readers into 
 possession of so many interesting facts, and has discovered so much of 
 the secret history of the" government in his day, and he has done it in 
 a stile so easy and familiar, that there is perhaps no historical work in 
 our language, which has afforded so much instruction and entertain- 
 ment. There is none which is read with greater avidity by persons 
 ]5 of all ages. Mr. Rose has, for some reason or other, taken a dislike 
 to the Bishop, and has attacked him, but it must be acknowledged, 
 openly and boldly. He appeals to his own experience for the little 
 reliance which is to be had upon his single authority, and has collected 
 such evidence as he could immediately meet with to support the 
 opinion he has very long entertained. This evidence is printed in the 
 Appendix to his work, and upon examination will turn out to be 
 directly the reverse of what Mr. Rose has supposed, and will prove 
 distinctly, that the single authority of the Bishop may be in general 
 safely relied upon. 
 
 As evidence upon this subject, it cannot be presumed that Mr. Rose 
 means to offer the virulent abuse of that most scurrilous of all authors, 
 short View, Bevill Higgons.* He was a staunch Jacobite, and had persuaded him- 
 *' ' self, that the Stuart family was tm the most virtuous race that ever sat 
 
 " on the throne of England ;" and his remarks on Bishop Burnet's 
 history, which are cited by Mr.Rose with complacency and approbation, 
 contain much railing, but few facts and little argument. Of his stile 
 of writing the reader may form a tolerably fair opinion, from the speci- 
 mens preserved in Mr. Rose's Appendix, but he will not find stated 
 
 * By way of manifesting the accuracy of Mr Rose, it may be remarked, that he 
 cites Higgons's works, in 2 volumes, 8vo which he says are filled with comments 
 on Burnet's mis-statements, &c. but it happens that one volume only is occupied 
 in that manner. 
 
APPENDIX. No. V. xlvii 
 
 there the detection of a single inaccuracy In Burnet's history. A 
 further reference to the book itself would not be very satisfactory; for 
 the instances in which the Bishop's relation of facts is controverted, are 
 neither numerous nor material, and in some of them Higgons has been 
 mistaken, and proved to have been incorrect 
 
 We shall not detain the reader with remarks upon a fulsome dedica- 
 tion written by Burnet in the year 1670, immediately after his first 
 introduction to the Duke of Lauderdale, which Mr. Rose has contrasted 
 with the character given by him of the Duke at a later period of 
 his life.* 
 
 It is quite wonderful that Mr. Rose, who has so feelingly described 
 the powerful bias, which men connected with party must feel, should 
 call to his assistance in the attack upon Bishop Burnet those only, upon 
 whose minds these political principles and connections had operated 
 with uncommon violence. He conceives Mr. Fox to have felt it 
 strongly without knowing it ; and can he conceive that Bevill Higgons, 
 that the first Earl of Dartmouth, or that Lord Lansdowne, did not feel it 
 also ? It is perceived in every page of Higgons's remarks, and with 
 respect to the Earl of Dartmouth, who Mr. Rose again by mistake calls 
 the second Earl, it is curious to see the manner in which Mr. Rose has 
 made his notes on the margin of the Bishop's History bear upon the 
 question. First of all, not a single fact has been selected from them 
 to shew that Burnet has been inaccurate. Next, it must be recollected, 
 that the first volume of Burnet, which only comes down to the end of 
 James the Second's reign, was published in 1725, and the second did 
 not come out till 1734. The second volume reaches to 1713, and 
 of course comprises the history of the Whig administration in the be- 
 
 * Mr. Rose is incorrect again ; speaking of this character he says, " which lit 
 * did not, however, publish till after the Revolution." The Bishop did not live 
 to publish the History of his Own Times ; the first volume appeared in 1725, but he 
 died in 1715. 
 
xlviii APPENDIX. No. V. 
 
 * 
 
 ginning of Queen Ann's reign, of its overthrow, ana of the establish- 
 ment of the Tory administration under Harley, which was projected, 
 and partly carried into effect in 1710, and perfected in 1711. In this 
 last administration, Lord Dartmouth took a part, for he was made a 
 Secretary of State in 1710, an Earl in 1711, and, in 1713, Lord Privy 
 Seal. We may presume that this noble Lord believed what be wrote 
 in page 3 of the first volume, " I do not think he designedly wrote 
 " any thing he believed to be false." And we must not forget that a 
 great number of circumstances narrated in that volume, particularly 
 those about the time of the Revolution, must have fallen within his own 
 knowledge, or been fresh in his recollection. As a further proof of his 
 approbation, 'his name does not appear in the list of subscribers 
 prefixed to the first volume, but is found in that prefixed to the 
 second, notwithstanding nine years had elapsed between the publica- 
 tion of the volumes, and he had had full time to have informed himself 
 of the truth of those facts contained in the first, which had not fallen 
 within his own observation. Unfortunately, Burnet in the second 
 volume, made free with the administration Just mentioned, and we 
 may take for granted, had stated some things as facts, which the Earl of 
 Dartmouth conscientiously believed not to be true ; for in a note at the 
 foot of the subscription list, he recanted what he had written in the 
 former volume, and wrote, that he was " fully satisfied that he pub- 
 " lished many things that he knew to be so.", (i. e. false.) The spirit 
 in which this note was penned cannot be mistaken. But if there could 
 be a doubt, a reference to two other notes cited by Mr. Rose would re- 
 move it. 1 mean the note of the Earl of Dartmouth upon that pas- 
 sage in Burnet, which describes a pamphlet, entitled, the Conduct of 
 the Allies and of the late Ministry, to be " written with much art, 
 " but no regard to truth," and the final note, with which the Earl's 
 remarks are concluded. That his opinion respecting Burnet was 
 changed, between the publication of the two volumes of the History, 
 is manifest. But there was a time when he thought the first volume 
 to be written with an honest intention ; and whatever might be the 
 true character of the second it is not clear that he ever changed the 
 opinion he originally recorded concerning the first. 
 
APPENDIX. No. V. xliaf 
 
 Mr. Rose then presses into the service Lord Lansdowne, who was 
 also one of the Tory ministry formed after Sacheverell's trial, held the 
 office of Treasurer of the Household, and was made a peer in 1711. He 
 treats Bishop Burnet with some apparent delicacy, hut insinuates that he 
 would not scruple to assert a positive falsehood, and attacks the history 
 as being " little else but such a one told such a one, and such a one 
 " told me;" and concludes with one observation " upon the most im- 
 " portant hearsay in his whole work, upon the credit of which the re^i 
 " may depend.'' The hearsay alluded to is, that " His Lordship (i. e. 
 '* the Bishop) had it from Mr. Henley, who had it from the Dutchess 
 c; of Portsmouth, that King Charles the Second was poisoned." This 
 proposition consists of two parts ; first, that the Dutchess of Ports- 
 mouth told Mr.Henlev, and second, that Mr. Henley told the Bishop; 
 and either of them admits of contradiction. The reader would natu- 
 rally expect from the purpose, for which Mr. Rose has introduced this 
 story, and the comment, with which Lord Lansdowne has accompanied 
 the relation of it, that he had been able to shew the Bishop had made 
 a wilful misrepresentation of one, or both of the before-mentioned 
 particulars. But it is not disputed that Mr. Henley told the story to 
 the Bishop ; and the story is attempted to be discredited, not even by 
 confronting one hearsay story directly against another, but the produc- 
 tion of a hearsay story, which has little relation to the point in ques- 
 tion. For this noble Lord, who says, that " this sort of testimony is 
 " heard in no case," employed a person, whose name is not mentioned, 
 to apply to the Dutchess about the truth of the passage. Now how the 
 testimony of this anonymous person of what he heard the Dutchess 
 say, is more to be relied upon, than what Mr. Henley, who is asserted 
 by Burnet to be a respectable gentleman, and not denied to be so either 
 bv Lord Lansdowne, or Mr. Rose, heard her say, is utterly incom- 
 prehensible- In like manner, Mr. Rose quotes against the Bishop 
 what Mr. Francis Gwynn, secretary at war under the Harleian adminis- 
 tration, told Lord Dartmouth, the Dutchess of Monmouth had told 
 him ; and what Mr. Secretary Johnston told the same Lord, Bishop 
 Burnet himself had said to him. If this species of evidence 
 received against a man, it would be unjust to reject it when tendered 
 for him; and Mr. Rose cannot, if he has any regard for consistency, 
 
 3 P 
 
APPENDIX. No. V. 
 
 be severe upon the Bishop for admitting such testimony, when he 
 himself relies upon it, and in his Introduction cites what Lord Bolin- 
 broke told Lord Marchmont, and Lord Marchmont told him, concerning 
 some very important facts. But to return, the objection of Lord Lans- 
 downe is to the nature of the evidence in general, not to the particular 
 witness ; and it was ingeniously contrived by him, and the instance 
 selected with great judgment by Mr. Rose, that the contradiction should 
 be authenticated only by evidence, which they both contend cannot be 
 received at all. But the answer reported by the anonymous friend of 
 Lord Lansdovvne, when examined, is no contradiction of what the 
 Bishop wrote. The passage in question was found, after his death, 
 added on a loose paper to the History of his Own Times, and purports 
 only to relate what Mr. Henley told him. If Mr. Henley had deceived 
 him, the character of the Bishop must have remained unaffected, even 
 though the Dutchess had expressly denied she had made the commu- 
 nication to Mr. Henley. But when applied to, she does not say 
 positively she is not acquainted with Mr. Henley j nor does she deny 
 that she had said to him that Charles the Second was poisoned, but 
 contents herself with answering, that " she recollected no acquaintance 
 " with Mr. Henley." She then goes off into the most violent abuse of the 
 Bishop, saying, "the King, and the Duke, and the whole court looked 
 " upon him as the greatest lyar upon the face of the earth ; and there 
 " was no believing one word that he said." The terms she used to 
 convey this opinion of Bishop Burnet's veracity were not very delicate, 
 but we may presume she was very angry, and that the King, and the 
 Duke, and the whole court were very angry also, or they would not 
 have formed such an opinion of him. The temper of mind, in which 
 the Dutchess received the inquiry, naturally leads to a suspicion, that 
 she was displeased at Mr. Henley for having betrayed her confidence, 
 Fere, ©. €1. especially when we recollect that Mr. Fox has stated some ground for 
 believing that she was satisfied in own mind of the truth of the fact 
 she had been represented to have related. 
 
 We dismiss, now, the general abuse which must be expected to be 
 cast lavishly upon every man, who distinguishes himself as Bishop 
 
APPENDIX. No. V. 15 
 
 Burnet had done, by his zeal and ability in support of the political 
 principles and measures of his part}-. The Bishop had his share in 
 his day ; and it is rather hard upon his memory, that Mr. Rose, a pro- 
 fessed Whig, should call in the aid of Jacobites, Nonjurors, and Tories, 
 to revive the obloquy against him.* But it is more easy to rail than 
 to argue ; to make general charges, than to assert and prove specific 
 facts. This the reader will find to be the case in the present instance. 
 It is true, that the general charge made by Mr. Rose is supported by 
 persons of great note, but whose dislike of the Bishop, his principles, and 
 conduct deprived them of the power of forming a just judgment either of 
 his actions, or writings. Not content, however, with their testimony, 
 Mr. Rose has selected certain facts, which he supposes further corrobo- 
 rate the general opinion he had formed, and those authorities have 
 proved. But if each specific fact selected by him, as being tainted by 
 falsehood, turns out upon examination to be truly stated, we shall be 
 justified in disregarding these general imputations, and trust with 
 increased confidence in the fidelity of the Bishop upon other occasions. 
 
 In the foregoing pages the veracity or correctness of Burnet, has 
 
 been attacked either directly or by insinuation not less than four 
 
 times, i. For his general character of Monk. 2. For his having R 0S e, p. 15. 
 
 charged Monk with betraying the Letters of Areyle. 3. For his Ib -P-* 2 - 
 . jo cj lb. p. 156. 
 
 having given a wrong description of the bill for the preservation of 
 
 the person of James the Second. 4. For stating that that bill was 
 opposed by Mr. Serjeant Maynard. Yet in every one of these 
 instances the fidelity and correctness of the Bishop has been con- 
 spicuous, and each charge has upon examination proved to have 
 had no foundation, but ill the iuaccuracy, indolence, or unfounded 
 suspicions of those, who first made, or afterwards repeated it. It will 
 be sufficient to refer the reader to the different parts of the Vindi- 
 cation, without entering into a second discussion of those charges here, ante, p. 27,56. 
 
 & 225,234. 
 
 In his Appendix Mr. Rose has added three, as he calls them, 
 •* Mis-statements in the Bishop's History contradicted by records." 
 
 * Mr. Rose ha» exceeded them all in asperity in a note upon an alteration made b:/ 
 himttlfiv an extract from the Dartmouth MS. See his Appendix, p. Ivi. 
 
 3 P2 
 
 lb. p. 157. 
 
Hi APPENDIX. No. V.. 
 
 1. Bishop Burnet in 1685 says, w that the House was more forward 
 " to give than the King was to ask. To which the King thought 
 " fit to put a stop, by a message, intimating that he desired no 
 " more money that Session." To this Mr, Rose answers, " Here 
 " is a positive mis-statement of a fact, which could by no possibility 
 11 have arisen from a mistake, as the Doctor was on the spot at the 
 " time" and then he says it is unquestionably, " certain that his 
 (c Majesty sent no message, nor took any other measures to check 
 " or to stop the grants," and then he cites many entries from the 
 Journals to prove that the King was urgent for supplies. Before we 
 proceed it may be proper to notice, that Mr. Rose's reason for 
 imputing a wilful deviation from truth, viz. because the Bishop was 
 upon the spot, has been hazarded without due consideration, for I 
 believe it will be found that he was in Holland at the time. He fled 
 immediately after the death of Charles II. And itwill be unnecessary to 
 follow Mr. Rose through the Journals, because the single question 
 is whether the King sent any message to put a stop to further grants 
 of money. That there is no such message upon the Journals we 
 readily acknowledge, but it does not follow for that reason alone that 
 none was sent. If Mr. Rose had not been a steady believer in the 
 infallibility of the Journals, which he has in his own custody, he might 
 Chand. Deb, ii. perhaps have condescended to have looked into Chandler's debates, 
 P* ,74 ' and there he would have found that on the 10th of June, 1685, Sir 
 
 John Ernley did deliver a message from the King, heartily thanking 
 the Commons for their services, and telling them " that he desired 
 " no more this Session than what they were about, that he would 
 " make trial of the impositions on sugars and tobacco, but if he should 
 " find them injurious to his plantations, he would not make use of 
 " themj but hoped they would supply him some other way." If he 
 bad examined further he might have found, that on the 16th of the 
 lb. p. 191. following November, Sir Hugh Cholmondley in the committee of 
 supply said, " The House was so forward to give last time, that the 
 " King's Ministers gave their stop to it." But we have the testimony 
 of a still higher nature to produce, which Mr. Rose had in his own 
 
 bands, which he has refered to, but which it is. to be hoped he never read. 
 
 ■■■.*. * 
 
APPENDIX. No. V. liii 
 
 For the Earl of Lonstlale in his Memoir, not only confirms Burnet, Lonsdale's 
 
 as to the profusion of the Commons, but also vouches the authenticity 
 
 of the message before mentioned, by quoting the latter part of it. 
 
 The words of the Memoir are, " And therefore in the matter of the 
 
 " revenue, he did not ask so much as the Parliament did give. So 
 
 " that they prevented not only his expectations but his wishes; insomuch 
 
 " that they laid >o great an imposition upon tobacco and sugars, as 
 
 " in the apprehensions of many men would destroy the plantations, 
 
 " that subsist by those commodities; and notwithstanding that the 
 
 " marchants from Bristol and other places, were heard att the bar 
 
 " of the hous, and by very rational discourses made the matter but 
 
 " too plain yet t'was to no purpose ; some men's private interest, 
 
 " other mens willingnesse to endear the King as much as possible 
 
 " makeing them deaf to all arguments, and besides the King's promise, 
 
 " that if it was ffound inconvenient to the trade, he would remitt 
 
 " the imposition, was of so much prevalence, that the matter was 
 
 " allowed no ffurther debate." Before Mr. Rose had made so serious 
 
 a charge upon the Bishop, he ought to have well examined the 
 
 evidence on which it was founded. The Earl of Lonsdale's testimony 
 
 is quite decisive, he was, as Mr. Rose supposes Burnet to have been 
 
 upon the spot, and was active in all the measures which were going on ; 
 
 he could not be mistaken, and there can be no doubt, notwithstanding 
 
 the omission in the Journals, that the message was delivered. In this 
 
 instance Bishop Burnet's History, standing single and unauthenticated 
 
 by any corroborating circumstance, as it did for many years, and as 
 
 Mr. Rose conceived it to do when he wrote, has proved to be more 
 
 to be depended upon than the records, as Mr. Rose calls them, 
 
 produced to contradict it. 
 
 2. The second mis-statement is that the alarm of Mon mouth Y 
 landing was brought to London, " where upon the general report and 
 " belief of the thing, an act of attainder passed both houses in one 
 " day ; some, small opposition being made by the Earl of Anglesey, 
 " because the evidence did not seem clear enough for so severe a 
 " . , which was grounded on the notoriety jof the thing." Mr. 
 
li* 
 
 APPENDIX. No.V. 
 
 Com. Joum. 
 ix. p. 135. 
 
 Lords' Joum. 
 xiv. p. 39. 
 
 Com. Joum. 
 ix. p. 737. 
 Lords' Joum. 
 xit. p. 42. 44. 
 
 Rose denies that the act passed on a general belief, and was 
 grounded on the notoriety of the thing, because " the King on the 
 " 13th of June, communicated to the two bouses a letter from Alford 
 " the Mayor of Lyme, giving a particular account of the Duke's 
 " landing there, and taking possession of the Town." Thus, accord- 
 ing to some new system of consistent reasoning, though hearsay 
 stories ought not to be admitted in history, a letter sent to the King, 
 and by him laid before both Houses of Parliament, may be received 
 as sufficient evidence of the facts mentioned in that letter, in order to 
 criminate and even attaint an individual. Bishop Burnet might be of a 
 contrary opinion, and conceive according to the rules by which the 
 municipal tribunals of the country regulate their proceedings, that the 
 person who wrote the letter ought himself to have been produced, 
 and that in his absence what he wrote ought to be treated as no evi- 
 dence at all. But upon referring to the Journals, the Bishop's account 
 of this act will be found perfectly correct. Upon Saturday the 13th 
 of June, 1685, the King laid before both of the Houses of Parliament 
 the letter from the Mayor of Lyme, giving an account of Monmouth's 
 landing there, and acquainted the Commons that two messengers, 
 who brought the letter had been examined upon oath at the Council 
 Table. The Commons examined the messengers who testified n the 
 truth of the matter," but the Lords did not. Both Houses agreed to 
 address the King, and the address of the Lords thanked him for 
 imparting the intelligence. The letter of the Mayor might be suf- 
 ficient to authorize an address, but not a bill of attainder, a sort 
 of prerogative trial, in which the legislature by an extraordinary 
 interference, removes the consideration of an offence from the 
 common tribunals, and takes it upon itself. The Commons, having 
 voted the address, ordered a bill to be brought in for the attain- 
 der of the Duke of Monmouth, without any further examination 
 of witnesses. On Monday the 1 5th the bill was read three times, and 
 passed, and sent up to the Lords, where it was also read three times 
 on the same day, without the production of any evidence, and passed ; 
 and on the next day, Tuesday the 16th of June, it received the royal 
 assent. These circumstances must have been well known to Mr. 
 
APPENDIX. No. V. [ v 
 
 Rose, and from his having omitted to mention the examination of the 
 two messengers by the Commons, we presume that as their depositions 
 are not preserved in the Journals, he thinks they do not affect the 
 question, and chuses to rest his objection upon the production of the 
 letter only. He conceives the same evidence, ae he stiles it, to have 
 been laid before both houses, and the only difference between their 
 proceedings to be that the Lords were occupied with the bill a few 
 hours later than the Commons. In this view of the subject, besides 
 the answers before alluded to, that the letter was no more than hearsay, 
 and not admissible at all in evidence, we learn, that in fact, as a 
 foundation for the act of attainder, that letter was never read. It was 
 merely, to use an expression in the address of the Lords, the imparting 
 of intelligence, and the act passed afterwards must have been founded 
 upon general report and belief, and the notoriety of the thing, as the 
 Bishop has described it. The Bishop does not stand single and uncor- 
 roborated in his opinion of the manner in which this business was con- 
 ducted, for the Earl of Lonsdale, who was at that time an assiduous Memoirs, p.6i. 
 Member of the House of Commons, ends his memoir with an expres- 
 sion, which shews that he conceived the charge to be well founded 
 as. far as the House of Commons was concerned, " they" says he, 
 " passed a bill of attainder against the Duke of Monmouth, without 
 " examining witnesses in one day," and be could not be mistaken 
 about this fact. Burnet says that the Earl of Anglesey opposed this 
 bill in the Lords, because he thought the evidence not sufficient to 
 authorize so severe a sentence. This leads to a suspicion that the 
 Bishop wa- perfectly aware of what Mr. Rose triumphs in producing, 
 namely the letter of the Mayor, for a noble Lord did oppose the bill 
 on account of a defect in the evidence, and the advocates for it 
 probably resorted to the notoriety of the facts, as the best justification 
 of the measure. It is evident that the Earl of Lonsdale considers the 
 examination of the two meh-eugcrs by the Commons, to have had no 
 relation whatever to the bill, and it is also manifest that the essential 
 requisites of justice were not attended to, no specific charge was made 
 the foundation of the attainder, no evidence was required of the guilt 
 of the culprit, no witnesses examined to prove it. We may therefore 
 
lvi APPENDIX. No. V. 
 
 beg of Mr. Rose to disclose any other ground, upon which the pro- 
 ceedings of either House can be supported or defended, but that 
 which he objects to because suggested by Bishop Burnet, namely, 
 the general report and belief, the notoriety of the thing. It may be 
 readily conceived that the mode, in which this act was passed, occasioned 
 Stat. Tr. v. much conversation at the time, more especially if what Sir Edward 
 Seymour said in a debate on Sir John Fenwick's bill is true, that this 
 bill against the Duke of Monmouth was the first bill of attainder, 
 which had ever originated in the House of Commons, where witnesses 
 could not be examined upon oath. 
 
 3. The last supposed instance of a mis statement by Bishop Burnet 
 is taken from his account of what passed in the House of Lords in 
 convention after the abdication of James the Second, respecting the va- 
 cancy of the throne, and its being filled by the Prince and Princess of 
 Orange. The objections are three in number, and none of them ver}' 
 important. 1 . Burnet says many protestations passed in the House, 
 in the progress of the debate; 2. the House was very full, about 120 
 were present; and 3. against the final vote by which the Prince and 
 Princess were declared King and Queen, a great protestation was made. 
 To the first, Mr. Rose answers that there were only three protests, 
 but to this we shall observe that ' many' is a word of loose and indefinite 
 signification, and three protests, if not four, arising out of one subject 
 might appear to the Bishop to authorize the expression, though Mr. 
 Rose may be of a different opinion. To the second, Mr. Rose truly 
 says the most important discussions took place, on the 31st of January, 
 the 4th and 6th February, and states the numbers present to have been 
 1 00, 111, and 112. In one of these numbers is a mistake of importance 
 only as shewing, that the propensity to blunder so often complained of, 
 extends even to figures and calculations, for on the 4th of February 
 Lords' joum. there were present only 109 Lords, not ill. A similar mistake occurs 
 ??y* p< \] 5 / in his alledging; that "the greatest number of Whigs who protested 
 
 Ibid, p, 116. b £> b el 
 
 " were 36 ;" for on the same 4th of February 39 signed a protest. The 
 Bishop has not been dealt quite fairly with in the citation made from 
 bis work, for this sentence which introduces it in the original is 
 
APPENDIX. No. V. lvii 
 
 omitted m the quotation. " I have not pursued the relation of the Burnet, i. p. 
 " debates according to the order in which they passed, which will be 82u 
 " found in the Journal of both houses during the convention." This 
 is a material passage for the vindication of the Bishop, his object is 
 to give an account not of the debates and transactions of each day, 
 but a general view of the whole, and when he says "about 120 were 
 present," he does not mean that so many attended upon any one 
 dav, but on one or other of the several days during which the 
 debates alluded to were going on. Mr. Rose's enumeration, there- 
 fore, of those who were present upon each of the days of the three 
 most important debates, will not shew the Bishop to be wrong, indeed 
 it can have no bearing upon the question. Upon a cursory examina- 
 tion of the Journal, there appear to have been present on some one or 
 other of the following days, January the 29th, 30th, 31st, February 
 the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th, 117 different Lords; so that, Bishop Bur- 
 net's assertion being understood to mean, that about 120 were present 
 at some one or other of the debates is probably correct. 3. Mr. Rose 
 asserts that there certainly was no protest against the final vote, that 
 the Prince and Princess of Orange should be declared King and Queen. L 0r dV Jouru 
 On the 6th of February, the Lords resolved to agree with the Com- * iv " P- 119 - 
 mons that James had abdicated, and the throne thereby was vacant. 
 Immediately after that vote, the question that the Prince and Princess 
 of Orange should be declared King and Queen passed also in the 
 affirmative. In the Journal, leave is entered for Lords to protest after 
 each of these votes ; and it appears that 38 Lords did enter their names 
 as protesting against the first of them. Immediately after the second, 
 which is the final vote alluded to, is this entry, " Leave given to any 
 " Lords to enter their dissents; and, accordingly, these Lords follow- 
 " ing do enter their dissents by subscribing their names;'''' bet no 
 names are subscribed. If we had here only the authority of Bishop 
 Burnet opposed to that of the Journals, recollecting that in a similar 
 instance recently under consideration, he turned out to be right, it 
 would be too much to conclude that he must be wrong. He tells us 
 that he had a great share in the management of these debates, of 
 course we must presume him to be well acquainted with the fact he 
 narrates ; and that if he is not correct he is guilty of a gross mistake, 
 
 3 Q 
 
lviii APPENDIX. No. V. 
 
 or of a wilful deviation from truth ; but a man does not usually prefer 
 falshood to truth without a motive, and here none can be assigned. 
 Besides, the probability is on the side of the Bishop, for the same peers 
 who had signed the protest against voting the vacancy of the throne, 
 might be expected to have signed the protest against the final vote. 
 
 But the words of the Journal may be worthy of attention ; for the 
 Lords' Joum. usual entry when no names are subscribed, is only " that leave was 
 xiv. p. 122. n gjy en to anv L or d s to enter their dissents ;" an instance occurred 
 on the 9th of February, when the declaration was settled with respect 
 to the paragraph, declaring the Prince and Princess to be King and 
 Queen, and no names were subscribed. The addition of these words, 
 " that the Lords following have entered their dissents, by subscribing 
 " their names," or " giving their reasons," might not usually be made 
 until some Lord intending to protest required it. A suspicion 
 therefore arises, that the names of the same peers who made the first 
 protest of that day, were subscribed also to the second, though they 
 are not found in the printed Journal. But after all, we may grant 
 that the Bishop has been mistaken in this solitary immaterial fact, 
 which can by no possibility affect his narrative in other respects. 
 And it is curious to observe, that Mr. Rose himself has made more 
 mistakes in pointing out this trifling error, if it is one, than he, after 
 calling in the assistance of Bevill Higgons, Dr. Campbell, and Mr. 
 Ralph, has been able to select from the Bishop's whole work. 
 
 Bishop Burnet's History of his Own Times is contained in two folio 
 volumes, and not only all the abuse which the utmost virulence of party 
 had cast upon the author has been revived, but no less than seven or eight 
 different specific charges havebeen made against him. If there had been 
 more errors discovered in his history, itcannot be supposed that they would 
 have been omitted to have been mentioned, when defects so extremely 
 trifling and insignificant as those, with which Mr. Roses Appendix is con- 
 cluded, are brought into notice. But the character of the Bishop for vera- 
 city has risen triumphantly over these puny efforts to destroy his fair fame, 
 in every instance (except, perhaps, the last of all) he appears to have 
 been perfectly correct in his statements. And what ought to give con- 
 
APPENDIX. No. V. 1& 
 
 fidence in those facts which now stand upon his sole authority, many of 
 those, which have been disputed, have been authenticated by documents, 
 published subsequently to the objections being made. No man was 
 possessed of higher and more authentic sources of information, and he 
 made use of them. His character of James the Second has been sup- 
 ported, almost in his expressions, by the secret dispatches of Barillon; 
 his character of Monk by the publications of Baillie, Cunningham, 
 and Mrs. Hutchinson ; and Mr. Rose, with the memoir of the Earl of 
 Lonsdale in his hand, has attacked his veracity in the relation of two 
 circumstances, both of which that memoir has proved to be true. 
 Having undergone such an ordeal, let us hope that the Bishop's 
 history may not only be allowed to retain a high reputation for authen- 
 ticity among the Whigs, but that, even among the Tories its general 
 character may no loHger be the subject of obloquy and controversy. 
 Looking back to the result of those discussions which have been pro- 
 voked by Mr. Rose, it may reasonably be expected, that what has 
 happened in so many instances will happen again ; that the more nu- 
 merous the family papers which shall be hereafter laid open to public 
 inspection, the more numerous will be the future confirmations of his 
 statements. I cannot conclude without adding, as an act of justice 
 to the character of Bishop Burnet, that having had occasion fre- 
 quently to examine into the correctness of facts related by him, I 
 have always found them to be accurately stated in substance. But his 
 affected disregard to dates, and throwing together matters which hap- 
 pened at different times, in order to form one general view of each 
 particular subject, give his work the appearance of incorrectness, an)d 
 make it troublesome for reference. The numerous mistakes com- 
 mitted by Mr Rose, though habituated to official accuracy, in a not 
 vtry thick quarto volume, while it evinces how difficult it is to guard 
 against them, may raise a feeling of respect for Bishop Burnet 
 who without the advantage alluded to, has written two folio volumes, 
 in which there is so little to object to, so little to be wished, altered or 
 obliterated. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Printed by H. B y r. 
 ?ri<Jje-Strett, BlacVfriari, T,on*>n. 
 

 
 ERRATA. 
 
 
 
 In the Preface, 
 
 
 Page. 
 
 line 
 
 Page I 
 
 , last line, for On the contrary read Indeed. 
 
 136, 
 
 26, 
 
 Page. 
 
 line. 
 
 
 141, 
 
 6, 
 
 39, 
 
 3, for May, read Marek. 
 
 
 146, 
 
 16, 
 
 41, 
 
 6, for Mr. read Sir, 
 
 
 154, 
 
 19, 
 
 53, 
 
 23, for Office read Officer. 
 
 
 164, 
 
 5, 
 
 68, 
 
 14, after 27th, insert September, 
 
 
 172, 
 
 13, 
 
 85, 
 
 20, for 1569, read 1559. 
 
 
 224, 
 
 22, 
 
 J 00, 
 
 15, for Rebels read Rebel. 
 
 
 247, 
 
 20, 
 
 102, 
 
 23, for inattention read attention. 
 
 
 309, 
 
 *, 
 
 105, 
 
 8, dele Me». 
 
 
 318, 
 
 2, 
 
 111, 
 
 22, for truism read *nrfA, 
 
 
 354, 
 417, 
 
 12, 
 18, 
 
 dele to him. 
 
 for comprizing read comprized in. 
 after March, insert 1685. 
 after translated, insert z'<. 
 from It is, read For he argues. 
 for is, read so. 
 for aiori, read works, 
 for r/gAfr read WgAl. 
 after religion insert and at last, 
 for 5,000,000, read 500,000, 
 after have, dele not. 
 for 1674/5 read 1684/5. 
 
 -V 
 


 
 ^ - r 4 
 
 A v ^ - HI 
 
 
 
 * 'o. 
 
 - V 
 
 1 
 
 
 ."Si > Q 
 
 i> c - 
 
 v 
 
 ,°q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c* • 
 
» V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■<a ^ 
 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 >0o y 
 
 
 > *, 
 
 * A' 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a\' 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 '% %*"' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 X 0c i<. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■^ -" 
 
 
 ^\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <". 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 % 
 
 "? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 021 934 512 4