Page images

singing. The sound which composes the note of speaking is, he observes, in continual motion ; the sound which composes the rote of singing is for a given time at rest. To illustrate this position, he has recourse to the eye, the most distinct and definite of all our senses.

Musical notes, he says, may be compared to horizontal lines, rising one above another, from low to high by distinct intervals; and speaking tones, on the other hand, resemble oblique lines sliding upward and downward in uninterrupted succession.

• The English accent, therefore, is an elevation of voice; whether we consider it in words pronounced singly, or compared with the other words or syllables. Considered singly, it rises from a lower to a higher tone in the question Nó? which may therefore be called the acute accent, and falls from a higher to a lower tone in the answer Nò, and may therefore be called the grave. When compared with the preceding and succeeding words or syllables, it is louder and higher than the preceding, and louder and lower than the succeeding syllables in the question, Satisfactorily did he say? and both louder and higher than either the preceding or succeeding syllables in the answer--He said satisfactorily. Those who wish to see this explained more at large may consult Elements of Elocution, vol. i. page 112 ; or Melody of Speaking Delineated, page 7.

• This idea of accent is so evident upon experiment, as to defy contradiction ; and yet, such is the general ignorance of the modifications of the voice, that we find those who pretend to explain the nature of accent the inost accurately--when they give us an example of the accent in any particular word, suppose it always pronounced affirmatively and alone; that is, as if words were always pronounced with one inflexion of voice, and as if there were no difference, with respect to the nature of the accent, whether the word is in an affirma. tion or a questioni, in one part of the sentence or in another ; when nothing can be more palpable to a correct ear than that the accents of the word voluntary in the following sentences, are essentially dif. ferent :

His resignation was voluntary.

He made a voluntary resignation. In both, the accent is on the first syllable. In the first sentence, the accented syllable is higher and louder than the other syllables: and in the second, it is louder and lower than the rest. The same may be observed of the following question:

Was his resignation voluntary or involuntary ? where the first syllable of the word voluntary is louder and lower than the succeeding syllables; and in the word involuntary, it is louder and higher. Those who have not cars sufficiently delicate to discern this difference, ought never to open their lips about the acute or grase accent, as they are pleased to call them ; let them speak of accent as it relates to stress only, and not to elevation or depression of voice, and then they may speak intelligiblye! 13


This key to classical pronunciation, we think, is well calculated for the purposes of general utility; and we particularly recommend it to those who have occasion to speak or read in public.

Art. VII. Dr. Coote's History of England.

[Article concluded from the Rev. for March, p. 288.] IN our last article respecting this work, we accompanied Dr.

Coote to the end of the reign of James I.; and we now proceed with him to a period full of memorable events. CHARLES lived at a very unfortunate time, and had early imbibed unfor. tunate prejudices : " he had been brought up,” as he expressed himself, « at the feet of Gamaliel.”- The Commons began to feel their own importance, and were unwilling to bear a stretch, perhaps some of them even a continuance, of monarchical power. The king was equally unwilling to relinquish that which he considered as his birth-right; and, from the influence which weak and bad advisers (we allude to his Queen and the Duke of Buckingham) had on his mind, he treated the opposers of his measures with indignity and contempt, and was precipitated into the most unguarded conduct, which terminated in his ruin.- As the spirit of party ran so high during this reign, it is difficult to arrive at a precise knowlege of the occurrences which led to so important a catastrophe as the overthrow and execution of the sovereign; almost every narrative receives á colour from the prejudices of the writer; and the judicious reader must not give implicit credit either to the studied and delusive panegyric of Hume, or to the violent representations of Mrs. Macaulay. We have often wished that the candid, diligent, and impartial Dr. Henry. had brought down his History to this period : but the present author has not been unmindful of the difficulty of his task, and he has surmounted it with considerable ability.

We now enter (he says) upon a reign pregnant with memorable incidents. We shall behold a contest between a king and his parliament, commenced by each party under the ostensible, and perhaps the actual, idca of merely preventing the encroachments of the other. The generous spirit of liberty will appear, in many instances, degraded by the pernicious mixture of bigotry and faction ; and the proud pre-eminence of royalty will be seen to overleap the boundaries of the constitution, and deviate into occasional exertions of tyrannic power. In the delineation of the turbulent scenes of this reign, it will be extremely difficult for any writer to secure a general approbation of his labors. By a warm defence of the proceedings of one party, he will arouse the strong disgust of the other; and, if he should, in compliance with the indispeusable duty of an historian, pursue the paths of unbiassed moderation, he will perhaps be considered, by the advocates of the unfortunate Charles, as lukewarm in the cause of injured majesty, while the partisans of popular resistance may be inclined to reproach hin with want of zeal for the glorious interests of liberty and the inalienable rights of man. Regardless of such attacks, the present author will steadily ain at the discovery of truth; and, if its full lustre should not always illuniine bis page, the candid, he trusts, will impute the defect to the difficulty of developing it amidst the discordant narratives of party, not to the delusions of prejudice, or to the contemptible arts of evasion and disguise.'

The events of this calamitous reign are detailed with minuteness, and the author appears to write with an unprejudiced mind. He censures both the king and the parliament, as the conduct of each deserved reprehension ; and le considers the behaviour of the Scots in delivering up their royal prisoner, (who had confided in their honour,) for the payment of their arrears, as a base and disgraceful sale of his person to hit inveterate enemies.

On the subject of the trial and execution of Charles, Dr. Coote is naturally led into a train of political reflections. The passage which contains them, though we do not in an unqualified manner assent to its doctrines, we shall present to our readers ; as furnishing a fair specimen of the author's powers of reasoning, and the moderation of his sentiments :

• It has been affirmed by many writers, that no community can possess the smallest right to exercise judicial cognisance over a mo. narch, as, according to them, his power is delegated from heaven, and is superior to all human inquisition. Others, on less superstitious grounds, are inclined to deny the existence of such a right, because the acknowledgment of it would have a bad effect on the injudicious populace, by encouraging them to that frequent and indiscriminate exercise of it which would weaken the reverence due to authority, and lead to anarchy and licentiousness. But, as government was established for the general benefit of society, for the protection of every individual, and for the prevention of those disorders which inevitably attend a state of nature, it necessarily follows, that some remedy should be allowed against the gross injustice and tyranny by which the conduct of the king or chief magistrate may be rendered subversive of the ends of civil polity: When different families, in the infancy of society, submitted to one head, for the increase of order and security, it can hardly be supposed that they would suffer that chief to assume the privilege of tyrannizing over them with impunity. Though the desire of avoiding the dangers of a savage life prompted them to resign a part of that uncontrolled liberty which they before enjoyed, they certainly had no wish to sink into the extreme of slavery, but hoped to acquire that temperate freedom in which the life and pro. perty of each individual would be protected by the terrors of legal punishment, co-operating with the improved morals of a civilised community. In process of time, the chief, or those who were permitted to succeed him, might insensibly attain a greater height of power, which might at length degenerate into tyranny; and, in this case, when it became too hagrant to be patiently endured, that implied contract which, at the first rise of states, imposed on the sovereign the duty of preserving the rights of the people, would justify in the latter the boldness of remonstrance, and, subsequently, the vigor of resiste ance. If a prince should be so depraved as to pursue an incessant career of sanguinary and rapacious despotism, and should be so incora rigible as to leave to his subjects no prospect of taming his inordinate passions, the emergency of the case would authorise the body of the nation to bring him to justice for his repeated enormities. Had Tiberius been condemned to death by a representative convention of the Roman empire, few persons, we believe, would have lamented the execution of such a sentence on so infamous a tyrant, or have been apprehensive of ill consequences from the establishment of a precedent applicable only to the most fagitious despots. Had Caligula and, Domitian, instead of failing by the poignards of private assassins, been capitally punished by a national sentence, the world would have admitted the expediency of public interposition, and have applauded the justice of the decree. But, in the case of Agis IV. king of Lacedæmon, whose chief offence was an attempt to stem the torrent of luxury which had cverborne the ancient frugality and strictness of partan manners, we feel a great indignation at the conduct of the Ephori, who, having tried him on a charge of misgovernment, condemned and put him to death ; a fate which he did not merit. The same ren ark is applicable to the catastrophe of Charles, whose de linquency was far from being of that magnitude which could justify the severity exercised against him; and, if he had been guilty of the most nefarious acts of oppression and cruelty, 110 authority but the gene: al will of the nation, signified by a free and full convention, could justly decree either his deposition or his death. That rule, however, was not adopted in the proceedings against this injured prince ; and, if his fate had been committed to the decision of such a council, he would have been restored to the throne on certain limitations, not. have been brought to the block. Even of that imperfect parliamentary assembly which, after his adherents had been driven from the legislature, prosecuted the war against him with such acrimony, a majority voted his concessions to be sufficient grounds for a reconciliation with him : how great, then, would have been the appearance in favour of his restoration, had the two houses remained on a constitue tional basis ! But the leaders of the independents, finding it impracticable to obtain the national concurrence in their bloody schemes, resolved to content themselves with the sanction of their own partisans, and of a mercenary army, a small and contemptible part of the nation. They therefore reduced the lower house, by the terrors of the sword, to a very diminutive proportion; treated i he peers as inere ciphers, who had no right to interiere in the government ; and thus, by the most iniquitous usurpatioli, assumed the whole power of the state. A court of judicature, erected by those who had no shadow of right by which they could justify their proceedings, would have acted in defiance of all law and justice, by presuming to arraign and condemn E 3


the meanest individual; and such unwarrantable judgment cannot fairly be deemed, even by the most zealous enemies of monarchy, less criminal, when applied to a sovereign. Hence it must be allowed, even by such as are of opinion that Charles deserved exemplary punishment, that his death was in fact a murder, being decreed and enforced by those who had no authority for the act, and who, in the whole proceeding, grossly shocked the public feelings, and testified a contemptuous disregard of the general sentiments of the people, in each of those three kingdoms which had an equal interest in the fate of this oppressed monarch. His death, therefore, was not, as some have termed it, a national crime; for the turpitude and disgrace of it rest only on the memories of those ambitious traitors and crafty incendiaries who composed the majority of the independent faction.'

We shall close cur account of this reign with the character of the monarch, who fell a sacrifice to the turbulence and wickedness of a successful faction.

• As, in our history of this important reign, we have exceeded the proportional limits of our plan, the very frequent occasions on which we have described the conduci and proceedings of Charles, render it unnecessary to extend, to any great length, our final remarks on his character. Though many portraits have been drawn of him, they have, in general, been delineated by the hand of party, and have therefore either been caricatures, or have exhibited too flattering a representation. Each of these extremes we shall endeavour to avoid,

• The accomplishments which this monarch possessed were numerous and respectable. He had a competent acquaintance with the belles lettres; was conversant in many of the sciences; was a good judge of the polite arts; was far from being deficient in the w ledge of the principal mechanic arts; excelled in argument and dispu.

* In a neighbouring country, events have recently occurred, which bear some resemblance to our present subject. Lewis XVI. of France, like the unfortunate Charles, has been imprisoned, tried, condemned, and executed, by the misguided zeal of his subjects. In one respect, the rulers of the new republic of France adopied a more regular process against their degraded prince, than the English faction pursued with regard to Charles ; for Lewis was arraigned before a national tribunal; formed by that democratic convention in whose hands the Gallic sovereignty is now lodged. This appearance of regularity, however, will not atone for the iniquity of that sentence which ordained his death. The delinquency of the French victim, like that of Charles, cannot justly be said to have been of that black complexion which, for the prevention of turbulence and anarchy, seems necessary as an adequate sanction to the exercise of popular jurisdiction over the person of a sovereign. We cannot, therefore, refrain from expressing our detestation of the frantic licentiousness and rancorous in humanity of those republican upstarts, who, by the sacrifice of a mild and beneficent monarch, have outraged the feelings of every unprejudiced individual, and disgraced the French character in the eyes of every civilised and humane nation.'


[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »