was probably their real cause, to the apprehensions that had been entertained, (very unreasonable ones!), that the King of France might no longer choose to interfere in the affairs of England, and, consequently, his support could not be relied on for the grand object of assimilating this government to his own. '. p. 83, 84. After this, Lord Churchhill is sent to Paris on the part of the tributary, King. But such was the impression made by the frankness and generosity of Lewis, that there was no question of discussing or capitulating, but every thing was remitted to that Prince, and to the information his ministers might give him, respecting the exigency of affairs in England. He who had so handsomely been beforehand, in granting the assistance of five hundred thousand livres, was only to be thanked for past, not importuned for future, munificence. Thus ended, for the present, this disgusting scene of iniquity and nonsense, in which all the actors seemed to vie with each other in pros tituting the sacred names of friendship, generosity, and gratitude, in one of the meanest and most criminal transactions which history re cords. p. 87. The following reflection is as natural as it is high-minded and consolatory. How little could Barillon guess, that he was negotiating with one who was destined to be at the head of an administration, which, in a few years, would send the same Lord Churchill, not to Paris to implore Lewis for succours towards enslaving England, or to thank him for pensions to her monarch, but to combine all Europe against him in the cause of liberty; to rout his armies, to take his towns, to humble his pride, and to shake to the foundation that fabric of power which it had been the business of a long life to raise, at the expense of every sentiment of tenderness to his subjects, and of justice and good faith to foreign nations! It is with difficulty the reader can persuade himself that the Godolphin and Churchill here mentioned are the same persons who were afterwards, one in the ca binet, one in the field, the great conductors of the war of the Succession. How little do they appear in the one instance! how great in the other! And the investigation of the cause to which this execssive difference is principally owing, will produce a most useful Is the difference to be attributed to any superiority of geius in the prince whom they served in the latter period of their lives? Queen Anne's capacity appears to have been inferior even to her fa ther's. Did they enjoy, in a greater degree, her favour and confi dence? 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 ministers of a free government acting upon enlarged principles, and with energies which no state that is not in some degree republican can supply. How forcibly must the contemplation of these men in such opposite situations teach persons engaged in political life, that a free and popular government is desireable, not only for the public good lesson. good, but for their own greatness and consideration, for every object of generous ambition!? p. 88, 89. As James, in the outset of his reign, professed a resolution to adhere to the system of government established by his brother, and made this declaration, in the first place, to his Scotish Parliament, Mr Fox thinks it necessary to take a slight retrospective view of the proceedings of Charles towards that unhappy country; and details, from unquestionable authorities, such a scene of intolerant oppression and atrocious cruelty, as to justify him in saying, that the state of that kingdom was a state of more absolute slavery than at that time subsisted in any part of Christendom.” pod In both Parliaments, the King's revenue was granted for life, In terms of his demand, without discussion or hesitation; and Mr Hume is censured with severity, and apparently with justice, for having presented his readers with a summary of the arguments which he would have them believe were actually used in the House of Commons on both sides of this question. This misrepresentation, Mr Fox observes, is of no small importance, inasmuch as, by intimating that such a question could be debated at all, and much more, that it was debated with the enlightened views, and bold topics of argument with which his genius has supplied him, he gives us a very false notion of the character of the Parliament, and of the times which he is describing. It is not f improbable, that if the arguments had been used, which this historian supposes, the utterer of them would have been expelled, or sent to the Tower; and it is certain, that he would not have been heard with any degree of attention, or even patience. p. 142. The following observations on the character of the High Church party are acute and valuable; and apply to other times besides those of which the author is treating. Their general character appears to have been a high notion of the King's constitutional power, to which was superadded, a kind of religious abhorrence of all resistance to the Monarch, not only in cases where such resistance was directed against the lawful preroga tiye, but even in opposition to encroachments, which the Monarch might make beyond the extended limits which they assigned to his prerogative. But these tenets, and still more, the principle of conduct naturally resulting from them, were confined to the civil, as contradistinguished from the ecclesiastical, polity of the country. In church matters, they neither acknowledged any very high autho rity in the Crown, nor were they willing to submit to any royal encroachment on that side; and a steady attachment to the church of England, with a proportionable aversion to all dissenters from it, Whether Catholick or Protestant, was almost universally prevalent among among them. A due consideration of these distinct features in the character of a party so powerful in Charles's and James's time, and even when it was lowest, (that is, during the reigns of the two first Princes of the House of Brunswick,) by no means inconsiderable, is exceedingly necessary to the right understanding of English His tory. It affords a clue to many passages otherwise unintelligible. For want of a proper attention to this circumstance, some historians have considered the conduct of the Tories in promoting the Revolution, as an instance of great inconsistency. Some have supposed, contrary to the clearest evidence, that their notions of passive obedience, even in civil matters, were limited, and that their support of the government of Charles and James, was founded upon a belief, that those Princes would never abuse their prerogative for the purpose of introducing arbitrary sway. But this hypothesis is contrary to the evidence both of their declaration and their conduct. '-' Absolute power in civil matters, under the specious names of monarchy and prerogative, formed a most essential part of the Tory creed; but the order in which Church and King are placed in the favourite device of the party, is not accidental, and is well calculated to show the genuine principles of such among them as are not corrupted by influence. Accordingly, as the sequel of this reign will abundantly show, when they found themselves compelled to make an option, they preferred, without any degree of inconsistency, their first idol to their second, and when they could not preserve both church and King, declared for the former. p. 153-156. The last chapter is more occupied with narrative, and less with argument and reflection, than that which precedes it. It contains the story of the unfortunate and desperate expeditions of Argyle and Monmouth, and of the condemnation and death of their unhappy leaders. Mr Fox, though convinced that the misgovernment was such as fully to justify resistance by arms, seems to admit that both those enterprizes were rash and injudicious. With his usual candour and openness, he observes, that the pruden rial reasons against resistance at that time were exceedingly strong; and that there is no point, indeed, in human concerns, wherein the dictates of virtue and of worldly prudence are so identified, as in this great question of resistance by force to established governments. The expeditions of Monmouth and Argyle had been concerted together, and were intended to take effect at the same moment, Monmouth, however, who was reluctantly forced upon the enterprise, was not so soon ready, and Argyle landed in the Highlands with a very small force before the Duke had sailed from Holland. The details of his irresolute councils and ineffectual marches, are given at far too great length. Though they give occasion to one profound and important remark, which we de not recollect ever to have met with before; but of the justice of which all who have acted with parties must have had melancholy and fatal experience. It is introduced when speaking of the disunion that prevailed among Argyle's little band of followers. 'Add to all this,' he says, that where spirit was not wanting, it was accompanied with a degree and species of perversity wholly inexplicable, and which can hardly gain belief from any one, whose experience has not made him acquainted with the extreme difficulty of persuading men, who pride themselves upon an extravagant love of liberty, rather to compromise upon some points with those who have, in the main, the same views with themselves, than to give power (a power which will infallibly be used for their own destruction) to an adversary, of principles diametrically opposite; in other words, rather to concede something to a friend, than every thing to an enemy.' p. 187, 188. The account of Argyle's deportment from the time of his capture to that of his execution, is among the most striking passages in the book; and the mildness and magnanimity of his resignation, is described with kindred feelings by his genereus historian. The merits of this nobleman are perhaps somewhat exaggerated; for he certainly wanted conduct and decision for the part he had undertaken; and more admiration is expressed at the equanimity with which he went to death, than the recent frequency of this species of heroism can allow us to sympathize with; but the story is finely and feelingly told; and the impression which it leaves on the mind of the reader is equally favourable to the author and to the hero of it. We can only make room for the concluding scene of the tragedy. • Before he left the Castle he had his dinner at the usual hour, at which he discoursed not only calmly, but even cheerfully, with Mr. Charteris and others. After dinner he retired, as was his custom, to his bedchamber, where, it is recorded, that he slept quietly for about a quarter of an hour. While he was in bed, one of the members of the council came and intimated to the attendants a desire to speak with him: upon being told that the Earl was asleep, and had left orders not to be disturbed, the manager disbelieved the account, which he considered as a device to avoid further questionings. To satisfy him, the door of the bed-chamber was half opened, and he then beheld, enjoying a sweet and tranquil slumber, the man, who by the doom of him and his fellows, was to die within the space of two short hours! Struck with the sight, he hurried out of the room, quitted the Castle with the utmost precipitation, and hid himself in in the lodgings of an acquaintance who lived near, where he flung himself upon the first bed that presented itself, and had every appearance of a man suffering the most excruciating torture. His friend, who had been apprized by the servant of the state he was in, and who naturally concluded that he was ill, offered him some wine. He refused, saying, No, no, that will not help me; I have been in in at Argyle, and saw him sleeping as pleasantly as ever man did; within an hour of eternity. But as for me. The name of the person to whom this anecdote relates, is not mentioned, and the truth of it may therefore be fairly considered as liable to that degree of doubt, with which men of judgment receive every species of traditional history. Woodrow, however, whose veracity is above sus picion, says he had it from the most unquestionable authority. It is not in itself unlikely, and who is there that would not wish it true? What a satisfactory spectacle to a philosophical mind, to see the oppressor, in the zenith of his power, envying his victim! What an acknowledgment of the superiority of virtue! what an affecting, and forcible testimony to the value of that peace of mind, which innocence alone can confer! We know not who this man was'; but when we reflect, that the guilt which agonized him was probably incurred for the sake of some vain title, or at least of some increase of wealth, which he did not want, and possibly knew not how to enjoy, our disgust is turned into something like compassion for that very foolish class of men, whom the world calls wise in their generation. p. 207-209. • On the scaffold he embraced his friends, gave some tokens of remembrance to his son-in-law, Lord Maitland, for his daughter and grandchildren, stript himself of part of his apparel, of which he likewise made presents, and laid his head upon the block. Having uttered a short prayer, he gave the signal to the executioner, which was instantly obeyed, and his head severed from his body. Such were the last hours, and such the final close, of this great man's life. May the like happy serenity in such dreadful circumstances, and a death equally glorious, be the lot of all, whom tyranny, of whatever denomination or description, shall in any age, or in any country, call to expiate their virtues on the scaffold !' p. 211. Rumbold, who had accompanied Argyle in this expedition, speedily shared his fate. Though a fan of intrepid courage, and fully aware of the fate that awaited him, he persisted to his hist hour in professing his innocence of any design to assassinate King Charles at the Rychouse. Mr Fox gives great importance to this circumstance and seems disposed to conclude, on the faith of it, that the Ryehouse plot itself was altogether a fabrication of the court party, to transfer to their adversaries the odium which had been thrown upon them with as little justice, by the prosecutions, for the Popish plot. It does not appear to us, however, that this conclusion is made out in a manner altogether satisfactory. The expedition of Monmouth is detailed with as redundanta fulness as that of Argyle, and the character of its leader, still more overrated. Though Mr Fox has a laudable jealousy of kings, indeed, we are afraid he has rather a partiality for mobles. Monmouth appears to have been an idle, handsome, presumptu bus, incapable youth, with none of the virtues of a patriot, and none |