A feeling of this fact, Mr. Rose tells us in the introduction to his observations, was his first inducement to write them.

"The particular interest (he says) which I feel in the story and "character of this illustrious ancestor of my early friend (Sir "Patrick Hume) led me first to examine attentively the narrative "of Mr. Fox, the authority by which it is supported, and the re"flection with which he accompanied it; and on the attentive perusal which from this motive I was induced to bestow on it, I 66 perceived, or thought I perceived, an [a] uniform leading cause "of partiality, both in the narrative and the reflections, a certain 66 political bias seemed to me to pervade the whole, a bias so strong "and so marked, that it might seem doubtful whether the history 66 was not written to support the system, rather than the system "adopted from the consideration of the history."

Of the truth of this remark, and especially of the concluding sentence, it is impossible for any one who reads the history without partiality, to have the smallest doubt; and indeed some of Mr. Fox's warmest friends among the Reviewers, make this identical circumstance a source of panegyric. In one instance however, which will be noticed as we proceed in our examination of the work, it is peculiarly striking.

Mr. Rose, immediately after these observations, quotes, as what he thinks an instance of this "bent of Mr. Fox's mind," a mistranslation of one of Barillon's letters.

The words of the letter are, speaking of the constitution to be given to the Anglo-American colonies, "Ils (the Tory "Ministers) soutinrent, que sa Majesté Britannique pouvoit "et devoit gouverner des pays si éloignés de l'Angleterre "en la manière qui lui paroîtroit le plus convenable pour "maintenir le pays en l'état auquel il est; et pour en aug❝menter encore la force & la richesse.” This Mr. Fox translates, "They maintained that his Majesty could and ought "to govern countries so distant, in the manner that should

He has been accustomed to contend and to dispute, rather than to discuss and to deliberate, and will much more easily form or refute arguments, than set up or weigh opinious."

seem to him most suitable for preserving or augmenting the "strength and riches of the mother country." The substi tution of mother country, for the repetition of le pays, is obviously a gross error in the translation; but as Mr. Rose has the candour to acknowledge, that it was "certainly without intention," it does not seems quite so obvious how this is an instance" of the bent of Mr. Fox's mind," or indeed that there is any great difference in effect, between the two passages, since the ultimate object of increasing the force and the riches of the colonies, must have been to increase those of the mother; for surely no minister, whether Whig or Tory, had it then in contemplation to establish an independent, and occasionally, an inimical empire.

The monstrous paradox of Mr. Fox, that "the execution "of Charles I. was a far less violent measure than that of "Lord Strafford," we should say is ably confuted by Mr. Rose, did it not confute itself. Indeed what Mr. Fox says in defence of that atrocious deed, is more like the silly rant of a seditious demagogue at the Crown and Anchor, than the serious opinion of a great statesman, analysing in his closet the constitutional history of his country. After asserting that the publicity of the death of the king, abates our horror at the atrocity of the act, Mr. Fox proceeds thus: "It is a doubt "whether this singular proceeding has not, as much as any "other circumstance, served to raise the character of the "English nation in Europe in general;" adding, that "he who "has read, and still more he who has heard in conversation, "discussions on this subject, by foreigners, must have per

ceived that even in the minds of those who condemn the "act, the impression made by it, has been far more that "of respect and admiration, than that of horror and dis

"gust."

It is true the idea of a great and injured people, bringing their oppressor, however dignified his station, to a public trial, and after a solemn and impartial investigation, justly

condemning and punishing him, is "splendid and magnanimous:" but was it the case in this instance? That Mr. Fox himself did not think so, appears from another passage of his work, quoted by Mr. Rose :

"The execution of the king, as well as [of] others, are not to be "considered as acts of the parliament, but of Cromwell; and great 66 and respectable as are the names of some who sat in the high court, they must be regarded in this instance, rather as the minis. "ters of that usurper, than as acting from themselves."

66

Voltaire, a person by no means impressed with a strong veneration for kings, saw the transaction in very different light from those foreigners with whom Mr. Fox conversed. He compares this event, of which he says the English are so proud, to a set of banditti, who, before they robbed or murdered a traveller that had fallen into their hands, should outrage his feelings by the form of a mock trial. Mr. Rose convincingly proves that the trial of the unfortunate Lewis XVI. was in every respect a more solemn and national proceeding than that of his ancestor, Charles I. "And yet (he observes,) it will "hardly be said that Englishmen generally have considered "that act, as exalting the character of the French nation."

The gross abuse with which Mr. Fox has loaded the memory of General Monk, is entirely rebutted by Mr. Rose. For the Reviewer's opinion of such abuse, and of the motives from which it originates, the reader is referred to the review of Mr. Scott's edition of Dryden, in the first number of this journal.

Mr. Rose then proceeds to examine the position of Mr. Fox, that" the reign of Charles II. was the era of good laws and bad government," and that "the year 1679 was the period at which our constitution had arrived at its greatest theoretical perfection;" producing as instances," the abolition of the Court of Wards; the repeal of the writ de hæretico comburendo; the Triennial Parliament bill; the establishment of the right of the house of commons, in regard to Impeach

H

"ment; the expuncture of the Licence Act; and above all, "the glorious statute of Habeas Corpus.'

Of the benefit derived to the people from these acts, or of their originating in this reign, Mr. Rose expresses his doubts: surely they had not much reason to rejoice in the abolition of the Court of Wards, which could only affect the great landholders, when the Excise was established as an equivalent for 'it.

The writ de hæretico comburendo had been a dead letter for more than a century. The Triennial Parliament bill was passed, 6 Will. & Mar. c. 2. ; and what Mr. Fox has chosen to dignify here with that name, was merely to enact that a parliament should be held once in three years, but not to limit its duration. The right of the commons to impeachment had been frequently exercised previously to this time; and the right of the king to pardon in such cases, which rendered impeachment nugatory, was not taken away by an act of the legislature till after the Revolution. The Licensing Aet was merely a temporary law, enacted, for the first time, in this reign, for two years only; and the foundation of the Habeas Corpus act was laid by the 16 Car. I. c. 10. §. 8.

This is the sum of Mr. Rose's objection to Mr. Fox's opinion of the perfection of our constitution during the reign of Charles II. But as to the writ de hæretico comburendo, though it had been laid aside for more than a century, it was very little more than a century; for the death of Queen Mary happened exactly 102 years before the Restoration: and considering the free use Queen Mary made of this writ, it certainly was of some consequence to prevent its revival. In speaking of the Triennial and Septennial bills, Mr. Rose is strangely loose in his definitions: his words are, "After the Revolution, an act "was passed to prevent the discontinuance of parliaments "for more than three years; which term was extended in the "reign of George I. to seven years." Here the Triennial bill of William and Mary is confounded with that of Charles 11.; and the Septennial bill, instead of extending the

duration of parliaments, is said to extend the time for which they may be discontinued; and though the Habeas Corpus act received its foundation in the preceding reign, yet as Mr. Rose admits that it was greatly extended and made effectual in 1679, surely the essential establishment of it may fairly be ascribed to that æra.

Mr. Rose reprobates with just indignation, the disgraceful and infamous negotiations of Charles II. and his ministers with Lewis XIV.; and his preferring to become a pensioner of France to receiving ample supplies from the English parliament, so ample, that even a profest royalist, Lord Lucas, who was made a peer at the Restoration, protested against them in very strong language; and this at the identical time when the secret treaty with Lewis was going on: his words were, as cited by Mr. Rose

"The Scripture tells us that God Almighty sets bounds unto "the ocean, and says unto it, Thus far shall thy proud waves "come, and no further: and so I hope your Lordships, in imi"tation of the Divinity, will set some bounds, some limits, to this "over-liberal humour of the Commons, and say to them, Hither "shall your profuseness come, and no further."

Who, after this, can read with patience this extract of a letter from Colbert to Monsieur de Lyonne?" He (King "Charles) told me, he found himself, as it were, the only 66 person in his kingdom who had inclinations for France;. "that all his subjects were more in favour of Spain, and he "had, therefore, many measures to keep;" or the assertion of Barillon to his master, that " he (the king) liked better to "depend on your Majesty than his people."

Every friend of constitutional liberty will feel himself highly obliged for the (to us) convincing arguments, by which Mr. Rose has vindicated the memory of Russel and Sydney, from the charge of being bribed by France. Especially as Mr. Fox, who found so much in Barillon's testimony to support a position he wished to maintain, rather than invalidate that testimony, entirely overlooked it.