little afterwards she adds, apparently from her own personal knowledge and observation, that before the prisoners were brought to the Tower, Monk and his wife came one evening to the garden, and caused them to be brought down, only to stare at them,-which was such a behaviour for that man, who had betrayed so many of those that had honoured and trusted him, &c. as no story can parallel the inhumanity of.'* With regard again to Mr. Fox's charge of Monk's tamely acquiescing in the insults so meanly put on the illustrious corpse of his old commander Blake, it is perfectly evident, even from the authorities referred to by Mr. Rose, that Blake's body was dug up by the King's order, among others, and removed out of the hallowed precincts of Westminster, to be reinterred with twenty more, in one pit at St. Margaret's. But the chief charge is, that on the trial of Argyle, Monk spontaneously sent down some confidential letters, which turned the scale of evidence against that unfortunate nobleman. This statement, to which Mr. Fox is most absurdly blamed for giving credit, is made on the authority of the three historians who lived nearest to the date of the transaction, and who all report it as quite certain and notorious. These historians are Burnet, Baillie, and Cunningham; nor are they contradicted by any one writer on the subject, except Dr. Campbell, who, at a period comparatively recent, and without pretending to have discovered any new document on the subject, is pleased to disbelieve them upon certain hypothetical and argumentative reasons of his own. reasons Mr. Laing has examined and most satisfactorily obviated in his history; and Mr. Rose has exerted incredible industry to defend. The Scottish records for that period have perished; and for this reason, and because a collection of pamphlets and newspapers, of that age, in Mr. Rose's possession, make no mention of the circumstance, he thinks fit to discredit it altogether. If this kind of scepticism were to be indulged, there *Life of Colonel Hutchinson, p. 378. These would be an end of all reliance on history. In this particular case, both Burnet and Baillie speak quite positively, from the information of contemporaries, and state a circumstance that would very well account for the silence of the formal accounts of the trial, if any such had been preserved, viz. that Monk's letters were not produced till after the evidence was finished on both sides, and the debate begun on the result; -an irregularity, by the way, by much too gross to have been charged against a public proceeding without any found ation. Mr. Rose's next observation is directed rather against Judge Blackstone than against Mr. Fox; and is meant to show, that this learned person was guilty of great inaccuracy in representing the year 1679 as the era of good laws and bad government. It is quite impossible to follow him through the dull details and feeble disputations by which he labours to make it appear that our laws were not very good in 1679, and that they, as well as the administration of them, were much mended after the revolution. Mr. Fox's or rather Blackstone's remark is too obviously and strikingly true in substance, to admit of any argument or illustration.* *Mr. Rose talks a great deal and justly, about the advantages of the judges not being removable at pleasure; and, with a great air of erudition, informs us, that after 6 Charles, all the commissions were made quamdiu nobis placuerit. Mr. Rose's researches, we fear, do not often go beyond the records in his custody. If he had looked into Rushworth's Collection, he would have found, that, in 1641, King Charles agreed to make the commissions quamdiu se bene gesserint; and that some of those illegally removed in the following reign, though not officiating in court, still retained certain functions in consequence of that appointment. The following is the passage, at p. 1265. vol. iii. of Rushworth: After the passing of these votes (16th December, 1640) against the judges, and transmitting them to the House of Peers, and their concurring with the House of Commons therein, an address was made unto the King shortly after, that his Majesty, for the future, would not make any judge by patent during pleasure; but that they may hold their places hereafter, quamdiu se bene gesserint: and his Majesty did really grant the same. And in his speech to both Houses of Parliament, at the time of giving his Royal assent to two bills, one to take away the High Commission Court, and the other the Court of Star-Chamber, and regulating the power of the Council Table, he hath this passage; "If you consider what I have done this parliament, discontents will not sit in your hearts; for I hope you remember, that I have granted, that the judges hereafter shall hold their places quam liu se bene gesserint." And likewise, his gracious Majesty. The next charge against Mr. Fox is for saying, that if Charles II.'s ministers betrayed him, he betrayed them in return; keeping, from some of them at least, the secret of what he was pleased to call his religion, and the state of his connections with France. After the furious attack which Mr. Rose has made in another place upon this Prince and his French connections, it is rather surprising to see with what zeal he undertakes his defence against this very venial sort of treachery, of concealing his shame from some of his more respectable ministers. The attempt, however, is at least as unsuccessful as it is unaccountable. Mr. Fox says only, that some of the ministers were not trusted with the secret; and both Dalrymple and Macpherson say, that none but the Catholic counsellors were admitted to this confidence. Mr. Rose mutters, that there is no evidence of this; and himself produces an abstract of the secret treaty between Lewis and Charles, of May, 1670, to which the subscriptions of four Catholic ministers of the latter are affixed! Mr. Fox is next taxed with great negligence for saying that he does not know what proof there is of Clarendon's being privy to Charles receiving money from France; and very long quotations are inserted from the correspondence printed by Dalrymple and Macpherson, which do not prove Clarendon's knowledge of any money being received, though they do seem to establish, that he must have known of its being stipulated for. After this comes Mr. Rose's grand attack; in which he charges the historian with his whole heavy artillery of argument and quotation, and makes a vigorous effort King Charles the Second observed the same rule and method in granting patents to judges, quamdiu se bene gesserint; as appears upon record in the rolls: viz. to Sergeant Slide to be Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, Sir Orlando Bridgman to be Lord Chief Baron, and afterwards to be Lord Chief Justice of Common Pleas; to Sir Robert Forster, and others. Mr. Sergeant Archer, now living, notwithstanding his removal, stlll enjoys his patent being quamdiu se bene gesserint; and receives a share in the profits of the court, as to fees and other proceedings, by virtue of his said patent: and his name is used in those fines, &c. as a judge of that court.' to drive him from the position, that the early and primary object of James's reign was not to establish Popery in this country, but in the first place to render himself absolute and that, for a considerable time, he does not appear to have aimed at anything more than a complete toleration for his own religion. The grounds upon which this opinion is maintained by Mr. Fox are certainly very probable. There is, in the first place, his zeal for the Church of England during his brother's life, and the violent oppressions by which he enforced a protestant test in Scotland; secondly, the fact of his carrying on the government and the persecution of nonconformists by protestant ministers; and, thirdly, his addresses to his Parliament, and the tenor of much of his correspondence with Lewis. In opposition to this, Mr. Rose quotes an infinite variety of passages from Barillon's correspondence, to show in general the unfeigned zeal of this unfortunate Prince for his religion, and his constant desire to glorify and advance it. Now, it is perfectly obvious, in the first place, that Mr. Fox never intended to dispute James's zeal for Popery; and, in the second place, it is very remarkable, that in the first seven passages quoted by Mr. Rose, nothing more is said to be in the King's contemplation than the complete toleration of that religion. The free exercise of the Catholic religion in their own houses,' - the abolition of the penal laws against Catholics, 'the free exercise of that religion,' &c. &c. are the only objects to which the zeal of the King is said to be directed; and it is not till after the suppression of Monmouth's rebellion, that these phrases are exchanged for a resolution to establish the Catholic religion,' or to get that religion established;' though it would be fair, perhaps, to interpret some even of these phrases with reference to those which precede them in the correspondence; especially as, in a letter from Lewis to Barillon, so late as 20th August, 1685, he merely urges the great expediency of James establishing the free exercise of that religion. After all, in reality, there is not much substantial difference as to this point, between the historian and his เ observer. Mr. Fox admits most explicitly, that James was zealous in the cause of Popery; and that after Monmouth's execution, he made attempts equally violent and undisguised to restore it. Mr. Rose, on the other hand, admits that he was exceedingly desirous to render himself absolute; and that one ground of his attachment to Popery probably was, its natural affinity with an arbitrary government. Upon which of these two objects he set the chief value, and which of them he wished to make subservient to the other, it is not perhaps now very easy to determine. In addition to the authorities referred to by Mr. Fox, however, there are many more which tend directly to show that one great ground of his antipathy to the reformed religion was, his conviction that it led to rebellion and republicanism. There are very many passages in Barillon to this effect; and, indeed, the burden of all Lewis's letters is to convince James that the existence of monarchy' in England depended on the protection of the Catholics. Barillon says (Fox, App. p. 125.), that the King often declares publicly, that all Calvinists are naturally enemies to royalty, and above all to royalty in England.' And Burnet observes (vol. i. p. 73.), that the King told him, 'that among other prejudices he had against the Protestant religion, this was one, that his brother and himself being in many companies in Paris incognito (during the Commonwealth), where there were Protestants, he found they were all alienated from them, and great admirers of Cromwell; so he believed they were all rebels in their hearts.' It will not be forgotten either, that in his first address to the Council, on his accession, he made use of those memorable words:- I know the principles of the Church of England are for monarchy, and therefore I shall always take care to defend and support it.' While he retained this opinion of its loyalty, accordingly, he did defend and support it; and did persecute all dissidents from its doctrine, at least as violently as he afterwards did those who opposed Popery. It was only when he found that the orthodox doctrines of nonresistance and jus divinum would not go all lengths, and -I |