tablished Church, but merely its toleration. In the first letter cited by Mr. Rose, James says, that 'he knew well he should never be in safety unless liberty of conscience for them should be fully established in England.' The letter of the 24th of April is quoted by Mr. Rose, as if the French King had written, the establishment of the Catholic religion; whereas the real words are, the establishment of the free exercise of the Catholic religion. The world are so inveterately resolved to believe, that a man who has no brilliant talents must be accurate, that Mr. Rose, in referring to authorities, has a great and decided advantage. He is, however, in point of fact, as lax and incorrect as a poet; and it is absolutely necessary, in spite of every parade of line, and page, and number, to follow him in the most minute particular. The Serjeant, like a bloodhound of the old breed, is always upon his track; and always looks if there are any such passages in the page quoted, and if the passages are accurately quoted or accurately translated. Nor will he by any means be content with official accuracy, nor submit to be. treated, in historical questions, as if he were hearing financial statements in the House of Commons.

Barillon writes, in another letter to Lewis XIV.'What your Majesty has most besides at heart, that is to say, for the establishment of a free exercise of the Catholic religion.' On the 9th of May, Lewis writes to Barillon, that he is persuaded Charles will employ all his authority to establish the free exercise of the Catholic religion: he mentions also, in the same letter, the Parliament consenting to the free exercise of our religion. On the 15th of June, he writes to Barillon-' There now remains only to obtain the repeal of the penal laws in favour of the Catholics, and the free exercise of our religion in all his states.' Immediately after Monmouth's execution, when his views of success must have been as lofty as they ever could have been, Lewis writes-'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 Catholic religion.' In a letter of Barillon, July 16th, Sunderland is made to say, that the

King would always be exposed to the indiscreet zeal of those who would 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 établie; and this Mr. Rose has had the modesty to translate, till it shall be completely established, and to mark the passage with italics, as of the greatest importance to his argument. These false quotations and translations being detected, and those passages of early writers, from which Mr. Fox had made up his opinion, brought to light, it is not possible to doubt, but that the object of James, before Monmouth's defeat, was, not the destruction of the Protestant, but the toleration of the Catholic, religion; and, after the execution of Monmouth, Mr. Fox admits, that he became more bold and sanguine upon the subject of religion.

We do not consider those observations of Serjeant Heywood to be the most fortunate in his book, where he attempts to show the republican tendency of Mr. Rose's principles. Of any disposition to principles of this nature, we most heartily acquit that right honourable gentleman. He has too much knowledge of mankind to believe their happiness can be promoted in the stormy and tempestuous regions of republicanism; and, besides this, that system of slender pay, and deficient perquisites, to which the subordinate agents of Government are confined in republics, is much too painful to be thought of for a single instant.

We are afraid of becoming tedious by the enumeration of blunders into which Mr. Rose has fallen, and which Serjeant Heywood has detected. But the burthen of this sole executor's song is accuracy-his own official accuracy-and the little dependence which is to be placed on the accuracy of Mr. Fox. We will venture to assert, that, in the whole of his work, he has not detected Mr. Fox in one single error. Whether Serjeant Heywood has been more fortunate with respect to Mr. Rose, might be determined, perhaps, with sufficient certainty, by our previous extracts from his remarks. But for some indulgent readers, these may not seem enough: and we

must proceed in the task, till we have settled Mr. Rose's pretensions to accuracy on a still firmer foundation. And if we be thought minutely severe, let it be remembered that Mr. Rose is himself an accuser; and if there be justice upon earth, every man has a right to pull stolen goods out of the pocket of him who cries, Stop thief!'

In the story which Mr. Rose states of the seat in Parliament sold for five pounds (Journal of the Commons, vol. v.), he is wrong, both in the sum and the volume. The sum is four pounds; and it is told, not in the fifth volume, but the first. Mr. Rose states, that a perpetual excise was granted to the Crown, in lieu of the profits of the Court of Wards; and adds, that the question in favour of the Crown was carried by a majority of two. The real fact is, that the half only of an excise upon certain articles was granted to Government in lieu of these profits; and this grant was carried without a division. An attempt was made to grant the other half, and this was negatived by a majority of two. The Journals are open;- Mr. Rose reads them;-he is officially accurate. What can the meaning be of these most extraordinary mistakes?

Mr. Rose says, that, in 1679, the writ de hæretico comburendo had been a dead letter for more than a century. It would have been extremely agreeable to Mr. Bartholomew Legate, if this had been the case; for, in 1612, he was burnt at Smithfield for being an Arian. Mr.Wightman would probably have participated in the satisfaction of Mr. Legate; as he was burnt also, the same year, at Lichfield, for the same offence. With the same correctness, this scourge of historians makes the Duke of Lauderdale, who died in 1682, a confidential adviser of James II. after his accession in 1689. In page 13. he quotes, as written by Mr. Fox, that which was written by Lord Holland. This, however, is a familiar practice with him. Ten pages afterwards, in Mr. Fox's history, he makes the same mistake. Mr. Fox added,'-whereas it was Lord Holland that added. The same mistake again in p. 147. of his own book; and after this, he makes Mr. Fox the person who selected the Appendix to Barillon's

papers; whereas it is particularly stated in the Preface to the History, that this Appendix was selected by Mr. Laing.

Mr. Rose affirms, that compassing to levy war against the King was made high treason by the statute of 25 Edward III.; and, in support of this affirmation, he cites Coke and Blackstone. His stern antagonist, a professional man, is convinced he has read neither. The former says, a compassing to levy war is no treason' (Inst. 3 p. 9.); and Blackstone, a bare conspiracy to levy war does not amount to this species of treason.' (Com. iv. p. 82.) This really does look as if the Serjeant had made out his assertion.

Of the bill introduced in 1685 for the preservation of the person of James II., Mr. Rose observes - 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 show such an instance.' It might have been thought, that no prudent man would have made such a challenge, without a tolerable certainty of the ground upon which it was made. Serjeant Heywood answers the challenge by citing the 36 Geo. III. c. 7., which is a mere copy of the act of James.

In the fifth section of Mr. Rose's work is contained his grand attack upon Mr. Fox for his abuse of Sir Patrick Hnme; and his observations upon this point admit of a fourfold answer. 1st, Mr. Fox does not use the words quoted by Mr. Rose; 2dly, He makes no mention whatever of Sir Patrick Hume in the passage cited by Mr. Rose; 3dly, Sir Patrick Hume is attacked by nobody in that history; 4thly, If he had been so attacked he would have deserved it. The passage from Mr. Fox is this:

In recounting the failure of his expedition, it is impossible for him not to touch upon what he deemed 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, but by ignorance, cowardice, and faction. This sentence had scarce escaped him, when, notwithstanding the qualifying words with which his candour had acquitted the last-mentioned persons of intentional treachery, it appeared too harsh to his gentle nature; and, declaring himself displeased with the hard epithets he had used, he desires that they may be put out of any account that is to be given of these transactions.'-Heywood, pp. 365, 366.

Argyle names neither the description of friends who were his greatest enemies, nor the two individuals who were the principal cause of the failure of his scheme. Mr. Fox leaves the blanks as he finds them. But two notes are added by the editor, which Mr. Rose might have observed are marked with an E. In the latter of them we are told, that Mr. Fox observes, in a private letter, Cochrane and Hume certainly filled up the two principal blanks.' But is this communication of a private letter any part of Mr. Fox's history? And would it not have been equally fair in Mr. Rose to have commented upon any private conversation of Mr. Fox, and then to have called it his history? Or, if Mr. Fox had filled up the blanks in the body of his history, does it follow that he adopts Argyle's censure, because he shows against whom it is levelled? Mr. Rose has 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 proposition before he has proceeded to answer it; and, in this instance, the charge of treachery against Sir Patrick Hume is not made either in Argyle's letter, Mr. Fox's text, or the editor's note, or any where but in the imagination of Mr. Rose. The sum of it all is, that Mr. Rose first supposes the relation of Argyle's opinion to be the expression of the relator's opinion, that Mr. Fox adopts Argyle's insinuations because he explains them;-then he looks upon a quotation from a private letter, made by the editor, to be the same as if included in a work intended for publication by the author; then he remembers that he is the sole executor of Sir Patrick's grandson, whose blank is so

-