and without any curious observations, or any notable descriptions. The account," the same writer adds, "of the religion and customs of these people, is only a brief collection of some other travellers; the language mean, and not all of it to be relied on." We suspect the latter is the juster criticism of the two. Blount travelled too hastily to furnish a very accurate account of the different countries through which he passed. He left himself no time to correct first impressions, and he gave the fruits of his observations with a precipitancy little characteristic of an accurate and pains-taking thinker. However, his work served to introduce him to the notice of Charles I. who appointed him one of his gentlemen pensioners, and, in 1638, conferred on him the honour of knighthood.

On the breaking out of the civil war, he followed the example of the elder branches of his family, who were all eminent royalists, and attended the king to York and Oxford. After the battle of Edgehill, he returned to London, and succeeded in making his peace with the dominant party, whose confidence he even gained, as we soon after find him appointed member of a committee for ascertaining and remedying the existing abuses in the administration of the law. He was also ap

pointed commissioner from Cromwell for the trial of Don Pantalion Saa, the brother of the Portuguese ambassador, charged with murder. His colleagues on this occasion were Dr Richard Yorick, Dr William Clarke, and Dr William Turner, all eminent civilians. In 1655 his name was inserted in the list of commissioners appointed to consider the trade and navigation of the commonwealth, and how its commerce might be best encouraged and promoted. His services were of considerable value on this occasion.

On the Restoration, he was appointed high-sheriff of the county of Hertford, which office he filled until his death in 1682. He appears to have been a man of rather an acute though ill-ordered intellect, fond of novelties and paradox. Wood supposes that the Anima Mundi,' published by his son Charles Blount in 1679, was in a great measure written by the father, who was known to have occasionally indulged in metaphysical speculations somewhat akin to those of Spinosa.

Lord William Russell.

BORN A. D. 1639.-DIED A. D. 1683.

THIS distinguished leader in England's great struggle for civil and religious freedom, was the third son of William, the fifth earl of Bedford, and was born on the 29th of September, 1639. On the death of his elder brother, Francis, he became Lord Russell. He received his education at Cambridge, after which he went abroad, and resided some time at Augsburg. He spent the winter of 1658 at Paris, and returned to England in the following year. Upon the Restoration, he was elected member for Tavistock, and appears to have entered pretty freely into the gaieties of Charles's dissolute court. It was not till after his marriage, which took place in 1669, that he "applied himself with earnestness, both in meditation and action, to fulfil the duties of a Christian."

His wife was the daughter of Wriothesley, earl of Southamp

ton, and widow of Lord Vaughan. She was an amiable and highly accomplished woman, and probably exercised a very material influence on the character of her second husband.

Lord William represented the county of Bedford in four successive parliaments; but, during the first twelve years that he sat in the house, he never joined in the debates. It was not till the year 1672, when the great party was formed for the purpose of preserving the liberties of the nation against a secret French alliance and a Popish successor, that Lord Russell stept forward, prepared to sustain a glorious part in the struggle which followed. Hisfactious connection'-as it has been called on this occasion with Lord Cavendish, Sir W. Coventry, Col. Birch, Mr Porole, Mr Littleton, and some others, has been very ably vindicated by Lord John Russell, in his 'Life of his kinsmen." "There are persons," says the noble biographer, "who think the name of party implies blame; who, whilst they consider it natural and laudable that men should combine, for any other object of business or pleasure, and whilst they are lavish in bestowing their confidence on government, which must in its nature be a party, find something immoral and pernicious in every union of those who join together to save their country from unnecessary burdens or illegal oppression. To such persons Lord Russell's conduct must appear indefensible. But to all those who allow that party may sometimes be useful, and opposition often even necessary, I may safely appeal for the justification of his conduct. To overthrow a scheme, so formed as that of Charles and James, it was not sufficient to give honest but unconnected votes in the house of commons. It was necessary to oppose public discussion to secret intrigue, and persevering union to interested combination; it was necessary to overlook the indiscreet violence of partisans, to obtain the fruits of the zeal from which it sprung; it was necessary to sink every little difference in the great cause of the Protestant religion, and our ancient freedom; in fine, it was the duty of the lovers of their country to counteract system by system, and numbers by numbers. It may likewise be remarked, that the manner in which this party opposed the crown, was characteristic of the nation to which they belonged. In any of the continental monarchies, a design on the part of the king, to alter the religion and the laws of the kingdom, would have been met either with passive submission, insurrection, or assassination. For in those countries, men who did not dare to speak the truth to their sovereign, were not afraid to take up arms against him. But in England, the natural and constitutional method of resisting public measures, hurtful to the liberty or welfare of the people, is by a parliamentary opposition. This was the only course which Lord Russell and his friends ever thought of adopting, and they did it under circumstances extremely discouraging; for they could expect little support in a parliament chosen in the heat of the restoration, and still less assistance from a press restrained by the curb of a license act."2

Lord Russell made his first speech in parliament on the 22d of January, 1674. The house had already refused the supplies, and the duke and Lord Clifford had been removed from their respective offices

London, 1820, 2 vols. 8vo.

'Life of Lord W. Russell, vol. i. p. 63, 64.

of high-admiral and high-treasurer; the redress of grievances now occupied its attention. Lord Russell, in his speech, complained of the shutting of the exchequer, and of the attack on the Smyrna fleet. He accused the ministers of receiving pensions from France, and called upon all good and true men to look to the interests of their country. The opposition proved effectual. Charles found himself necessitated to consult his commons upon the expediency of making peace; the alliance with France was broken; the ministers of the crown were struck with a salutary dread of consequences to themselves, and the king had no longer a council to whom he could confide his pernicious machinations. After a prorogation of fourteen months, parliament again met in April, 1675, when Lord Russell moved an address to remove Earl Danby from the king's presence, on the ground of mismanagement at the treasury. Danby escaped for this time; and Charles renewed his shameful secret treaties with the French king, who had already pensioned his profligate ministers. During the session of parliament which met in January, 1678, an interview took place between Lords Russell and Hollis, and the marquess de Rouvigny, long the head of the protestant interest in France, who had been sent over by Louis to confer with the popular party, which has been made the ground of a malignant charge by Dalrymple, who attempts to represent Russell as holding corrupt intercourse with the French court at this time. From such a charge it is hardly necessary to vindicate the memory of Russell. Barillon himself admits that in the first interview with Rouvigny-who, it should be remembered, was Lady Russell's cousin-Lord Russell indignantly refused the offers of money which the agent of Louis was authorised to make. In the list of persons to whom he had distributed bribes, which Barillon transmitted to his court, the name of Lord Russell does not occur; and even if it had been mentioned, we should have felt strongly disposed to suspect the agent's dishonesty rather than Russell's disloyalty. The English lords openly expressed to Rouvigny their want of confidence in his master; but on being assured by him that Louis did not feel it to be for his interest to make the king of England absolute, they did enter into an agreement to hinder, if posible, the war with France, on the condition that Louis would compel Charles to dissolve the existing parliament. There was nothing criminal in this; it was only attempting to give to foreign interference already admitted, a salutary direction, and making Charles's intrigues the means of his own defeat. Besides, a dissolution of parliament was anxiously desired by every patriotic member of the house; the agreement with Rouvigny, therefore, was in perfect consistency with the patriotic professions of Russell.

At length the parliament was dissolved, in January, 1679, but not through foreign interference. The invention of the Popish plot had alarmed the members. The duke himself had been threatened with a motion for his removal from the king's presence and counsels, and Danby had been impeached of high treason. The former supported the dissolution from the dread that parliament might adopt ulterior measures affecting his succession to the throne; the latter readily came

'Milord Russell repondit qu'il servit bien faché avoir commerce avec des gens capables d'être gagnés par de l'argent.