was owing to the interference of Monk, who had been his great friend in Oliver's time, that he was sent back to Scotland, and brought to trial; and that he was condemned chiefly by his discoveries. We may now ask where is the improbability of this story, when related of such a man? and what ground there is for not giving credit to a fact attested by three witnesses of veracity, each writing at a distance, and separate from each other? In this instance Bishop Burnet is so confirmed, that no reasonable being, who will attend to the subject, can doubt of the fact he relates being true; and we shall hereafter prove that the general inputation against his accuracy, made by Mr. Rose, is totally without foundation. If facts so proved are not to be credited, historians may lay aside their pens, and every man must content himself with the scanty pittance of knowledge he may be able to collect for himself, in the very limited sphere of his own immediate observation."-(Pp. 86-88.)

This, we think, is conclusive enough: but we are happy to be enabled, out of our own store, to set this part of the question finally to rest by an authority which Mr. Rose himself will probably admit to be decisive.-Sir George Mackenzie, the great Tory lawyer of Scotland in that day, and Lord Advocate to Charles II. through the greater part of his reign, was the leading counsel for Argyle on the trial alluded to.-In 1678, this learned person, who was then Lord Advocate to Charles, published an elaborate treatise on the criminal law of Scotland, in which, when treating of Probation, or Evidence, he observes that missive letters, not written, but only signed by the party, should not be received in evidence; and immediately adds, "And yet, The Marquess of Argyle was convict of treason, UPON LETTERS WRITTEN BY HIM TO GENERAL MONK; these letters being only subscribed by him, and not holograph, and the subscription being proved per combarationem literarum; which were very hard in other cases," &c.-(Mackenzie's Criminals, first edit., P. 524. Part II., tit. 25, § 3.) Now this, we conceive, is nothing more nor less than a solemn professional report of the case, and leaves just as little room for doubt as to the fact as if the original record of the trial had been recovered.

Mr. Rose next objects to Mr. Fox's assertion that "the King kept from his Cabal ministry the real state of his connection with France-and from some of them the secret of what he was pleased to call his religion ;" and Mr. Fox doubts whether to attribute this conduct to the habitual treachery of Charles, or to an apprehension that his ministers might demand for themselves some share of the French money, which he was unwilling to give them. In answer to this conjecture, Mr. Rose quotes Barillon's Letters to Louis XIV. to show that Charles's ministers were fully apprised of his money transactions with France. The letters so quoted were, however, written seven years after the Cabal ministry were in power-for Barillon did not come to England as ambassador till 1677, and these letters were not written till after that period. Poor Sir Patrick-It was for thee and thy defence this book was written !!!!

Mr. Fox has said that from some of the ministers of the Cabal the secret of Charles's religion was concealed. It was known to Arlington, admitted by Mr. Rose to be a concealed Catholic; it was known to Clifford, an avowed Catholic: Mr. Rose admits it not to have been known to Buckingham, though he explains the reserve, with respect to him, in a different way. He has not, however, attempted to prove that Lauderdale or Ashley were consulted; on the contrary, in Colbert's Letter of the 25th August, 1670, cited by Mr. Rose, it is stated that Charles had proposed the traité simulé, which should be a repetition of the former one in all things, except the article relative to the King's declaring himself a Catholic, and that the Protestant Ministers, Buckingham, Ashley, Cooper, and Lauderdale, should be brought to be parties to it :-" Can there be a stronger proof (asks Serjeant Heywood) that they were ignorant of the same treaty made the year before, and remaining then in force?" Historical research is certainly not the peculiar

talent of Mr. Rose; and as for the official accuracy of which he is so apt to boast, we would have Mr. Rose to remember that the term official accuracy has of late days become one of very ambiguous import. Mr. Rose, we can see, would imply by it the highest possible accuracy-as we see office pens advertised in the window of a shop by way of excellence. The public reports of those, however, who have been appointed to look into the manner in which public offices are conducted, by no means justify this usage of the term;-and we are not without apprehensions that Dutch politeness, Carthaginian faith, Boeotian genius, and official accuracy, may be terms equally current in the world; and that Mr. Rose may, without intending it, have contributed to make this valuable addition to the mass of our ironical phraseology.

Speaking of the early part of James's reign, Mr. Fox says it is by no means certain that he had yet thoughts of obtaining for his religion anything more than a complete toleration; and if Mr. Rose had understood the meaning of the French word établissement, one of his many incorrect corrections of Mr. Fox might have been spared. A system of religion is said to be established when it is enacted and endowed by Parliament; but a toleration (as Serjeant Heywood observes) is established when it is recognised and protected by the supreme power. And in the letters of Barillon, to which Mr. Rose refers for the justification of his attack upon Mr. Fox, it is quite manifest that it is in this latter sense that the word établissement is used and that the object in view was, not the substitution of the Catholic religion for the Established 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 Louis 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 Louis 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, Louis 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." În 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 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 pro. bably 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 page 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, page 9); and Blackstone, "a bare conspiracy to levy war does not amount to this species of treason." (Com. iv. page 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 Hume; and his observations upon this point admit of a fourfold answer. Ist, 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 anywhere 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 expres sion 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 filled up ;-and goes on blundering and blubbering-grateful and inaccurate-teeming with false quotations and friendly recollections to the conclusion of his book.-Multa gemens igno

miniam.

Mr. Rose came into possession of the Earl of Marchmont's papers, containing, among other things, the narrative of Sir Patrick Hume. He is very severe upon Mr. Fox for not having been more diligent in searching for original papers; and observes that, if any application had been made to him (Mr. Rose), this narrative should have been at Mr. Fox's service. We should be glad to know, if Mr. Rose saw a person tumbled into a ditch, whether he would wait for a regular application till he pulled him out? Or, if he happened to espy the lost piece of silver for which the good woman was diligently sweeping the house, would he wait for formal interrogation before he imparted his discovery, and suffer the lady to sweep on till the question had been put to him in the most solemn forms of politeness? The established practice, we admit, is to apply, and to apply vigorously and incessantly,— for sinecure places and pensions-or they cannot be had. This is true enough. But did any human being ever think of carrying this practice into literature, and compelling another to make interest for papers essential to the good conduct of his undertaking? We are perfectly astonished at Mr. Rose's conduct in this particular; and should have thought that the ordinary exercise of his good-nature would have led him to a very different way of acting.

"On the whole, and upon the most attentive consideration of everything which has been written upon the subject, there does not appear to have been any intention of applying torture in the case of the Earl of Argyle." (Rose, p. 182.) If this everything had included the following extract from Barillon, the above cited, and very disgraceful, inaccuracy of Mr. Rose would have been spared. "The Earl of Argyle has been executed at Edinburgh, and has left a full confession in writing, in which he discovers all those who have assisted him with money, and have aided his designs. This has saved him from the torture." And Argyle, in his letter to Mrs. Smith, confesses he has made discoveries. In his very inaccurate history of torture in the southern part of this island, Mr. Rose says, that except in the case of Felton,-in the attempt to introduce the civil law in Hen. VI.'s reign,—and in some cases of treason in Mary's reign, torture was never attempted in this country. The fact, however, is, that in the reign of Henry VIII. Anne Askew was tortured by the Chancellor himself. Simson was tortured in 1558; Francis Throgmorton in 1571; Charles Baillie, and Banastie, the Duke of Norfolk's servant, were tortured in 1581; Campier, the Jesuit, was put upon the rack; and Dr. Astlow is supposed to have been racked in 1558. So much for Mr. Rose as the historian of punishments. We have seen him, a few pages before, at the stake, where he makes quite as bad a figure as he does now upon the rack. Precipitation and error are his foibles. If he were to write the history of sieges, he would forget the siege of Troy ;-if he were making a list of poets, he would leave out Virgil:-Cæsar would not appear in his catalogue of generals; and Newton would be overlooked in his collection of eminent mathematicians. I