had justice on their side, he says, cannot be reasonably doubted,-but seems to think that something more might have been done, to bring matters to an accommodation. With regard to the execution of the King, he makes the following striking observations, in that tone of fearless integrity and natural mildness, which we have already noticed as characteristic of this performance.

upon

exact truth of doubtful or contested passages, and the probable motives of insignificant and ambiguous actions. The labour which is thus visibly bestowed on the work, often appears, therefore, disproportioned to the importance of the result. The history becomes, in a certain degree, languid and heavy; and something like a feeling of disappointment and impatience is generated, from the tardiness and excessive caution with which the story is carried forward. In those constant attempts, too, to verify the particulars which are narrated, a certain tone of debate is frequently assumed, which savours more of the orator than the historian; and though there is nothing florid or rhetorical in the general cast of the diction, yet those argumentative passages are evidently more akin to public speaking than to written composition. Frequent interrogations-short alternative propositions and an occasional mixture of familiar images and illustrations,-all denote a certain habit of personal altercation, and of keen and animated contention. Instead, therefore, of a work emulating the full and flowing narrative of Livy or Herodotus, we find in Mr. Fox's book rather a series of critical remarks on the narratives of preceding writers, mingled up with occasional details somewhat more copious and careful than the magnitude of the subjects seemed to require. The history, in short, is planned upon too broad a scale, and the narrative too frequently interrupted by small controversies and petty indecisions. We are aware that these objections may be owing in a good degree to the smallness of the fragment upon which we are unfortunately obliged to hazard them; and that the proportions which appear gigantic in this little relic, might have been no more than majestic in the finished work; but even after making allowance for this consideration, we cannot help thinking that the details are too minute, and the verifications too elaborate. The introductory chapter is full of admirable reasonings and just reflections. It begins with noticing, that there are certain "As to the second question, whether the advanperiods in the history of every people, which tage to be derived from the example was such as are obviously big with important consequen- to justify an act of such violence, it appears to me ces, and exercise a visible and decisive in- to be a complete solution of it to observe, that with fluence on the times that come after. The respect to England (and I know not upon what reign of Henry VII. is one of these, with re-ground we are to set examples for other nations, or, in other words, to take the criminal justice of lation to England;-another is that comprised the world into our hands), it was wholly needless, between 1588 and 1640;-and the most re- and therefore unjustifiable, to set one for kings, at markable of all, is that which extends from a time when it was intended the office of king the last of these dates, to the death of Charles should be abolished, and consequently that no perII-the era of constitutional principles and son should be in the situation to make it the rule of his conduct. Besides, the miseries attendant practical tyranny of the best laws, and the upon a deposed monarch, seem to be sufficient to most corrupt administration. It is to the re-deter any prince, who thinks of consequences, from view of this period, that the introductory chapter is dedicated.

"The execution of the King, though a far less violent measure than that of Lord Strafford, is an event of so singular a nature, that we cannot wonder that it should have excited more sensation than any other in the annals of England. This exemplary act of substantial justice, as it has been called by some, of enormous wickedness by others, must be considered in two points of view. First, was it not in itself just and necessary! Secondly, was the example of it likely to be salutary or pernicious? In regard to the first of these questions, Mr. Hume, not perhaps intentionally, makes the best justification of it, by saying, that while Charles lived, the projected Republic could never be secure. But to justify taking away the life of an individual, be, not problematical and remote, but evident and the principle of self-defence, the danger must immediate. The danger in this instance was not of such a nature; and the imprisonment, or even banishment of Charles, might have given to the republic such a degree of security as any government ought to be content with. It must be confessed, however, on the other side, that if the republican government had suffered the King to escape, it would have been an act of justice and generosity wholly unexampled; and to have granted him even his life, would have been one among the more rare efforts of virtue. The short is become proverbial; and though there may be interval between the deposal and death of princes some few examples on the other side, as far as life is concerned, I doubt whether a single instance can be found, where liberty has been granted to a deposed monarch. Among the modes of destroying persons in such a situation, there can be little doubt but that adopted by Cromwell and his adherents is the least dishonourable. Edward the Second, Richard the Second, Henry the Sixth, Edward the Fifth, had none of them long survived their deposal; but this was the first instance, in our history at least, where, of such an act, it could be truly said, that

Mr. Fox approves of the first proceedings of the Commons; but censures without reserve the unjustifiable form of the proceedings against Lord Strafford, whom he qualifies with the name of a great delinquent. With regard to the causes of the civil war, the most difficult question to determine is, whether the Parliament made sufficient efforts to avoid bringing affairs to such a decision. That they

it was not done in a corner.

running the risk of being placed in such a situation; or if death be the only evil that can deter

As

him, the fate of former tyrants deposed by their hope he could avoid even that catastrophe. subjects, would by no means encourage him to far as we can judge from the event, the example was certainly not very effectual; since both the sons of Charles, though having their father's fate before their eyes, yet feared not to violate the liberties of the people even more than he had at

tempted to do.

"After all, however, notwithstanding what the more reasonable part of mankind may think upon

this question, it is much to be doubted whether | represented them, as an expedient, admirably inthis singular proceeding has not, as much as any other circumstance, served to raise the character of the English nation in the opinion of Europe in general. He who has read, and still more he who has heard in conversation, discussions upon this subject, by foreigners, must have perceived, 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 disgust and horror. The truth is, that the guilt of the action, that is to say, the taking away the life of the King, is what most men in the place of Cromwell and his associates would have incurred. What there is of splendour and of magnanimity in it, I mean the publicity and solemnity of the act, is what few would be capable of displaying. It is a degrading fact to human nature, that even the sending away of the Duke of Gloucester was an instance of generosity almost unexampled in the history of transactions of this nature."-pp. 13-17. Under the Protector, of whom he speaks with singular candour, the government was absolute-and, on his death, fell wholly into the hands of the army. He speaks with contempt and severe censure of Monk for the precipitate and unconditional submission into which he hurried the country at the Restoration; and makes the following candid reflection on the subsequent punishment of the regicides.

deed adapted to the real object of upholding the present king's power, by the defeat of the exclusion, but never likely to take effect for their pretended purpose of controuling that of his successor; and supported them for that very reason. But such a principle of conduct was too fraudulent to be avowed; nor ought it perhaps, in candour, to be imputed to the majority of the party. To those who acted with good faith, and meant that the restrictions should really take place, and be effectual, surely it ought to have occurred (and to those who most prized the prerogatives of the crown, it ought most forcibly to have occurred), that, in consenting to curtail the powers of the crown, rather than to alter the succession, they were adopting the greater, in order to avoid the lesser evil. The question of, what are to be the powers of the crown? is surely of superior importance to that of, who shall wear it? Those, at least, who consider the royal prerogative as vested in the king, not for his own sake, but for questions as much above the other in dignity, as that of his subjects, must consider the one of these the rights of the public are more valuable than those of an individual. In this view, the prerogatives of the crown are in substance and effect the rights of the people: and these rights of the people were not to be sacrificed to the purpose of preserving the succeswho, on account of his religious persuasion, was sion to the most favoured prince, much less to one justly feared and suspected. In truth, the question between the exclusion and restrictions seems peculiarly calculated to ascertain the different views in which the different parties in this country have "With respect to the execution of those who were accused of having been more immediately con- of the crown. seen, and perhaps ever will see, the prerogatives cerned in the King's death, that of Scrope, who a trust for the people, a doctrine which the Tories The Whigs, who consider them as had come in upon the proclamation, and of the themselves, when pushed in argument, will somemilitary officers who had attended the trial, was a times admit, naturally think it their duty rather to violation of every principle of law and justice. But change the manager of the trust, than to impair the the fate of the others, though highly dishonourable subject of it; while others, who consider them as to Monk, whose whole power had arisen from his the right or property of the king, will as naturally zeal in their service, and the favour and confidence act as they would do in the case of any other propwith which they had rewarded him, and not per- erty, and consent to the loss or annihilation of any haps very creditable to the nation, of which many part of it, for the purpose of preserving the remainhad applauded, more had supported, and almost all der to him, whom they style the rightful owner. had acquiesced in the act, is not certainly to be im- If the people be the sovereign, and the king the puted as a crime to the King, or to those of his ad- delegate, it is better to change the bailiff than to visers who were of the Cavalier party. The pas-injure the farm; but if the king be the proprietor, sion of revenge, though properly condemned both by philosophy and religion, yet when it is excited by injurious treatment of persons justly dear to us, is among the most excusable of human frailties; and if Charles, in his general conduct, had shown stronger feelings of gratitude for services performed to his father, his character, in the eyes of many, would be rather raised than lowered by this example of severity against the regicides."-pp. 22, 23.

it is better the farm should be impaired, nay, part of it destroyed, than that the whole should pass according to the Whigs (not in the case of a Popish over to an usurper. The royal prerogative ought, successor only, but in all cases), to be reduced to such powers as are in their exercise beneficial to the people; and of the benefit of these they will not rashly suffer the people to be deprived, whether the executive power be in the hands of an heredi. The mean and unprincipled submission of tary, or of an elected king; of a regent, or of any Charles to Louis XIV., and the profligate pre-other hand, they who consider prerogative with other denomination of magistrate; while, on the tences upon which he was perpetually soliciting an increase of his disgraceful stipend, are mentioned with becoming reprobation. The delusion of the Popish plot is noticed at some length; and some admirable remarks are introduced with reference to the debates on the

expediency of passing a bill for excluding the Duke of York from the Crown, or of imposing certain restrictions on him in the event of his succession. The following observations are distinguished for their soundness, as well as their acuteness; and are applicable, in principle, to every period of our history in which it can be necessary to recur to the true principles of the constitution.

"It is not easy to conceive upon what principles even the Tories could justify their support of the restrictions. Many among them, no doubt, saw the provisions in the same light in which the Whigs

reference only to royalty, will, with equal readi

ness, consent either to the extension or the suspension of its exercise, as the occasional interests of the prince may seem to require."-pp. 37-39.

Of the reality of any design to assassinate the King, by those engaged in what was called the Rye-House Plot, Mr. Fox appears to entertain considerable doubt, partly on account of the improbability of many of the circumstances, and partly on account of the uniform and resolute denial of Rumbold, the chief of that party, in circumstances when he had no conceivable inducement to disguise the truth. Of the condemnation of Russell and Sydney, he speaks with the indignation which must be felt by all friends to liberty at the recollection of that disgraceful proceeding. The following passage is one of the most eloquent

and one of the most characteristic in the whole | quis of Halifax, for having given an opinion volume. in council that the North American colonies should be made participant in the benefits of the English constitution, gives occasion to the following natural reflection.

to die.

that, even at this early period, a question relative "There is something curious in discovering, to North American liberty, and even to North American taxation, was considered as the test of principles friendly or adverse, to arbitary power at home. But the truth is, that among the several controversies which have arisen, there is no other wherein the natural rights of man on the one hand, and the authority of artificial institution on the other, as applied respectively, by the Whigs and Tories, to the English constitution, are so fairly put in issue, nor by which the line of separation between the two parties is so strongly and distinctly marked."

Upon evidence such as has been stated, was this great and excellent man (Sydney) condemned Pardon was not to be expected. Mr. Hume says, that such an interference on the part of the King, though it might have been an act of heroic generosity, could not be regarded as an indispensable duty. He might have said, with more propriety, that it was idle to expect that the govern ment, after having incurred so much guilt in order to obtain the sentence, should, by remitting it, relinquish the object just when it is within its grasp. The same historian considers the jury as highly blameable and so do I; But what was their guilt, in comparison of that of the court who tried, and of the government who prosecuted, in this infamous cause? Yet the jury, being the only party that can with any colour be stated as acting independently of the government, is the only one mentionedP. 60. by him as blameable. The prosecutor is wholly omitted in his censure, and so is the court; this last, not from any tenderness for the judge (who, to do this author justice, is no favourite with him).

but lest the odious connection between that branch of the judicature and the government should strike the reader too forcibly: For Jefferies, in this instance, ought to be regarded as the mere tool and instrument (a fit one, no doubt) of the prince who had appointed him for the purpose of this and similar services. Lastly, the King is gravely introduced on the question of pardon, as if he had had no prior concern in the cause, and were now to decide upon the propriety of extending mercy to a criminal condemned by a court of judicature! Nor are we once reminded what that judicature was, by whom appointed, by whom influenced, by whom called upon to receive that detestable evidence, the very recollection of which, even at this distance of time, fires every honest heart with indignation. As well might we palliate the murders of Tiberius; who seldom put to death his vic tims without a previous decree of his senate. The moral of all this seems to be, that whenever a prince can, by intimidation, corruption, illegal evidence, or other such means, obtain a verdict against a subject whom he dislikes, he may cause him to be executed without any breach of indispensable duty; nay, that it is an act of heroic generosity, if he spares him. I never reflect on Mr. Hume's statement of this matter but with the deepest regret. Widely as I differ from him upon many other occasions, this appears to me to be the most reprehensible passage of his whole work. A spirit of adulation towards deceased princes, though in a good measure free from the imputation of interested meanness, which is justly attached to flattery, when applied to living monarchs; yet, as it is less intelligible with respect to its motives than the other, so is it in its consequences still more pernicious to the general interests of mankind. Fear of censure from contemporaries will seldom have much effect upon men in situations of unlimited authority. They will too often flatter themselves, that the same power which enables them to commit the crime, will secure them from reproach. The dread of posthumous infamy, therefore, being the only restraint, their consciences excepted, upon the passions of such persons, it is lamentable that this last defence (feeble enough at best), should in any degree be impaired; and impaired it must be, if not totally destroyed, when tyrants can hope to find in a man like Hume, no less eminent for the integrity and benevolence of his heart, than for the depth and soundness of his understanding, an apologist for even their foulest murders."-pp. 48--50.

The uncontrouled tyranny of Charles' administration in his latter days, is depicted with much force and fidelity; and the clamour raised by his other ministers against the Mar

The introductory chapter is closed by the following profound and important remarks, which may indeed serve as a key to the whole transactions of the ensuing reign.

"Whoever reviews the interesting period which we have been discussing, upon the principle recommended in the outset of this chapter, will find, that, from the consideration of the past, to prognosticate the future, would, at the moment of Charles' demise, be no easy task. Between two persons, one of whom should expect that the country would remain sunk in slavery, the other, that the cause of freedom would revive and triumph, it would be difficult to decide, whose reasons were better supported, whose speculations the more probable. I should guess that he who desponded, had looked more at the state of the public; while he who was sanguine, had fixed his eyes more attentively upon the person who was about to mount the throne. Upon reviewing the two great parties of the nation, one observation occurs very forcibly, and that is, that the great strength of the Whigs consisted in their being able to brand their adversaries as favourers of Popery; that of the Tories (as far as their strength depended upon opinion, and not merely upon the power of the crown), in their finding colour to represent the Whigs as republicans. From this observation we may draw a further inference, that, in proportion to the rashness of the crown, in avowing and pressing forward the cause of Popery, and to the moderation and steadiness of the Whigs, in adhering to the form of monarchy, would be the chance of the people of England, for changing an ignominious despotism for glory, liberty, and happiness."-pp. 66, 67.

James was known to have had so large a share in the councils of his brother, that no one expected any material change of system from his accession. The Church, indeed, it was feared, might be less safe under a professed Catholic; and the severity of his temper might inspire some dread of an aggravated oppression. It seems to be Mr. Fox's great object, in this first chapter, to prove that the object of his early policy was, not to establish the Catholic religion, but to make himself absolute and independent of his Parliament.

The fact itself, he conceives, is completely established by the manner in which his secret negotiations with France were carried on; in the whole of which, he was zealously served by ministers, no one of whom had the slightest leaning towards Popery, or could ever be brought to countenance the measures which he afterwards pursued in its favour. It is made still more evident by the complexion S

of his proceedings in Scotland; where the test, which he enforced at the point of the bayonet, was a Protestant test, so much so, indeed, that he himself could not take it, and the objects of his persecution, dissenters from the Protestant church of England. We consider this point therefore-and it is one of no small importance in the history of this period -as now sufficiently established.

It does not seem necessary to follow the

author into the detail of that sordid and degrading connexion which James was so anxious to establish, by becoming, like his brother, the pensioner of the French monarch. The bitter and dignified contempt with which it is treated by Mr. Fox, may be guessed at from the following account of the first remittance.

very reverse is the fact. But, in one case, they were the tools of a king plotting against his people; acting upon enlarged principles, and with energies in the other, the ministers of a free government which no state that is not in some degree republican can supply. How forcibly must the contemplation of these men in such opposite situations teach persons engaged in political life, that a free and popular gov ernment is desirable, not only for the public good, but for their own greatness and consideration, for every object of generous ambition."—pp. 88, 89.

As James, in the outset of his reign, professed a resolution to adhere to the system of government established by his brother, and made this declaration in the first place, to his Scottish Parliament, Mr. Fox thinks it necessary to take a slight retrospective view of the proceedings of Charles towards that unhappy country; and details, from unquestionable authorities, such a scene of intolerant oppression and atrocious cruelty, as to justify him in saying, that the state of that kingdom was "a state of more absolute slavery than at that time subsisted in any part of Christendom."

"Within a very few days from that in which the latter of them had passed, he (the French ambassador) was empowered to accompany the delivery of a letter from his master, with the agreeable news of having received from him bills of exchange to the amount of five hundred thousand livres, to be used in whatever manner might be convenient to the In both Parliaments, the King's revenue King of England's service. The account which Barillon gives of the manner in which this sum was was granted for life, in terms of his demand, received, is altogether ridiculous: the King's eyes without discussion or hesitation; and Mr. were full of tears! and three of his ministers, Ro- Hume is censured with severity, and appachester, Sunderland, and Godolphin, came severently with justice, for having presented his rally to the French ambassador, to express the sense their master had of the obligation, in terms the most lavish. Indeed, demonstrations of grati tude from the King directly, as well as through his ministers, for this supply, were such as, if they had been used by some unfortunate individual, who, with his whole family, had been saved, by the timely succour of some kind and powerful protector, from a gaol and all its horrors, would be deemed rather too strong than too weak. Barillon himself seems surprised when he relates them ; but imputes them to what was probably their real cause, to the apprehensions that had been entertained (very unreasonable ones!), that the King of France might no longer choose to interfere in the affairs of Eng land, and, consequently, that his support could not be relied on for the grand object of assimilating this government to his own."-pp. 83, 84.

readers with a summary of the arguments which he would have them believe were actually used in the House of Commons on both sides of this question. "This misrepre sentation," Mr. Fox observes, "is of no small importance, inasmuch as, by intimating that such a question could be debated at all, and much more, that it was debated with the enlightened views and bold topics of argument with which his genius has supplied him, he gives us a very false notion of the character of the Parliament, and of the times which he is describing. It is not improbable, that if the arguments had been used, which this historian supposes, the utterer of them would have been expelled, or sent to the Tower; and After this, Lord Churchill is sent to Paris it is certain that he would not have been on the part of the tributary King.

It

"How little could Barillon guess, that he was negotiating with one who was destined to be at the head of an administration which, in a few years, would send the same Lord Churchill, not to Paris to implore Lewis for succours towards enslaving England, or to thank him for pensions to her monarch, but to combine all Europe against him in the cause of liberty to route his armies, to take his towns, to humble his pride, and to shake to the foundation that fabric of power which it had been the business of a long life to raise, at the expense of every sentiment of tenderness to his subjects; and of justice and good faith to foreign nations! is with difficulty the reader can persuade himself that the Godolphin and Churchill here mentioned, are the same persons who were afterwards, one in the cabinet, one in the field, the great conductors of the war of the Succession. How little do they appear in the one instance! how great in the other! And the investigation of the cause to which this excessive difference is principally owing, will produce a most useful lesson. Is the difference to be attributed to any superiority of genius in the prince whom they served in the latter period of their lives? Queen Anne's capacity appears to have been inferior even to her father's. Did they enjoy, in a greater degree, her favour and confidence? The

heard with any degree of attention, or even patience."-p. 142.

The last chapter is more occupied with narrative, and less with argument and reflection, than that which precedes it. It contains the story of the unfortunate and desperate expeditions of Argyle and Monmouth, and of the condemnation and death of their unhappy leaders. Mr. Fox, though convinced that the misgovernment was such as fully to justify resistance by arms, seems to admit that both those enterprises were rash and injudicious. With his usual candour and openness, he observes, that "the prudential reasons against resistance at that time were exceedingly strong; and that there is no point, indeed, in human concerns, wherein the dictates of virtue and of worldly prudence are so identified, as in this great question of resistance by force to established governments."

had been concerted together, and were inThe expeditions of Monmouth and Argyle tended to take effect at the same moment. Monmouth, however, who was reluctantly

forced upon the enterprise, was not so soon ready; and Argyle landed in the Highlands with a very small force before the Duke had sailed from Holland. The details of his irresolute councils and ineffectual marches, are given at far too great length. Though they give occasion to one profound and important remark, which we do not recollect ever to have met with before; but, of the justice of which, most of those who have acted with parties must have had melancholy and fatal experience. It is introduced when speaking of the disunion that prevailed among Argyle's little band of followers.

The name of the person to whom this anecdote relates is not mentioned; and the truth of it may therefore be fairly considered as liable to that degree of doubt with which men of judgment receive every species of traditional history. Woodrow, however, whose veracity is above suspicion, says he had it from the most unquestionable authority. It is not in itself unlikely; and who is there that would not wish it true? What a satisfactory spectacle to a philosophical mind, to see the oppressor, What an acknowledgment of the superiority of virin the zenith of his power, envying his victim! tue! What an affecting and forcible testimony to the value of that peace of mind, which innocence alone can confer! We know not who this man was; but when we reflect, that the guilt which agonized him was probably incurred for the sake of some vain title, or at least of some increase of wealth, which he did not want, and possibly knew not how to enjoy, our disgust is turned into something like compassion for that very foolish class of men, whom the world calls wise in their generation.'

pp. 207-209.

"On the scaffold he embraced his friends, gave some tokens of remembrance to his son-in-law, Lord Maitland, for his daughter and grandchildren; stript himself of part of his apparel, of which he likewise made presents; and laid his head upon the block. Having uttered a short prayer, he gave the signal to the executioner; which was instantly obeyed, and his head severed from his body. Such were the last hours, and such the final close, of this great man's life. May the like happy serenity in such dreadful circumstances, and a death equally glorious, be the lot of all, whom tyranny, of whatever denomination or description, shall in any age, or in any country, call to expiate their virtues on the scaffold!"-p. 211.

Add to all this," he says, "that where spirit was not wanting, it was accompanied with a degree and species of perversity wholly inexplicable, and which can hardly gain belief from any one whose experience has not made him acquainted with the extreme difficulty of persuading men, who pride themselves upon an extravagant love of liberty, rather to compromise upon some points with those who have, in the main, the same views with themselves, than to give power (a power which will infallibly be used for their own destruction) to an adversary, of principles diametrically opposite; in other words, rather to concede something to a friend, than every thing to an enemy."-pp. 187,188. The account of Argyle's deportment from the time of his capture to that of his execution, is among the most striking passages in the book; and the mildness and magnanimity of his resignation, is described with kindred feelings by his generous historian. The merits of this nobleman are perhaps somewhat ex- Rumbold, who had accompanied Argyle in aggerated; for he certainly wanted conduct this expedition, speedily shared his fate. and decision for the part he had undertaken; Though a man of intrepid courage, and fully and more admiration is expressed at the equa- aware of the fate that awaited him, he persistnimity with which he went to death, than the ed to his last hour in professing his innocence recent frequency of this species of heroism of any design to assassinate King Charles at can allow us to sympathize with: But the the Ryehouse. Mr. Fox gives great importstory is finely and feelingly told; and the im-ance to this circumstance; and seems disposed pression which it leaves on the mind of the reader is equally favourable to the author and to the hero of it. We can only make room for the concluding scene of the tragedy.

"Before he left the castle he had his dinner at the usual hour, at which he discoursed not only calmly, but even cheerfully, with Mr. Charteris and others. After dinner he retired, as was his custom, to his bed-chamber, where, it is recorded, that he slept quietly for about a quarter of an hour. While he was in bed, one of the members of the council came and intimated to the attendants a desire to speak with him; upon being told that the earl was asleep, and had left orders not to be disturbed, the manager disbelieved the account, which he considered as a device to avoid further questionings. To satisfy him, the door of the bed-chamber was half opened, and he then beheld, enjoying a sweet and tranquil slumber, the man who, by the doom of him and his fellows, was to die within the space of two short hours! Struck with the sight, he hurried out of the room, quitted the castle with the utmost precipitation, and hid himself in the lodgings of an acquaintance who lived near, where he flung himself upon the first bed that presented itself, and had every appearance of a man suffering the most excruciating torture. His friend, who had been ap. prized by the servant of the state he was in, and who naturally concluded that he was ill, offered him some wine. He refused, saying, 'No, no, that will not help me: I have been in at Argyle, and saw him sleeping as pleasantly as ever man did, within an hour of eternity! But as for me

to conclude, on the faith of it, that the Ryehouse plot itself was altogether a fabrication of the court party, to transfer to their adversaries the odium which had been thrown upon them with as little justice, by the prosecutions for the Popish plot. It does not appear to us, however, that this conclusion is made out in a manner altogether satisfactory.

The expedition of Monmouth is detailed with as redundant a fulness as that of Argyle; and the character of its leader still more overrated. Though Mr. Fox has a laudable jealousy of kings, indeed, we are afraid he has rather a partiality for nobles. Monmouth appears to have been an idle, handsome, presumptuous, incapable youth, with none of the virtues of a patriot, and none of the talents of an usurper; and we really cannot discover upon what grounds Mr. Fox would exalt him into a hero. He was in arms, indeed, against a tyrant; and that tyrant, though nearly connected with him by the ties of blood, sentenced him with unrelenting cruelty to death. He was plunged at once from the heights of fortune, of youthful pleasure, and of ambition, to the most miserable condition of existence,

to die disgracefully after having stooped to ask his life by abject submission! Mr. Fox dwells a great deal too long, we think, both