what it reared by its valour, which time itself can | curacies in a man, not only so much greater than himhardly efface.' But the difficulty is to find how the self in his general nature, but a man who, as it turns denial of Mr. Rose affects Mr. Fox's assertion. Mr. out, excels Mr. Rose in his own little art of looking, those admits that Blake's body was dug up by an order searching, and comparing and is as much his supe. of the king; and does not deny that it was done with rior in the retail qualities which small people arrogate the acquiescence of Monk. But if this be the case, to themselves, as he was in every commanding faculty Mr. Fox's position that Blake was insulted, and that to the rest of his fellow creatures? Monk acquiesced in the insult, is clearly made out. Mr. Rose searches Thurloe's State Papers; but SerNor has Mr. Rose the shadow of an authority for say-jeant Heywood searches them after Mr. Rose: and, ing that the corpse of Blake was reinterred with great by a series of the plainest references, proves the prob decorum. Kennet is silent upon the subject. We have ability there is that Argyle did receive letters which already given Sergeant Heywood's quotation from might materially have affected his life. Anthony Wood; and this statement, for the present, rests entirely upon the assertion of Mr. Rose; and upon that basis will remain to all eternity.

Mr. Rose, who, we must say, on all occasions, through the whole of this book, makes the greatest parade of his accuracy, states that the bodies of Cromwell, Ireton, and Blake, were taken up at the same time; whereas the fact is, that those of Cromwell and Ireton were taken up on the 26th of January, and that of Blake on the 10th of September, nearly nine months afterwards. It may appear frivolous to notice such errors as these; but they lead to very strong suspicions in a critic of history and of historians. They show that those habits of punctuality, on the faith of which he demands implicit confidence from his readers, really do not exist; they prove that such a writer will be exact only when he thinks the occasion of importance; and as he himself is the only judge of that importance, it is necessary to examine his proofs in every instance, and impossible to trust

him anywhere.

To Monk's duplicity of conduct may be principally attributed the destruction of his friends, who were prevented, by their confidence in him, from taking measures to secure themselves. He selected those among them whom he thought fit for trial-sat as a commissioner upon their trial-and interfered not to save the lives even of those with whom he had lived in the habits of the greatest kindness.

'I cannot,' says a witness of the most unquestionable autho

rity, I cannot forget one passage that I saw. Monk and his
wife, before they were moved to the Tower, while they were
yet prisoners at Lambeth House, cume one evening to the
garden, and caused them to be brought down, only to stare at
them; which was such a barbarism, for that man who betrayed
so many poor men to death and misery, that never hurt him,
but had honoured him, and trusted their lives and interests with
him, to glut his bloody eyes with beholding them in their bon-
Hutchinson's Memoirs, 378.
dage, as no story can parallel the inhumanity of.'-(p. 83.)—

This, however, is the man whom Mr. Fox, at the distance of a century and a half, may not mark with infamy, without incurring, from the candour of Mr Rose, the imputation of republican principles;-as if attachment to monarchy could have justified, in Monk, the coldness, cruelty, and treachery of his character,

as if the historian became the advocate, or the enemy of any form of government, by praising the good, or blaming the bad men which it might produce. Ser. jeant Heywood sums up the whole article as follows:

Mr. Rose remarks that, in the weekly paper entitled Mercurius Rusticus, Number 4, where an account is given of the disinterment of Cromwell and Ireton, not a syllable is said respecting the corpse of Blake. This is very true; but the reason (which does not seem to have occurred to Mr. Rose) is, that Blake's corpse was not touched till six months afterwards. This is really a little too much. That Mr. Rose should quit his usual pursuits, erect himself into an historical critic, perch upon the body of the dead lion, impugnduced by Mr. Rose, than which "it is hardly possible," he the accuracy of one of the greatest, as well as most accurate men of his time-and himself be guilty of such gross and unpardonable negligence, looks so very much like an insensibility to shame, that we should be loth to characterize his conduct by the severe epithets which it appears to merit, and which, we are quite certain, Sir Patrick, the defendee, would have been the first to bestow upon it.

'Having examined and commented upon the evidence pro

says, "to conceive that stronger could be formed in any case to establish a negative," we now safely assert that Mr. Fox had fully informed himself upon the subject before he wrote, and was amply justified in the condemnation of Monk, and the consequent severe censures upon him. It has been already demonstrated that the character of Monk had been truly given, when of him he said, "the army had fallen into the hands of one than whom a baser could not be found in its lowest ranks." The transactions between him and Argyle for a certain period of time were such as must naturally, if not neces sarily, have led them into an epistolary correspondence; and it was in exact conformity with Monk's character and conduct to the regicides, that he should betray the letters written to him, in order to destroy a man whom he had, in the latter part of his command in Scotland, both feared and hated. If the fact of the production of these letters had stood merely on by Mr. Rose and Dr. Campbell to impeach it; on the contraBishop Burnet, we have seen that nothing has been produced ry, an inquiry into the authorities and documents they have cited, strongly confirm it. But, as before observed, it is a surprising instance of Mr. Rose's indolence, that he should state the question to depend now, as it did in Dr. Campbell's time, on the bishop's authority solely. But that authority is, in at the time of Argyle's trial; he was never an unobserving itself, no light one. Burnet was almost eighteen years of age spectator of public events; he was probably at Edinburgh, aud, for some years afterwards, remained in Scotland, with ample means of information respecting events which had taken place so recently. Baillie seems also to have been upon the spot, and expressly confirms the testimony of Burnet. To these must be added Cunningham, who, writing as a person perfectly acquainted with the circumstances of the transaction, says it 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

The next passage in Mr. Fox's work objected to, is that which charges Monk, at the trial of Argyle, with having produced letters of friendship and confidence to take away the life of a nobleman, in the zeal and cordiality of whose co-operation with him, proved by such documents, was the chief ground of his execution.' This accusation, says Mr. Rose, rests upon the sole authority of Bishop Burnet; and yet no sooner has he said this, than he tells us, Mr. Laing considers the bishop's authority to be confirmed by Cunningham and Baillie, both contemporary writers. Into Cunningham or Baillie Mr. Rose never looks to see whether or not they do really confirm the authority of the bishop; and so gross is his negligence, that the very misprint from Mr. Laing's work is copied, and page 431 of Baillie is cited instead of 451. If Mr. Rose had really taken the trouble of referring to these books, all doubt of the meanness and guilt of Monk must have been instantly removed. Monk was moved,' says Baillie, to send down four or five of Argyle's let. ters to himself and others, promising his full compliance with them, that the king should not reprieve him.' Baillie's Letters, p. 451. He endeavoured to make his defence,' says Cunningham; but chiefly by the discove-chiefly by his discoveries. We may now ask, where is the ries of Monk was condemned of high treason, and lost his head.'-Cunningham's History, i. p. 13. Would it have been more than common decency required, if Mr. Rose, who had been apprised of the existence of these authorities, had had recourse to them, before he impugned the authority of Mr. Fox? Or is it possible to read, without some portion of contempt, this slovenly and indolent corrector of supposed inac

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 subject, can doubt of the fact he relates being true; and we so confirmed, that no reasonable being who will attend to the shall hereafter prove that the general imputation 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.'-(p. 86-88.)

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 any thing more than a complete toleration; and if Mr. Rose had understood This, we think, is conclusive enough: but we are the meaning of the French word établissement, one of happy to be enabled, out of our own store, to set this his many incorrect corrections of Mr. Fox might have part of the question finally to rest, by an authority been spared. A system of religion is said to be estabwhich Mr. Rose himself will probably admit to be de-lished when it is enacted and endowed by Parliament; cisive. Sir George Mackenzie, the great tory lawyer but a toleration (as Serjeant Heywood observes) is of Scotland in that day, and Lord Advocate to Charles established when it is recognized and protected by the II., through the greater part of his reign, was the lead- supreme power. And in the letters of Barillon, to ing counsel for Argyle on the trial alluded to. In which Mr. Rose refers for the justification of his at1678, this learned person, who was then Lord Advo-tack upon Mr. Fox, it is quite manifest that it is in this cate to Charles, published an elaborate treatise on the latter sense that the word etablissement is used; and criminal law of Scotland; in which, when treating of that the object in view was, not the substitution of the probation, or evidence, he observes, that missive let- Catholic religion for the Established Church, but mereters, not written, but only signed by the party, shouldly its toleration. In the first letter cited by Mr. Rose, not be received in evidence; and immediately adds, James says, that he knew well he should never be in And yet the Marquis of Argyle was convict of treason safety unless liberty of conscience for them should be UPON LETTERS WRITTEN BY HIM TO GENERAL MONK; fully established in England.' The letter of the 24th these letters being only subscribed by him, and not of April is quoted by Mr. Rose, as if the French king holograph, and the subscription being proved per com- had written, the establishment of the Catholic religion"; parationem literarum, which were very hard in other whereas the real words are, the establishment of the free cases,' &c.-Mackenzie's Criminals, first edit. p. 524, exercise of the Catholic religion. The world are so inPart II. tit. 25, § 3. Now this, we conceive, is neither veterately resolved to believe, that a man who has no more nor less than a solemn professional report of the brilliant talents must be accurate, that Mr. Rose, in case, and leaves just as little room for doubt as to referring to authorities, has a great and decided adthe fact, as if the original record of the trial had been vantage. He is, however, in point of fact, as lax and recovered. 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.

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 Lewis 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, in 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 traite simule, 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 Hey wood), 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, Baotian 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

Barillon writes, in another letter to Lewis XIV'What your majesty has most besides at heart, that is to say, for the establishment of the free exercise of the Catholic religion.' On the 9th of May, Leuis writes to Barillon, that he is persuaded Charles will employ all his authority to establish the free excercise 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 Baril lon, 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 epleinement tablie; 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 honour. able gentleman. He has too much knowledge of mankind to believe their happiness can be promoted in the stormy and tempestuous regions of republicanism

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 sible for him to touch upon what he deemed the miscon In recounting the failure of his expedition, it is impos has not detected Mr. Fox in one single error. Wheth-duct of his friends; and this is the subject upon which, of er Serjeant Heywood has been more fortunate with all others, his temper must have been most irritable. Mr. Rose, might be determined, perhaps, with sufli- certain description of friends (the words describing them cient certainty, by our previous extracts from his re- are omitted) were all of them, without exception, his greatmarks. But for some indulgent readers, these may and (the names again omitted) were the greatest cause of est enemies, both to betray and destroy him: and not seem enough: and we must proceed in the task, his rout, and his being taken, though not designedly, he till we have settled Mr. Rose's pretensions to accura- acknowledges, but by ignorance, cowardice, and faction. cy on a still firmer foundation. And if we be thought This sentence had scarce escaped him, when, notwithstandminutely severe, let it be remembered that Mr. Rose ing the qualifying words with which his candour has acis himself an accuser; and if there is justice upon quitted the last mentioned persons of intentional treachery, earth, every man has a right to pull stolen goods out it appeared toc harsh to his gentle nature; and, declaring of the pocket of him who cries, Stop thief!' himself displeased with the hard epithets he had used, he desires that they may be put out of any account that is to given of these transactions.'-Heywood, p. 365, 366.

Rapin, Dalrymple, or Macpherson? In this point of view
the principle la.d down is too broad. A person, though
events which occurred a century before; and, till this last
connected with party, may write an impartial history of
sentence, Mr. Rose has not ventured to intimate that Mr.
Fox has not done so. On the contrary, he has declared his
approbation of a great portion of the work; and his at-
tempts to discover material errors in the remainder have
uniformly failed in every particular. If it might be as-
sumed that there existed in the book no faults, besides
those which the scrutinizing eye of Mr. Rose has dis-
covered, it might be justly deemed the most perfect work
that ever came from the press; for not a single deviation
from the strictest duty of an historian has been pointed out;
while instances of candour and impartiality present them-
selves in almost every page; and Mr. Rose himself has
acknowledged and applauded many of them.'-(FP. 422—
424.)
These extracts from both books are sufficient to

undertaking? We are perfectly astonished at Mr. | Hume? and in what class are to be placed Echard, Kennet, 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 every thing 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 every thing 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 south-show the nature of Serjeant Heywood's examination of ern part of this island, Mr. Rose says, that except in the case of Felton-in the attempt to introduce the civil law in Henry 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;

Mr. Rose,-the boldness of this latter gentleman's assertions, and the extreme inaccuracy of the researchcredit could be gained from such a book as Mr. Rose es upon which these assertions are founded. If any Whatever the execution of his book had been, the has published, it could be gained from accuracy alone. Francis Throgmorton in 1571; Charles Baillie, and world would have remembered the infinite disparity of Banastie, the Duke of Norfolk's servant, were tortured which they lived-if that, indeed, can be called oppothe two authors, and the long political opposition in in 1581; Campier, the Jesuit, was put upon the rack;sition, where the thunderbolt strikes, and the clay and Dr. Astlow is supposed to have been racked in yields. They would have remembered also that Hec 1558. So much for Mr. Rose as the historian of pun-tor was dead; and that every cowardly Grecian could ishments. 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.

In some cases, Mr. Rose is to be met only with flat denial. Mr. Fox does not call the soldiers who were defending James against Argyle authorized assassins; but he uses that expression against the soldiers who were murdering the peasants, and committing every sort of licentious cruelty in the twelve counties given up to military execution; and this Mr. Rose must have known, by using the most ordinary diligence in the perusal of the text, and would have known it in any other history than that of Mr. Fox.

if Mr. Rose had really succeeded in exposing the inac now thrust his spear into the hero's body. But still, curacy of Mr. Fox,-if he could have fairly shown that wilfully perverted, the incipient feelings to which authorities were overlooked, or slightly examined, or to the evidence of facts; and Mr. Fox, however quali such a controversy had given birth must have yielded fied in other particulars, must have appeared totally defective in that laborious industry and scrupulous good faith so indispensable to every historian. But he absolutely comes out of the contest not worse even in a single tooth or nail-unvilified even by a wrong date late in his years and days of the month-blameless to -without one misnomer proved upon him-iminacuthe most musty and limited pedant that ever yellowed himself amidst rolls and records.

with the world as a man of labour,—and he turns out But how fares it with his critic? He rests his credit to be a careless inspector of proofs, and an historical Mr. Rose, in his concluding paragraph, boasts of his sloven. The species of talent which he pretends to is speaking "impersonally," and he hopes it will be allowed humble, and he possesses it not. He has not done justly, when he makes a general observation respecting that which all men may do, and which every man the proper province of history. But the last sentence evi- ought to do, who rebukes his superiors for not doing dently shows that, though he might be speaking justly, he it. His claims, too, it should be remembered, to these was not speaking impersonally, if by that word is meant, every-day qualities, are by no means enforced with without reference to any person. His words are, "But history cannot connect itself with party, without forfeiting gentleness and humility. He is a braggadocio of miits name; without departing from the truth, the dignity, nuteness-a swaggering chronologer; a man bristling and the usefulness of its functions." After the remarks he up with small facts-prurient with dates-wantoning has made in some of his preceding pages, and the apology in obsolete evidence-loftily dull, and haughty in his he has offered for Mr. Fox, in his last preceding paragraph, drudgery;-and yet all this is pretence. Drawing is for having been mistaken in his view of some leading no very unusual power in animals; but he cannot points, there can be no difficulty in concluding, that this draw; he is not even the ox which he is so fond of general observation is meant to be applied to the historical being. In attempting to vilify Mr. Fox, he has only shown us that there was no labour from which that great man shrunk, and that no object connected with his history was too minute for his investigation. He has thoroughly convinced us that Mr. Fox was as industrious, and as accurate, as if these were the only qualities upon which he had ever rested his hope of fortune or of fame. Such, indeed, are the customary results when little people sit down to debase the char acters of great men, and to exalt themselves upon the ruins of what they have pulled down. They only provoke a spirit of inquiry, which places everything in its true light and magnitude,-shows those who appear little to be still less, and displays new and unexpected excellence in others who were before known to excel. These are the usual consequences of such attacks. The fame of Mr. Fox has stood this, and will stand much ruder shocks.

work. The charge intended to be insinuated must be, that, in Fox's hands, history has forfeited the name by being connected with party; and has departed from the truth, the dignity, and the usefulness of its functions. It were to be wished that Mr. Rose had explained himself more fully; for, after assuming that the application of his observation is too obvious to be mistaken, there still remains some difficulty with respect to its meaning. If it is confined to such publications as are written under the title of histories, but are intended to serve the purposes of a party and truth is sacrificed, and facts perverted, to defend and give currency to their tenets, we do not dispute its propriety; but, if that is the character which Mr. Rose would give to Mr. Fox's labours, he has not treated him with candour, or even common justice. Mr. Rose has never, in any one instance, intimated that Mr. Fox has wilfully departed from truth, or strayed from the proper province of history, for the purpose of indulging his private or party feelings. But, if Mr. Rose intends that his observation should be applied to all histories, the authors of which have felt strongly the influence of political connections and 'principles, what must become of most of the histories of England? Is the title of historian to be denied to Mr.

Non hiemes illam, non flabra neque imbres
Convellunt; immota manet, multosque per annos
Multa virum volens durando sacula vincit.

Chains are never permitted at the Retreat; nor is it left to the option of the lower attendants when they are to impose an additional degree of restraint upon the patients; and this compels them to pay attention The superintendent was one day walking in a field adjato the feelings of the patients, and to attempt to gain cent to the house, in company with a patient who was apt to an influence over them by kindness. Patients who are be vindictive on very slight occasions. An exciting circum not disposed to injure themselves are merely confined stance occurred. The maniac retired a few paces, and seized by the strait waistcoat, and left to walk about the throwing at his companion. The superintendent, in no degree a large stone, which he immediately held up, as in the act of room, or lie down on the bed, at pleasure; and even in ruffled, fixed his eye upon the patient, and in a resolute tone those cases where there is a strong tendency to self-of voice, at the same time advancing, commanded him to lay destruction, as much attention is paid to the feelings and ease of the patient as is consistent with his safety.

Except in cases of violent mania, which is far from being a frequent occurrence at the Retreat, coercion, when requisite, is considered as a necessary evil; that is, it is thought abstractedly to have a tendency to retard the cure, by opposing the influence of the moral remedies employed. It is therefore used very sparingly; and the superintendent has often assured me, that he would rather run some risk than have recourse to restraint where it was not absolutely necessary, except in those cases where it was likely to have a salutary moral tendency.

'I feel no small satisfaction in stating, upon the author-'