hot-headed fanatics, and that they would firmly and conscientiously be acted upon.

Philagatharches is an instance (not uncommon, we are sorry to say, even among the most rational of the Protestant Dissenters) of a love of toleration combined with a love of persecution. He is a Dissenter, and earnestly demands religious liberty for that body of men; but as for the Catholics, he would not only continue their present disabilities, but load them with every new one that could be conceived. He expressly says, that an Atheist or a Deist may be allowed to propagate their doctrines, but not a Catholic; and then proceeds with all the customary trash against that sect which nine schoolboys out of ten now know how to refute. So it is with Philagatharches;—so it is with weak men in every sect. It has ever been our object, and (in spite of misrepresentation and abuse) ever shall be our object, to put down this spirit—to protect the true interests, and to diffuse the true spirit, of toleration. To a well-supported national Establishment, effectually discharging its duties, we are very sincere friends. If any man, after he has paid his contribution to this great security for the existence of religion in any shape, chooses to adopt a religion of his own, that man should be permitted to do so without let, molestation, or disqualification for any of the offices of life. We apologise to men of sense for sentiments so trite; and patiently endure the anger which they will excite among those with whom they will pass for original.

CHARLES FOX. (E. REVIEW, 1811.)

A Vindication of Mr. Fox's History of the early Part of the Reign of James the Second. By Samuel Heywood, Serjeantat-Law. London, Johnson & Co. 1811.

THOUGH Mr. Fox's history was, of course, as much open to animadversion and rebuke as any other book, the task, we think, would have become any other person better than Mr. Rose. The whole of Mr. Fox's life was spent in opposing the profligacy and exposing the ignorance of his own court. In the first half of his political career, while Lord North was losing America, and in the latter half while Mr. Pitt was ruining Europe, the creatures of the government were eternally exposed to the attacks of this discerning, dauntless, and most powerful speaker. Folly and corruption never had a more terrible enemy in the English House of Commons - one whom it was so impossible to bribe, so hopeless to elude, and so difficult to answer. Now it so happened, that, during the whole of this period, the historical critic of Mr. Fox was employed in subordinate offices of government; — that the detail of taxes passed through his hands; - that he amassed a large fortune by those occupations; and that, both in the measures which he supported, and in the friends from whose patronage he received his emoluments, he was completely and perpetually opposed to Mr. Fox.

Again, it must be remembered, that very great people have very long memories for the injuries which they receive, or which they think they receive. No speculation was so good, therefore, as to vilify the memory of Mr. Fox,-nothing so delicious as to lower him in the public estimation, no service so likely to be well rewarded-so eminently grateful to those of whose favour Mr. Rose had so often tasted the sweets, and of

the value of whose patronage he must, from long experience, have been so thoroughly aware.

We are almost inclined to think that we might at one time have worked ourselves up to suspect Mr. Rose of being actuated by some of these motives :not because we have any reason to think worse of that gentleman than of most of his political associates, but merely because it seemed to us so very probable that he should have been so influenced. Our suspicions, however, were entirely removed by the frequency and violence of his own protestations. He vows so solemnly that he has no bad motive in writing his critique, that we find it impossible to withhold our belief in his purity. But Mr. Rose does not trust to his protestations alone. He is not satisfied with assurances that he did not write his book from any bad motive, but he informs us that his motive was excellent, and is even obliging enough to tell us what that motive was. The Earl of Marchmont, it seems, was Mr. Rose's friend. To Mr. Rose he left his manuscripts; and among these manuscripts was a narrative written by Sir Patrick Hume, an ancestor of the Earl of Marchmont, and one of the leaders in Argyle's rebellion. Of Sir Patrick Hume Mr. Rose conceives (a little erroneously to be sure, but he assures us he does conceive) Mr. Fox to have spoken disrespectfully; and the case comes out, therefore, as clearly as possible, as follows.

Sir Patrick was the progenitor, and Mr. Rose was the friend and sole executor, of the Earl of Marchmont; and therefore, says Mr. Rose, I consider it as a sacred duty to vindicate the character of Sir Patrick, and, for that purpose, to publish a long and elaborate critique upon all the doctrines and statements contained in Mr. Fox's history! This appears to us about as satisfactory an explanation of Mr. Rose's authorship as the exclamation of the traveller was of the name of Stony Stratford.

Before Mr. Rose gave way to this intense value for Sir Patrick, and resolved to write a book, he should have inquired what accurate men there were about in

society; and if he had once received the slightest notice of the existence of Mr. Samuel Heywood, serjeantat-law, we are convinced he would have transfused into his own will and testament the feelings he derived from that of Lord Marchmont, and devolved upon another executor the sacred and dangerous duty of vindicating Sir Patrick Hume.

The life of Mr. Rose has been principally employed in the painful, yet perhaps necessary, duty of increasing the burdens of his fellow-creatures. It has been a life of detail, onerous to the subject -onerous and lucrative to himself. It would be unfair to expect from one thus occupied any great depth of thought, or any remarkable graces of composition; but we have a fair right to look for habits of patient research and scrupulous accuracy. We might naturally expect industry in collecting facts, and fidelity in quoting them; and hope, in the absence of commanding genius, to receive a compensation from the more humble and ordinary qualities of the mind. How far this is the case, our subsequent remarks will enable the reader to judge. We shall not extend them to any great length, as we have before treated on the same subject in our review of Mr. Rose's work. Our great object at present is to abridge the observations of Serjeant Heywood. For Serjeant Heywood, though a most respectable, honest, and enlightened man, really does require an abridger. He has not the talent of saying what he has to say quickly; nor is he aware that brevity is in writing what charity is to all other virtues. Righteousness is worth nothing without the one, nor authorship without the other. But whoever will forgive this little defect will find in all his productions great learning, immaculate honesty, and the most scrupulous accuracy. Whatever detections of Mr. Rose's inaccuracies are made in this Review are to be entirely given to him; and we confess ourselves quite astonished at their number and extent.

'Among the modes of destroying persons (says Mr. Fox, p. 14.) in such a situation (i. e. monarchs deposed), there can

be little doubt but that adopted by Cromwell and his adherents is the least dishonourable. Edward II., Richard II., Henry VI., Edward V., had none of them long survived their deposal; but this was the first instance, in our history at least, when of such an act it could be truly said it was not done in a corner.'

What Mr. Rose can find in this sentiment to quarrel with, we are utterly at a loss to conceive. If a human being is to be put to death unjustly, is it no mitigation of such a lot that the death should be public?

any

thing better calculated to prevent secret torture and cruelty? And would Mr. Rose, in mercy to Charles, have preferred that red-hot iron should have been secretly thrust into his entrails?—or that he should have disappeared as Pichegru and Toussaint have disappeared in our times? The periods of the Edwards and Henrys were, it is true, barbarous periods: but this is the very argument Mr. Fox uses. All these murders, he contends, were immoral and bad; but that where the manner was the least objectionable, was the murder of Charles the First-because it was public. And can any human being doubt, in the first place, that these crimes would be marked by less intense cruelty if they were public, and, secondly, that they would become less frequent, where the perpetrators incurred responsibility, than if they were committed by an uncertain hand in secrecy and concealment? There never was, in short, not only a more innocent, but a more obvious sentiment; and to object to it in the manner which Mr. Rose has done, is surely to love Sir Patrick Hume too much, if there can be any excess in so very commendable a passion in the breast of a sole executor.

6

Mr. Fox proceeds to observe, that he who has discussed this subject with foreigners, must have observed, that the act of the execution of Charles, even in the minds of those who condemn it, excites more admiration than disgust.' If the sentiment is bad, let those who feel it answer for it. Mr. Fox only asserts the fact, and explains, without justifying it. The only question (as concerns Mr. Fox) is, whether such is, or is not, the feeling