bent upon the deftruction of a fallen minifter, how mean and difgraceful does their conduct appear!

The zeal of the commons to rescue Fitzharris from a prosecution, already commenced against him in the courts of law, is not only liable to the fame cenfure, as being a prefumptuous interference with the established conftitutional forms of juftice, but also tending to ftrengthen the fufpicion of their having formed a defign of employing him as the tool of corruption, beft adapted to disturb the tranquillity of government.

If the conduct of the country party in the reign of Charles the fecond had appeared in every view unexceptionable, or even meritorious in the eye of an unprejudiced fpectator, who lived at that period, and formed his opinion from fuch circumstances as fell under his own immediate obfervation, yet the most candid in our own time, who have had an opportunity of attending to the additional information, and the evidence fairly collected from records which have been lately infpected, cannot fail to fubmit, however reluctantly, to this conclufion, that bafe and mercenary motives fwayed the conduct of many who flood in oppofition to the court, and were enrolled in the lift of patriots. Candour may difpofe us to fufpend our decifion with respect to the guilt of individuals; nor is it confiflent with its dictates, to blot, with the pen of a profligate ambaffador, the names of illuftrious perfons, who were never even fufpected of a bafe or an unworthy action. But ftill, neither the fa& itself, nor the conclufion drawn from it, can be evaded. The money of France was profufely diftributed among the members of the country party, and deep corruption must have fomewhere exifted, among thofe who derived affiftance from fuch bafe and fuch criminal means *.'

After tracing back to its cause the fact of the gradual decline of oppofition, toward the clofe of the reign of Charles II. notwithstanding the flagrant inftances in which the power of the crown was ftretched beyond the limits of law, Dr. Somerville clofes this reign with the following judicious obfervations:

It is not to be denied, that nature had furnished the mind of this prince with a more than common fhare of genius and tafte. Affability, fprightlinefs, wit, and good breeding, conveyed an amiable view of his character to thofe who furrendered judg. ment to the fudden and tranfient impreffions of converfation and external manners.

Tried by that fyftem, which afcribes tranfcendent merit to the graces, few royal characters appear more deferving of applause and admiration few will ftand lower in the decifion of thofe, who hold moral accomplishments to be the most effential ornaments of character, and the only genuine basis of esteem and praise.

Without any fenfe of religious principle, ungrateful to his own friends, and the friends of his father; timid and fluctuating in his

See more on this very interefting fubject, Review, vol. xlix, p. 1-10.

counfels;

counfels; deftitute of all pretenfions to patriotifm; ever ready to facrifice the intereft and glory of his country to the gratification of his pleasures, and the fupply of his wants; what remains to claim the approbation, or restrain the fevereft reproach, of impartial pofterity?

The fatisfaction which Charles enjoyed in the later period of his reign, on account of his triumph over the whig party, muft have been greatly diminished, by the perfonal mortifications he incurred, from the infolence and the treachery of France. How painful muft it have been, to difcover that Lewis had been intriguing with those very perfons in England, whom he had confidered as enemies to his own government, and to the intereft of France? Nay, fo little refpect did Lewis fhow, ei her to the honour or the domeftic tranquillity of Charles, that he was acceffory to a defign of exposing him to the contempt of his fubjects, and of all Europe, by a publication of the fecret treaties by which Charles, to his difgrace, had connected himself with the court of France. The encroachments which the French king made upon Flanders, were a mockery of the engagements into which he had entered with Charles by the laft money treaty. His invafion of the principality of Orange, was an infult to the royal family of England. A circumftance which, we may believe, made a deeper impreffion upon the mind of Charles, was the withholding the penfion promifed to him, for remaining an indifferent fpectator of fuch outrageous ufurpation, at a time when he was reduced to the utmost diftrefs, on account of his contracted and embarrassed revenue. Thus, like the unhappy female, who has fallen a prey to the fnares of the licentious feducer, robbed of her innocence, and cheated of the reward of her proftitution, configned to infamy and to poverty, Charles, if any fpark of fenfibi lity remained, muft have been torn with all thofe pangs of remorfe and of fhame, which refult from the confcioufness of the bafeft iniquity and most egregious folly. No wonder, if, as attefted by cotemporary hiftorians, he became penfive and melancholy, and entertained ferious thoughts of changing the plan of his government. The arrangements he had made in the feveral corporations by the quo warranto profecutions, and a confiderable reinforcement added to his army by the garrifon recalled from Tangiers, would probably encourage him to hope, that if he called another parliament, he would find it more obfequious to his defires.'

Of the fhort and difgraceful reign of James II. the author gives a brief but masterly sketch. He fhews by what means it came to pass, that James's acceffion to the throne, (an event which, a few years before, had been anticipated with horror,) at laft took place without oppofition. He gives a fhocking, but not exaggerated, defcription, of the oppreffions and cruelties of this reign; marks the fudden change of political fentiments which then took place; and exhibits an inftructive picture of a prince invefted with extenfive prerogative, and flattered with the most ardent expreflions of attachment, through the baneful influence of obftinate and infatuated bigotry, abdicating

his throne almoft without a ftruggle, and compelled to linger out the remainder of his days in exile and difgrace.'

At this period of the hiftory, Dr. S. introduces an inquiry whether the Prince of Orange was acceffary to the Duke of Monmouth's invafion. Of this he ftands accufed by D'Avaux, the French refident in Holland, by King James, and by Father Orleans; and the accufation has been renewed and vehemently urged by Mr. McPherson.

D'Avaux minutely defcribes the affiduous attentions fhewn to the Duke of Monmouth during his refidence in Holland; and afferts that, on the news of the death of Charles II. the Prince was shut up in close confultation with the Duke at midnight; that after his departure he correfponded with Bentinck, the Prince's greateft confident; that he afterward returned to Amfterdam, where he lived incognito, and made preparations for his expedition to England; and that the Prince favoured the escape of his veffels, though requested to flop them by James's ambaffador, and in other refpects neglected to counteract the projects of the Duke's affociates. The fame hiftorian alfo mentions letters of the Prince of Orange, found by the King of England, which discovered the intelligence that he held with the Duke of Monmouth, and the contract made between them. King James afcribed the invafion by the Duke to the affiftance of his fon-in-law; affigning, as the reason, that he was defirous of playing off the two perfons who ftood between him and the throne against one another; and he fupported this conjecture by the fact, that Bentinck was vifibly alarmed when he found that James would admit the Duke into his prefence, and was never at eafe till his head was cut off. Father Orleans takes pains to remove an objection which might be made to the opinion, that the Prince of Orange favoured the expedition, from the Prince's conduct in fending Bentinck to offer the troops of Holland and his own perfonal fervice to James. This, the Father alleges, was occafioned by the imprudence of the Duke, who offended William by affuming the title of king.

To all this Dr. S. replies, that the civilities related by D'Avaux happened before the death of Charles II, and therefore cannot fairly be imputed to any immediate view on the throne. of England. From the intimacy that fubfifted between the Duke of Monmouth and the Prince of Orange, it might naturally be expected that they would converte on business of fuch importance as the death of Charles. The ftory of the letters bears no marks of authenticity, and is only hearsay evidence; and they are not mentioned by James. The conduct

* See an account of his Negociations, Rev. vols, x. and xiii.

of

of William, with refpect to the Duke, may be justified on the general ground of the protection due to ftrangers. The remarks contained in the life of James are merely conjectural, and are evidently dictated by fufpicion and refentment. The offer which the Prince made to Bentinck, of ferving in perfon at the head of the troops against the Duke of Monmouth, is a fufficient confutation of his being concerned in that expedi tion. The Duke wrote to James, not acculing, but in exprefs terms acquitting, the Prince and Princeis of Orange of all fhare and participation of his crime; and he acknowleged that he gave his promife to them that he would never ftir. I he validity of the teftimony of Orleans depends entirely on that of James, from whom he derived all his information. To all this our author adds;

Many external circumstances, as well as the behaviour and true intereft of the prince of Orange, fuggeft strong arguments for his acquittal of the charge of inft gating the rebellion of Monmouth. Impelled by every motive of prudence, the prince of Orange difcovered the most anxious folicitude to maintain a strict friendship with his father in-law, after his acceffion to the throne of England. Involved in domeftic and foreign dangers, his authority as ftadtholder, constantly oppofed by the city of Amfterdam, which watch ed every opportunity to impair or overturn it, flood upon a tottering bafis. The reftlefs ambition and refentment of France had deftined his deftruction. The only probable means of fecuring his perfonal authority, and the peace and independence of the States, feemed to flow from the fuccour and the friendship of England. He was at this very time negociating an alliance against France, to which the acceffion of James was effèntial, and he entertained the most fanguine hopes of obtaining it. With regard to his views on the fucceffion of the crown of E gland, they were more likely to be obstructed, than promoted, by the expedition of Monmouth, whatever the event of it might be. The fuccefs of Monmouth, if it had taken place, would not have been easily overturned. His defeat could only tend to difcourage the hopes and future attempts of the difaffected party in England, to increase the power and establish the throne of the reigning prince, and to remove, till the event of his death, all hopes of that elevation, at which the prince of Orange is reprefented to have precipitately grafped, by encouraging and aiding rebellion.

I have the more largely infifted on this fubje&t, because a modern hiftorian, Mr. M'Pherton, has not only decided peremptorily concerning the prince of Orange's connexion with Monmouth, in his expedition against James, but, by an artful arrangement of his ftory, reprefents his conduct towards Monmouth, for many preceding years, as formed and directed with a view to that event. i he following fentence particularly deferves to be attended to, because it feems to fuggeft matter for confutation of the opinion which it con tains: The generofity of the prince," fays he, "equalled not his

profofed

profeffed zeal for the fervice of Monmouth. The unfortunate duke derived from his own plate and jewels, his whole treasure for profecuting the war." Is it not unfair to affume as a fact, what is not proved; nay, what is fo much against evidence; namely, the zeal of William for Monmouth's fervice? Is there not adduced by himself, a strong prefumption against what he afferts as a fact? He gave him no money. Was that like zeal for his fervice?

After all, the arguments now adduced are to be confidered as referring to this fingle question, "Whether there is any reason to believe, that the prince of Orange advifed, or abetted, the expedition of Monmouth? Whether he was a partner in his guilt?" The prince of Orange, we may naturally fuppofe, from the period of his marriage, had his thoughts much turned towards the throne of England. He cultivated an intimate connexion with many perfons obnoxious to the difpleasure of his uncle and of his father-inlaw; his motives for fo doing might be of a mixed nature. He was not infenfible to the charms of ambition; the throne of England might one day devolve upon him in the line of fair fucceffion, and prudence fuggefted a watchful eye to the ftate of parties, and to the ufe of all lawful means to increase his friends, and ftrengthen his intereft. Nor would it be candid to withhold credit to him for more generous motives. He was a true friend to the proteftant religion. Though enough anxious about maintaining his own authority at home, he wifhed alfo to fecure the independence of his native country, and to fave it from the invafion of an ambitious neighbour, who had marked it for his prey. The political conduct both of Charles and of James interfered with his private intereft and most liberal purposes; and we need not wonder, that, in his turn, he endeavoured to thwart their measures, and for this end embarked with thofe in England, who ftruggled for the depreffion of regal power, and the fecurity of liberty and of the proteftant religion *.' Having

We find in the Life of Principal Carstairs, by Dr. M'Cormick, an infinuation of the prince of Orange having been acceffary to Argyle's rebellion; an event generally understood to have been connected with Monmouth's invafion. "In paper of accounts of money difburfed by him for the prince's fervice, I find a fum ftated to a Captain Wifhart, who was master of the veffel in which Lord Argyle went home; of whose bonefty and willingness to serve the prince, I am well affured." Life of Carstairs, p. 35.

Dr. M.Cormick adds, "This is the only evidence I have ever met with, that Monmouth and Argyle were countenanced in their undertaking by the prince of Orange. Here we have William giving money to the perfon who brought Argyle over, in order to affift the duke of Monmouth in his rebellion, at the very time when he is offering to James to come in person to extinguish that rebellion. The publisher leaves it to political cafuifts to folve this phænomenon."

It does not appear, that Carftairs gave this money to Wishart as a reward for having carried Argyle to Scotland, or that it was 4

given