Fox, p. 61.

be severe upon the Bishop for admitting such testimony, when he himself relies upon it, and in his Introduction cites what Lord Bolinbroke told Lord Marchmont, and Lord Marchmont told him, concerning some very important facts. But to return, the objection of Lord Lansdowne is to the nature of the evidence in general, not to the particular witness; and it was ingeniously contrived by him, and the instance selected with great judgment by Mr. Rose, that the contradiction should be authenticated only by evidence, which they both contend cannot be received at all. But the answer reported by the anonymous friend of Lord Lansdowne, when examined, is no contradiction of what the Bishop wrote. The passage in question was found, after his death, added on a loose paper to the History of his Own Times, and purports only to relate what Mr. Henley told him. If Mr. Henley had deceived him, the character of the Bishop must have remained unaffected, even though the Dutchess had expressly denied she had made the coinmu. nication to Mr. Henley. But when applied to, she does not say positively she is not acquainted with Mr. Henley; nor does she deny that she had said to him that Charles the Second was poisoned, but contents herself with answering, that "she recollected no acquaintance "with Mr. Henley." She then goes off into the most violent abuse of the Bishop, saying, "the King, and the Duke, and the whole court looked "upon him as the greatest lyar upon the face of the earth; and there 66 was no believing one word that he said." The terms she used to convey this opinion of Bishop Burnet's veracity were not very delicate, but we may presume she was very angry, and that the King, and the Duke, and the whole court were very angry also, or they would not have formed such an opinion of him. The temper of mind, in which the Dutchess received the inquiry, naturally leads to a suspicion, that she was displeased at Mr. Henley for having betrayed her confidence, especially when we recollect that Mr. Fox has stated some ground for believing that she was satisfied in own mind of the truth of the fact she had been represented to have related.

We dismiss, now, the general abuse which must be expected to be cast lavishly upon every man, who distinguishes himself as Bishop

H

Burnet had done, by his zeal and ability in support of the political principles and measures of his party. The Bishop had his share in his day; and it is rather hard upon his memory, that Mr. Rose, a professed Whig, should call in the aid of Jacobites, Nonjurors, and Tories, to revive the obloquy against him.* But it is more easy to rail than to argue; to make general charges, than to assert and prove specific facts. This the reader will find to be the case in the present instance. It is true, that the general charge made by Mr. Rose is supported by persons of great note, but whose dislike of the Bishop, his principles, and conduct deprived them of the power of forming a just judgment either of his actions, or writings. Not content, however, with their testimony, Mr. Rose has selected certain facts, which he supposes further corroborate the general opinion he had formed, and those authorities have proved. But if each specific fact selected by him, as being tainted by falsehood, turns out upon examination to be truly stated, we shall be justified in disregarding these general imputations, and trust with increased confidence in the fidelity of the Bishop upon other occasions.

Ib. p. 156.

Ib. p. 157.

In the foregoing pages the veracity or correctness of Burnet, has been attacked either directly or by insinuation not less than four times. 1. For his general character of Monk. 2. For his having Rose, p. 15. charged Monk with betraying the Letters of Argyle. 3. For his Ib. p. 22. having given a wrong description of the bill for the preservation of the person of James the Second. 4. For stating that that bill was opposed by Mr. Serjeant Maynard. Yet in every one of these instances the fidelity and correctness of the Bishop has been conspicuous, and each charge has upon examination proved to have had no foundation, but in the inaccuracy, indolence, or unfounded suspicions of those, who first made, or afterwards repeated it. It will be sufficient to refer the reader to the different parts of the Vindication, without entering into a second discussion of those charges here. ante, p. 27, 56, 225,234. In his Appendix Mr. Rose has added three, as he calls them, "Mis-statements in the Bishop's History contradicted by records."

* Mr. Rose has exceeded them all in asperity in a note upon an alteration made by himself in an extract from the Dartmouth MS. See his Appendix, p. lvi.

1. Bishop Burnet in 1685 says, "that the House was more forward "to give than the King was to ask. To which the King thought "fit to put a stop, by a message, intimating that he desired no 66 more money that Session." To this Mr. Rose answers, "Here " is a positive mis-statement of a fact, which could by no possibility "have arisen from a mistake, as the Doctor was on the spot at the "time" and then he says it is unquestionably, "certain that his "Majesty sent no message, nor took any other measures to check "or to stop the grants," and then he cites many entries from the Journals to prove that the King was urgent for supplies. Before we proceed it may be proper to notice, that Mr. Rose's reason for imputing a wilful deviation from truth, viz. because the Bishop was upon the spot, has been hazarded without due consideration, for I believe it will be found that he was in Holland at the time. He fled immediately after the death of Charles II. And it will be unnecessary to follow Mr. Rose through the Journals, because the single question is whether the King sent any message to put a stop to further grants of money. That there is no such message upon the Journals we readily acknowledge, but it does not follow for that reason alone that none was sent. If Mr. Rose had not been a steady believer in the infallibility of the Journals, which he has in his own custody, he might Chand. Deb.ii. perhaps have condescended to have looked into Chandler's debates, and there he would have found that on the 10th of June, 1685, Sir John Ernley did deliver a message from the King, heartily thanking the Commons for their services, and telling them" that he desired "no more this Session than what they were about, that he would "make trial of the impositions on sugars and tobacco, but if he should "find them injurious to his plantations, he would not make use of "them, but hoped they would supply him some other way." If he had examined further he might have found, that on the 16th of the following November, Sir Hugh Cholmondley in the committee of supply said, "The House was so forward to give last time, that the "King's Ministers gave their stop to it." But we have the testimony of a still higher nature to produce, which Mr. Rose had in his own hands, which he has refered to, but which it is to be hoped he never read.

A 174.

Ib. p. 191.