SECTION Mr. Rose only gives an ab. stract of the Rose, p. 44. that the Protestant ministers, Buckingham, Ashley Cooper, and Lauderdale should be brought to be parties to it. Buckingham went over to France to negotiate it there, and Lauderdale, Ashley Cooper, and the Duke of York, were appointed commissioners to conduct it here, with M. Colbert the French Ambassador. These latter signed the Treaty in June 1671, without there being, as Dalrymple observes, the least reason to believe the Protestant commissioners knew of the former Treaty made by the Popish ones. The bare execution of the Traité Simulé, with the knowledge, and under the direction of the Protestant ministers, is a pretty strong proof of their ignorance of a Treaty, concerning most of the subjects mentioned in it, having been executed only the year before, and remaining then in force. Before the Treaty of 1670 is dismissed from notice, Treaty of 1670. it may be proper to mention, that Mr. Rose describes it, as "an object of high importance," which has not been seen by any of our historians, nor its whole contents hitherto published; he has, therefore, favoured the public with a very correct abstract of it, except the second article, concerning the change of the religion of Charles, which is copied, verbatim. A complete copy is, according to Mr. Rose, still a desideratum, and as he charges Mr. Fox with culpable negligence for not applying for information in various quarters, II. it may be asked, why Mr. Rose should content himself SECTION with an abstract only of this precious paper? he had seen the original in 1781, and therefore knew of its existence; he was acquainted with the noble Lord, who not only possessed it, but condescended with his own hand to make the abstract; Why then did he not request a copy? He cannot be charged here, as he charges Mr. Fox, with not seeking out materials, but he appears not to have taken the trouble to possess himself of such, as he had discovered, and lay within his grasp. Mr. Rose then concurs with Mr. Fox, in the expediency of the Bill of Exclusion, but should find it difficult to agree with him in his reasoning upon it. no specific objections are stated, it is not enter into the argument. However, as necessary to Rose, p. 52. privy to receiv France. The following passage in Mr. Fox's book has been Clarendon not made the subject of animadversion, "Clarendon is said ing money from "to have been privy to the King's receiving money Rose, p. 53. " from Lewis the Fourteenth, but what proofs exist of "the charge, (for a very heavy charge it is,) I know not." Mr. Rose speaking of Charles's obtaining money from Ibid. France, states it to have arisen from the excess of his private expenses, and a desire to have a fund for corrupt purposes at home, and alluding to this passage in the Historical Work, says, "the practice began very SECTION soon after the Restoration, under the management of "the Earl of Clarendon, whom Mr. Fox considers as ર quite innocent of it." And supposes if he had seen the reference in Sir John Dalrymple's book to the Clarendon Papers, he could not have formed that opinion, those papers being ready of access. And in a note, in Rose p. 141,141 another place, he returns to the charge, and affects again to doubt, whether Mr. Fox ever read the letters published by Sir John Dalrymple, for if he had he must have been aware of that author's reference to "the Clarendon State Papers to support a fact, which "Mr. Fox considers, as utterly unsupported." The truth is, that Mr. Rose is guilty of an unintentional, but gross perversion of the words of Mr. Fox, as the reader will see by comparing the passages above cited. Mr. Fox says, he knows not what are the proofs; and this ignorance is tortured, first into a belief of the innocence of the party, and then into a declaration that there exists no evidence of the charge. The charge against Mr. Fox consists of two parts, 1st. That he has not examined proofs, to which he might easily have had access. 2dly. That he has formed an erroneous opinion of Clarendon's innocence. To the first the answer is easy and decisive. It has been observed before, that Mr. Fox's History does not begin till the reign of James the Second, and that his introductory chapter was intended to be, rather an allusion to known facts, than a minute inquiry into disputed points. The guilt of Clarendon, he was aware, was not a known fact, but to be considered as a point, which might be disputed. He therefore, according to the plan he had laid down for himself, only mentions the imputation, but avoids entering into a discussion of the evidence, by which it was supposed to be supported. In doing this he delivers no opinion whatever, and as Dalrymple had originally, if not solely, made the charge, it is scarcely to be supposed that he could, as Mr. Rose observes, have been ignorant of the reference alluded to. SECTION To the second, the answer is not less conclusive, Rose, p. 58. the Clarendon Papers, Mr. Rose says, " clearly prove "that the Chancellor and his son were the active and "sole agents in money transactions with the French "minister here, at this early period." At the time when Dalrymple wrote, these papers had not been published, and he might not have seen them himself, and probably cited them from the information of others. But Mr. Rose has no such excuse, the papers have been published many years, Mr. Rose has read them, and in his Observations not only quotes the particular letters, but copies the passages, which he conceives to prove the proposition he has laid down, as well as that of Dalrymple, who says, "In an evil hour Dal. Mem. i. p. "for Charles the Second, Clarendon had taught him in 31. SECTION Clar. iii. St. Pap. Supplem. p. i. Ib. p. iv, Ib. Ib. p. xi. "the very first years of his reign to receive money " from France, unknown to his people." The substance of the State Papers may be stated in a few words. In March, 1661, Bastide, the French minister, in an interview with Lord Clarendon, offered him by virtue of orders from his Court, as a present for himself, the sum of 10,000l. On the 17th April, in a letter from Bastide was inclosed a slip of paper, offering that or a larger sum, beginning in this manner. "If your Lordship hath occasion, for the furthering " or promoting the King of England's, and your own "interest, at the next Parliament, or for any other "end, &c." On the next day, Clarendon, in a letter to Bastide in consequence of that inclosure, stated that the temper of the Parliament was expected to be friendly, but the asking of money was intended to be deferred, till some other things of greater importance had been obtained, and in consequence the King might be in some difficulty, and then asked, "do you believe if the "King desires it, that the King of France will lend him "50,000 for ten or twelve months, in which time it shall "be punctually repaid," and if such a proposition was unseasonable he undertook to prevent its being made. After this, Clarendon endeavoured to procure from France some pecuniary assistance for the war of Portugal, which he says Charles was unable alone to defray. In answer, 9th August, 1661, Bastide says "the King of England may |