CONTENTS.

To be Independent of Parliaments the Object of James's Connection with France. The Establishment of the Catholic Religion not his Primary Object.-A Complete Toleration all he intended at firstProved by his Acts in England, Scotland and Ireland — And by the French Correspondence.-His absurd Conduct when Duke of York, if Bigotry his ruling Passion. - Partial to the Episcopalians in Scotland, and enforced a Test in their favour.-His Confidential Advisers were Protestants. -Argument from the removal of Queensberry. — James, as King, expected Support from the Episcopalians. — His Object compatible with the Preservation of the Established Church.During the League, the Protestants of France, on the side of Arbitrary Power. The Religious Zeal of Lewis the Fourteenth subservient to the Love of Power.-Mr. Fox's System affords a more instructive Lesson to Kings, and Subjects.-The Desire and Abuse of Power natural to Kings, as well as other Men. - Some Principles, and Expressions of Mr. Rose disrespectful to Royalty.

!

SECTION THE THIRD.

SECTION

III.

James's con

France, to be

independent of

Parliaments.

AFTER having occupied so many pages in the consideration, and refutation of Objections in general of a nature, so trivial, as hardly to have been deserving of Motive for notice, the reader may not be displeased to be arrived nection with at the Commencement of Mr. Fox's History, and the accession of James the Second. Here, for the first time, we find Mr. Rose disputing upon a question of great general importance, and conducting the combat with more of impartiality, and candour, than he has hitherto exhibited.

The proposition, to which he objects is, that, in Fox, p. 102. James the immediate specific motive to a connection with France, "was the same as that of his brother,

SECTION
III.

Rose p. 74.

"the desire of rendering himself independent of Parliament, and absolute, not that of establishing popery "in England, which was considered as a more remote contingency."

Mr. Rose begins by making some observations to vindicate the two brothers from having had the desire of rendering themselves independent of Parliament. The substance of his argument is, that it was more likely to have been the intention of James, to "make "Parliaments subservient to him, than to attempt to govern without them." It may be remarked that Mr. Fox's observation was not that these brothers attempted to govern altogether without Parliaments, but that they had the desire to render themselves independent of them, and absolute: and Mr. Rose admits that for nearly four years, Charles, at the conclusion of his life, manifested no disposition to call one, even when his necessities must have compelled him, if he had lived only a few months longer.. Charles, however, in his applications for money frequently alludes to the possible, and even probable, necessity of calling a Parliament, notwithstanding any aids he might receive from France: and the very comprehensive logic of Mr. Rose collects from this circumstance, not only that Charles, but James also, intended to make Parliaments subservient to him, rather than to govern altogether without them. It may, in the first place, be