SECTION Scotland were Fox, p. 125. Rose p. III. manifest he does not understand. Mr. Fox says, "portance, during the long time he presided in the admi"nistration of Scotland: and that the latter was removed "from his employment, because he would not become "a Papist; and especially if it is also considered how "the whole of that administration was composed." SECTION Rose. In writing an answer to Mr. Rose's book a more Mistake of Mr. than common attention is requisite, for it often happens, that it is more difficult to understand, and apply his arguments than to encounter them. Some skilful Rhetoricians lay it down for a rule, always to change the terms of a proposition, which is meant to be answered, but Mr. Rose is not confined within such bounds, for, without being conscious of it himself, he frequently mistakes the fact, on which the argument of his adversary is founded, and changes not only the terms in which the proposition is expressed, but the proposition itself; the present discussion affords an instance. Mr. Fox makes an observation arising from the Duke of Lauderdale and the Earl of Queensberry* being the confidential advisers of measures which had been pursued in the reign of Charles the Second. Mr. Rose has mistaken the facts, and has stated the observation to depend upon these two noble Lords, being the confidential advisers of James the Second, after he was King. · Unfortunately it happens, that Lauderdale never could have * He was made a Duke in the last year of Charles's reign. SECTION Mr. Fox's argument. been his adviser, after he ascended the throne, for he died in 1682, two years before. Mr. Fox's argument founded upon the facts first mentioned, would be downright nonsense, if made to rest upon Mr. Rose's statement. It is, that James's violence after he came to the throne ought not to be imputed to the suggestions of Catholic advisers, when he had before so vigorously promoted measures of tyranny with Protestant counsellors, and coadjutors. And to this, Mr. Rose's arguments afford no answer, as we shall now proceed to shew. The first, drawn from the entire subserviency experienced from Lauderdale by James, when he was Duke of York, through his long administration in Scotland, is not very intelligible; and where is that subserviency recorded? Lauderdale's administration ended when James's began, but it cannot be doubted, surely, that while he was in power, and for some time afterwards, he advised and supported the measures in question, and that he lived and died a Protestant. Mr. Rose still mistaking the facts, and also misunderstanding the argument of Mr. Fox, says that Queensberry was removed from his employment, because he would not become a Papist. Mr. Rose here unintentionally corroborates one part of Mr. Fox's statement, for he asserts that Queensberry was a Protestant, and a zealous one too, and admits the other, namely that he promoted measures of tyranny. When we have ascertained that Mr. Fox is referring to transactions in the reign of Charles, there cannot be much strength in the third argument of Mr. Rose, arising from the consideration of "how the whole of that "administration was composed." The expression here used leaves it doubtful to what administration Mr. Rose intended to allude. But whether it was the composition of the administration, of which Queensberry was the head in the reign of James the Second, or that which was formed immediately after his dismissal, as, from the quotation made from Mr. Laing's History may be suspected, is not very material. The manner in which either of those administrations was composed cannot affect Mr. Fox's argument, and the act of a King, done for the effecting a particular purpose, has no tendency to prove that he had pursued the same object, when acting as the servant of a former King, with the assistance of his confidential advisers in the completion of a different purpose. R Mr. Rose, having his mind filled with the particular A branch of the subject of which he is treating, has not t attended sufficiently to the course of argument pursued by Mr. Fox but has taken for granted that everv P III. SECTION Argument from the removal of Queensberry. tence in this part of his book, and every fact mentioned must have for its sole, and immediate object, the establishment of that opinion, which he was in the act of controverting. The argument of Mr. Fox was, therefore, misunderstood by him, and he supposes it to be that the establishment of the Catholic religion was not the primary object of James the Second, immediately after his accession because his two confidential advisers Lauderdale and Queensberry were Protestants. Mr. Rose never could have fallen into so egregious a mistake, if he had given himself time for reflection. For with respect to Lauderdale, he could be a member of no administration under James, for he died before he succeeded the throne. And his long and entire subserviency to James when Duke of York, being experienced, if in fact it ever existed, in favour of one Protestant church against another Protestant church, does not afford the inference that he would have been equally subservient, when the object in view was the destruction of both these churches, and the establish ment of the Catholic religion in their stead. Mr. Rose is more fortunate in the mention of Queensberry, for he was a confidential adviser of James when upon the throne; and his removal, because he would not become a Papist, is urged by Mr. Rose as an argument to shew that the first object of James was the establishment of his religion. The character of Queensberry afforded a security to the |