SECTION
IV.

Mr. Fox dissatisfied with Sir J. Dalrymple,

Rose, 140.

shewn his wish in 1679, that none should be allowed to assemble, by imposing, as a penalty, the loss of the stipulated subsidies, if one should be called, within the time fixed. When this letter was written, his ob ject remained the same, but his anxiety had increased so much, that he was not then inclined; to be contented with the compromise he had accepted upon the former occasion; he would not be satisfied with keeping Parliaments in check, or postponing their assembling to any definite time: the British Monarch was, for ever, to prevent their meeting, in other words, he was thenceforth to govern without them.

If proofs were wanting of Mr. Rose having written the observations with a strong bias upon his mind, and of his understanding being powerfully operated upon by that atmosphere of party, in which he had so long lived, his remarks upon Mr. Fox's treatment of Dalrymple would amply supply the defect. He says, "Those, who wish "to be more fully and particularly informed on the "whole of the intercourse between the English and "French Courts, during the reigns of Charles II; " and James II, will not be disappointed in referring "to Dalrymple's Memoirs: for although there may

1

be

ground for differing with that author on his reasoning, "there is no appearance of his having had any reluctance "to the discovery of facts, or to the production of

documents, by which they might be ascertained.

2

.

"It is difficult therefore to understand on what foundation Mr. Fox has stated that it was in consequence of his dissatisfaction at the manner, in which Mr. Macpherson, and Sir John Dalrymple had explained, "and conducted their respective publications, that he "was induced to consult their respective documents, and " added, "that the correspondence of Barillon did not disappoint his expectations: as he thought the additional information contained in those parts of it, " which Sir John Dalrymple had omitted to extract, or to publish, so important that he procured copies of “them all,' `observing to one of his correspondents, my studies at Paris have been useful, beyond what "I can describe.""

In the beginning of this paragraph, Mr. Rose recommends the Memoirs of Sir John Dalrymple, as containing full information upon the whole intercourse between the two Courts, with the manifest intention of diminishing the merit of Mr. Fox, who had expressed his dissatisofaction with the book, and had exercised his industry to supply deficiencies, which as Mr. Rose contends do not exist. He gives a reason for this recommendation, which a strict logician might deny to be relevant to the matter in dispute, for, though Dalrymple might have no reluctance to the discovery of facts, or the production of documents, it does not follow, that Mr. Fox might not have discovered some facts, or produced some

SECTION

VIV.

SECTION
IV.

Mr. Rose mistakes Lord

face for Mr. Fox's Work.

documents, which had escaped the notice of Dalrymple ; and it is not surprising, that Mr. Fox should be displeased with the manner, in which he explained, and conducted his work, if, as Mr. Rose allows, there may be ground for difference with that author, as to his reasoning upon those facts. This may be added to the long list of instances, already noticed, in which Mr. Rose first declares he differs from Mr. Fox, and then proves that he is right, and concludes at last with adopting his opinion.

Mr. Rose having thus answered himself, we might drop Holland's Pre- the subject, but the charges and the manner in which they are made by him, are deserving of a more minute examination. Mr. Rose says, in the paragraph last cited, that "Mr. Fox has stated," &c. and refers his readers by an asterisk, at the bottom of the page, to "Mr. Fox's Introduction, p. 24." The statement here alluded to was made not by Mr. Fox, but by the Editor of his work, Lord Holland, and Mr. Rose has complimented him, upon the manner in which he had executed his duty in that capacity, and more than once cited the preface, or address to the reader, as written by him. Why then he should sometimes consider it as the performance of

Rose, Int. p. xiii.

Mr. Fox, and argue upon it as such, the reader may
account for with all the charity he can.
In the present
instance, he not only treats Mr. Fox, as the author of that
preface, but cites it in the note, as if written by him,
and by the title of Introduction which is not given to it

205

SECTION

IV.

by its author. This may not be done for the purpose of
confounding it with the first chapter, which is called
Introductory, and sometimes by Mr. Fox himself the her all
Introduction, though it certainly may have that effect.

But what becomes of Mr. Rose's accuracy, when after my man only polly having read, and applauded the preface, as the work of mistake one for the othe

a H acquite R of wither another person, he supposes Mr. Fox to be the author, and Minesermentation. It array a passage to be penned by him, in which he is described indeed his left clear as expressing to himself his own dissatisfaction with Dalrymple, and Macpherson. But the carelessness of Mr. and asiat of fact, i way of me fondesenting this Rose does not end here, he goes on blundering as heat folk smags of began, when he says, that Mr. Fox" added that the "added that the what to said of himself, ❝ correspondence did not disappoint his expectations;" infertice or even missa and it might be supposed that this was a continuaby adverting to it as a tion of the former passage, from the manner in which by Fox. It is Statement it is introduced, but in fact the two passages standard but nothing.

in the preface, ten pages asunder. This addition, as well as the former part of the quotation, was written by the Editor of the work, and if taken as the production of Mr. Fox, must be in the nature of a soliloquy, in which he was addressing himself upon paper, and giving himself an account of the great value of his own discoveries. The fact is, that Lord Holland, having detailed Mr. Fox's inducements to consult the original documents, says, that the correspondence of Barillon did not disappoint his expectations, and brings in proof of his (Lord Holland's) assertion two sentences, one from a private letter, the other from a conversation, in which Mr. Fox expressed

porestation is commetta

SECTION
IV.

Rose, p. 147.

himself, concerning the usefulness of that correspondence, in terms of high praise and delight. The testimony, thus produced by Lord Holland, is conclusive of the fact, that Mr. Fox was not disappointed. But, if there had been reason for disappointment, Mr. Rose might have been justified in proving, that Mr. Fox was unreasonable in being pleased with his discoveries, but not in saying that "'Mr. Fox states," what Lord Holland only had inferred; and at any rate he does not exhibit any symptom of being accustomed to more than common accuracy, when he quotes Lord Holland's opinions and proofs as another person's.

66

Mr. Rose says, "it appears not to be quite consistent with justice to reproach him," (i. e. Dalrymple) "with having omitted to extract, or publish important dispatches." The words printed in italics are, in Mr. Rose's Observations, placed between inverted commas, as the words of Mr. Fox, and then Mr. Rose thinks he refutes them, by stating that the motives which he conjectures Mr. Fox would have suggested for Sir John Dalrymple suppressing them, could not have actuated him. In the first place, the statement is Lord Holland's, not Mr. Fox's. In the second, the fact of Sir John Dalrymple having omitted to extract, or publish parts of a correspondence, to which he had access, cannot be affected by a reference to his motives, but might properly be examined, by a comparison of the originals with his extracts, and publications. And