Rose, and from his having omitted to mention the examination of the two messengers by the Commons, we presume that as their depositions are not preserved in the Journals, he thinks they do not affect the question, and chuses to rest his objection upon the production of the letter only. He conceives the same evidence, as he stiles it, to have been laid before both houses, and the only difference between their proceedings to be that the Lords were occupied with the bill a few hours later than the Commons. In this view of the subject, besides the answers before alluded to, that the letter was no more than hearsay, and not admissible at all in evidence, we learn, that in fact, as a foundation for the act of attainder, that letter was never read. It was merely, to use an expression in the address of the Lords, the imparting of intelligence, and the act passed afterwards must have been founded upon general report and belief, and the notoriety of the thing, as the Bishop has described it. The Bishop does not stand single and uncorroborated in his opinion of the manner in which this business. was.conducted, for the Earl of Lonsdale, who was at that time an assiduous Memoirs, p. 64. Member of the House of Commons, ends his memoir with an expression, which shews that he conceived the charge to be well founded as far as the House of Commons was concerned, "they" says he, "passed a bill of attainder against the Duke of Monmouth, without "examining witnesses in one day," and he could not be mistaken about this fact. Burnet says that the Earl of Anglesey opposed this bill in the Lords, because he thought the evidence not sufficient to vauthorize so severe a sentence. This leads to a suspicion that the Bishop was perfectly aware of what Mr. Rose triumphs in producing, namely the letter of the Mayor, for a noble Lord did oppose the bill on account of a defect in the evidence, and the advocates for it probably resorted to the notoriety of the facts, as the best justification of the measure. It is evident that the Earl of Lonsdale considers the examination of the two messengers by the Commons, to have had no relation whatever to the bill, and it is also manifest that the essential requisites of justice were not attended to, no specific charge was made the foundation of the attainder, no evidence was required of the guilt of the culprit, no witnesses examined to prove it. We may therefore Stat. Tr. v. p. 125. Lords' Journ. xiv. p. 115. Ibid. p. 116. beg of Mr. Rose to disclose any other ground, upon which the proceedings of either House can be supported or defended, but that which he objects to because suggested by Bishop Burnet, namely, the general report and belief, the notoriety of the thing. It may be readily conceived that the mode, in which this act was passed, occasioned much conversation at the time, more especially if what Sir Edward Seymour said in a debate on Sir John Fenwick's bill is true, that this bill against the Duke of Monmouth was the first bill of attainder, which had ever originated in the House of Commons, where witnesses could not be examined upon oath. 3. The last supposed instance of a mis statement by Bishop Burnet is taken from his account of what passed in the House of Lords in convention after the abdication of James the Second, respecting the vacancy of the throne, and its being filled by the Prince and Princess of Orange. The objections are three in number, and none of them very important. 1. Burnet says many protestations passed in the House, in the progress of the debate; 2. the House was very full, about 120 were present; and 3. against the final vote by which the Prince and Princess were declared King and Queen, a great protestation was made. To the first, Mr. Rose answers that there were only three protests, but to this we shall observe that 'many' is a word of loose and indefinite signification, and three protests, if not four, arising out of one subject might appear to the Bishop to authorize the expression, though Mr. Rose may be of a different opinion. To the second, Mr. Rose truly says the most important discussions took place, on the 31st of January, the 4th and 6th February, and states the numbers present to have been 100, 111, and 112. In one of these numbers is a mistake of importance only as shewing, that the propensity to blunder so often complained of, extends even to figures and calculations, for on the 4th of February there were present only 109 Lords, not 111. A similar mistake occurs in his alledging that "the greatest number of Whigs who protested 66 were 36;" for on the same 4th of February 39 signed a protest. The Bishop has not been dealt, quite fairly with in the citation made from his work, for this sentence which introduces it in the original is omitted in the quotation." I have not pursued the relation of the Burnet, i. p. "debates according to the order in which they passed, which will be 821. "found in the Journal of both houses during the convention." This is a material passage for the vindication of the Bishop, his object is to give an account not of the debates and transactions of each day, but a general view of the whole, and when he says "about 120 were present," he does not mean that so many attended upon any one day, but on one or other of the several days during which the debates alluded to were going on. Mr. Rose's enumeration, therefore, of those who were present upon each of the days of the three most important debates, will not shew the Bishop to be wrong, indeed it can have no bearing upon the question. Upon a cursory examination of the Journal, there appear to have been present on some one or other of the following days, January the 29th, 30th, 31st, February the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th, 117 different Lords; so that, Bishop Burnet's assertion being understood to mean, that about 120 were present at some one or other of the debates is probably correct. 3. Mr. Rose asserts that there certainly was no protest against the final vote, that the Prince and Princess of Orange should be declared King and Queen. Lords' Journ On the 6th of February, the Lords resolved to agree with the Com- xiv. p. 119. mons that James had abdicated, and the throne thereby was vacant, Immediately after that vote, the question that the Prince and Princess of Orange should be declared King and Queen passed also in the affirmative. In the Journal, leave is entered for Lords to protest after each of these votes; and it appears that 38 Lords did enter their names as protesting against the first of them. Immediately after the second, which is the final vote alluded to, is this entry, "Leave given to any "Lords to enter their dissents; and, accordingly, these Lords follow"ing do enter their dissents by subscribing their names;" but no names are subscribed. If we had here only the authority of Bishop Burnet opposed to that of the Journals, recollecting that in a similar instance recently under consideration, he turned out to be right, it would be too much to conclude that he must be wrong. He tells us that he had a great share in the management of these debates, of course we must presume him to be well acquainted with the fact he narrates; and that if he is not correct he is guilty of a gross mistake, Lords' Journ. xiv. p. 122. or of a wilful deviation from truth; but a man does not usually prefer falshood to truth without a motive, and here none can be assigned. Besides, the probability is on the side of the Bishop, for the same peers who had signed the protest against voting the vacancy of the throne, might be expected to have signed the protest against the final vote. But the words of the Journal may be worthy of attention; for the usual entry when no names are subscribed, is only "that leave was given to any Lords to enter their dissents ;" an instance occurred on the 9th of February, when the declaration was settled with respect to the paragraph, declaring the Prince and Princess to be King and Queen, and no names were subscribed. The addition of these words, "that the Lords following have entered their dissents, by subscribing "their names," or "giving their reasons," might not usually be made until some Lord intending to protest required it. A suspicion therefore arises, that the names of the same peers who made the first protest of that day, were subscribed also to the second, though they are not found in the printed Journal. But after all, we may grant that the Bishop has been mistaken in this solitary immaterial fact, which can by no possibility affect his narrative in other respects. And it is curious to observe, that Mr. Rose himself has made more mistakes in pointing out this trifling error, if it is one, than he, after calling in the assistance of Bevill Higgons, Dr. Campbell, and Mr. Ralph, has been able to select from the Bishop's whole work. Bishop Burnet's History of his Own Times is contained in two folio volumes, and not only all the abuse which the utmost virulence of party had cast upon the author has been revived, but no less than seven or eight different specific charges have been made against him. If there had been more errors discovered in his history, it cannot be supposed that they would have been omitted to have been mentioned, when defects so extremely trifling and insignificant as those, with which Mr. Roses Appendix is concluded, are brought into notice. But the character of the Bishop for veracity has risen triumphantly over these puny efforts to destroy his fair fame, in every instance (except, perhaps, the last of all) he appears to have been perfectly correct in his statements. And what ought to give con fidence in those facts which now stand upon his sole authority, many of those, which have been disputed, have been authenticated by documents, published subsequently to the objections being made. No man was possessed of higher and more authentic sources of information, and he made use of them. His character of James the Second has been supported, almost in his expressions, by the secret dispatches of Barillon; his character of Monk by the publications of Baillie, Cunningham, and Mrs. Hutchinson; and Mr. Rose, with the memoir of the Earl of Lonsdale in his hand, has attacked his veracity in the relation of two circumstances, both of which that memoir has proved to be true. Having undergone such an ordeal, let us hope that the Bishop's history may not only be allowed to retain a high reputation for authenticity among the Whigs, but that, even among the Tories its general character may no longer be the subject of obloquy and controversy. Looking back to the result of those discussions which have been provoked by Mr. Rose, it may reasonably be expected, that what has happened in so many instances will happen again; that the more numerous the family papers which shall be hereafter laid open to public inspection, the more numerous will be the future confirmations of his statements. I cannot conclude without adding, as an act of justice. to the character of Bishop Burnet, that having had occasion frequently to examine into the correctness of facts related by him, I have always found them to be accurately stated in substance. But his affected disregard to dates, and throwing together matters which happened at different times, in order to form one general view of each particular subject, give his work the appearance of incorrectness, and make it troublesome for reference. The numerous mistakes committed by Mr Rose, though habituated to official accuracy, in a not very thick quarto volume, while it evinces how difficult it is to guard against them, may raise a feeling of respect for Bishop Burnet who without the advantage alluded to, has written two folio volumes, in which there is so little to object to, so little to be wished, altered or obliterated. THE END. Printed by H. Bryer, |