claim. A cannon which bears an argument is royal logic, and would seem in more than one respect, irrefragable. It is possibly a delicate allusion to the work of the great master of our antiquities, who had deduced our maritime dominion from the first Sovereign of England.* The pirates of Sallee, who had revolted from the Emperor of Morocco, headed by a rebel who was called the Saint, by their descents and depredations on the Irish coasts, among other disgraceful evils had carried off into captivity numbers of our countrymen. These pirates were now extirpated. Charles was anxious to confer particular honours on Captain Rainsborough, the commander in this successful expedition, and when this "experienced and worthy seaman," as Secretary Coke describes him, declined the honour of knighthood which the King himself offered, Charles ordered that his naval hero should be presented with a costly gold chain, and with a medal of not less value than three hundred pounds. This memorial of loyal service may perhaps still monies of the triumph of Charles the First, and of England. Nor are they in Pinkerton's Medallic History of England. I have seen some in the collection of British Medals at the British Museum. * Mare Clausum, lib. ii. cap. xii. exist, should not very opposite family feelings have melted it down in the days of the Rump. The Moorish Ambassador appeared mounted on horseback, in his train four grooms led four Barbary horses, which showed their mettle in their paces, richly caparisoned, the saddles studded; and the captives mostly clad in white who now had returned free men to England, passed through the city, where it was also known that the Ambassador was the bearer of a treaty of alliance and commerce. Even Strafford imagined that "this action of Sallee is so full of honour that it will bring great content to the subject, and help much towards the ready cheerful payment of the shipping monies."* But doubtless there were many who like Mr. Brodie, now that the expedition was successful, were finding out reasons why it ought not to have succeeded. Ancient is the cry of what we moderns call the Opposition! The poet * Strafford's Letters, ii. 129-132. "The success of the measure arose entirely from an accidental event," observes Mr. Brodie; "it is said that intestine commotions opportunely assisted the attack." The plan was concerted with the Emperor of Morocco, who in the preceding year had sent over to England an envoy with a proposal that he should attack the place by land, while the English assailed it at sea. By what licence of Waller may soothe the manes of Charles the First for the insults he is doomed to receive from our contemporary. Waller has composed a poem on the taking of Sallee. The poet like most persons was attracted by the novel spectacle of the Moor-the mettled palfreys-the Christian captives: Morocco sends the Chief among his Peers Who in his bark proportioned presents bears, Poor captives manumised, and matchless horse. Alluding to the lawless democracy of these pirates, a couplet more happily applies to our present purpose. Safely they might on other nations prey; Fools to provoke the Sovereign of the sea! style can a preconcerted measure be said to have terminated in " an accidental event?" We writers of history, I suspect, appear anomalous beings to the amusing inventors who luxuriate in these idling times in florid trifles. They who hardly allow themselves to be influenced by the temporary passions of their own day may well wonder at the serious interest which leads us on pursuing Truth through the labyrinths of Time-in plain English -in the history of the Past. Yet were this interest not real, and were the detection of error and prejudice not one of the most poignant relishes of our studies, how could I have discovered what I assert I have, that Mr. Brodie finds pleasure in depreciating a successful bombardment of Sallee, merely from a personal quarrel with Charles the First? CHAPTER XIX. CAUSES OF THE INACTION OF THE ENGLISH FLEETS. CHARLES the First was doomed to war with Fate! The narrative of his glory must ever terminate with that of his misfortunes. This Monarch had first set that noble example which his successors in government have scrupulously followed, whether a Cromwell, a Stuart, or a Guelph. The sovereignty of our seas will ever remain a part of our insular policy, yet Charles the First was himself to witness the reverse of all his hopes. The humiliated Sovereign of the seas was to suffer a national insult even from those whom he had subjected. It is worthy the curiosity of Englishmen to become acquainted with the complicated events by which this great naval design became utterly frustrated. It often happens in the history of Charles the First that his accusers have not developed the peculiarity of his situation, while they have reproached his conduct. Even when their reproaches may not be unjust, truth has required a different statement than they have afforded us. The subject of the Sovereignty of the Sea is a remarkable instance of this. We have shown the exertions which were required to equip the most formidable fleet which England had ever put to sea, and the scrupulous honour of Charles in employing the moderate revenue of the ship-money to this great national object. Yet notwithstanding these efforts, in the course of three years we find this great fleet inactive; our flag no longer honoured by the French, the Hollander, and the Spaniard, and to reach the climax of national disgrace, the English Sovereign received the European affront of witnessing the neutrality of his ports violated by two nations, in defiance of his express command. It is only a mind most perverted in its political feelings which can imagine for an instant, that Charles was tamely insensible to this national outragehe who had maintained with such elevation, not only this Sovereignty of the sea, but at the same critical moment, as we shall shortly show, was asserting the independence of his government against the foreigner. It is evident that |