and accompanied it with the words " as Mr. Fox expresses it;" as if this was his description of the cause in which Monk had been engaged, instead of the description of it by Monk himself, and others of his time. Our readers will judge for themselves in respect to the propriety of these animadversions of the author of the Vindication.

With respect to the character of Monk we do not go quite the same length with Mr. Fox in his charges, nor with Mr. Rose in his excuses. If Monk restored the monarchy without any provisions for the security of the people's rights, we think it is stretching candour too far to suppose him to have conceived, that the restoration of the monarchy would have implied all the limitations of its ancient constitution; for we are really at a loss to know what code was to adjust these limitations. We think with Mr. Serjeant Heywood, that the reigns of the Tudors or the Stuarts could not supply the proper models; and that Monk had formed any opinion of the limitations which existed during the time of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, is not easily to be imagined. We cannot help thinking, however, that the serjeant has not allowed enough for the influence of the crisis in which Monk found himself, which was certainly one that demanded great promptitude, and excused some little precipitation. Our author remarks that the army was all powerful, and entirely devoted to the will of Monk; but of this, we think, some doubt may be reasonably entertained. He declared in the House that he would not answer for the peace either of the nation or of the army, if any delay was put to the sending for the king. Burnet says, that to the king's coming in without conditions may be well imputed all the errors of his reign; and we are not insensible to the advantages which might have resulted from such an arrangement with him; but it is to be remembered, that Lord Clarendon was strongly against propositions, and is said to have possessed the leading men at home with such an opinion of the king, as inspired them with perfect confidence in his moderation and integrity; and what imposed upon Lord Southampton might have made a similar impression upon Monk. The difficulty too, and consequent delay in settling the propositions, ought not to be forgotten.

We feel with Mr. Serjeant Heywood that no republicanism can properly be inferred from the opinion of Mr. Fox, that " a restoration is usually the worst sort of revolution." That observation was certainly meant to be general, not pointed to the restoration of Charles II., or at all implying an opinion that he ought not to have been restored. When properly understood it

is a very strong additional ground of objection to revolutions, which, considering that there is so little a prospect of ultimate advantage from them, even after their immediate consequences are over, are the more to be avoided. In one view certainly the restoration of Charles was a misfortune to the country, though no doubt a misfortune infinitely outweighed by other considerations, for it certainly re-established the former abuses of government to a very great extent. It was, however, an incalculable blessing, inasmuch as it gave peace and order to the country, and a form of government which contained within itself the principles of its own amelioration.

Upon the whole, however, we are not inclined to respect the character of General Monk. We think there does appear but too much reason for suspecting him to have received letters from the Marquis of Argyle, which might affect his life, and to have produced them to the parliament which was sitting in judgment on the marquis. That he was one of the commissioners for trying the regicides is certain; and considering his former career of action, and the intimacies formed under it, this fact seems to be enough to condemn him in the courts of humanity and honour. Mrs. Hutchinson says of him, that "Monk after all his great professions now sat still, and had not one word to interpose for any person, but was as forward to set vengeance on foot as any

The dispute relating to the question as to the period at which our constitution attained its perfection does not appear to be very important. Mr. Fox states it to have nearly arrived at that acmé in the reign of Charles II., at a period too of that reign, when the administration of the country was at its lowest point of depression; and from this he draws a corollary in derogation of the maxim, that measures, and not men, are to be attended to. The truth seems to be, that the constitution was nearly, but not entirely, at its height of theoretical perfection at the period assigned by Mr. Fox. Mr. Fox's inference did not require that it should have absolutely reached its maturity of perfection, supposing that inference to be in other respects a just one: but this we are by no means disposed to concede; for it seems to us to lead to dangerous results, and to justify all that spirit of party, the existence of which we have already deplored. The administration was certainly corrupt, while the constitution was in a very advanced stage towards its perfection. No constitution can be so framed as to avoid all disturbance by bad men. Occasional eclipses will happen. But during the transient interval of bad government to which Mr. Fox alludes, the constitution

was accumulating a force which finally overcame the pressure, and bursting through the resistance opposed to it, stood forth more confessed to the eyes of mankind.

The remarks of Mr. Serjeant Heywood upon Mr. Rose's mention of Sir Edward Coke's two inaccuracies are proofs of his correct and examining mind.

The question of the establishment of the right of the Commons, in regard to impeachment, seems to rest rather upon a verbal than a real difference between Mr. Fox and Mr. Rose. It is true, as Mr. Rose says, that the king was not restrained, till after the Revolution, from exercising his right of pardoning, so as to stop an impeachment by any express law; but Mr. Serjeant Heywood thinks it is enough to justify Mr. Fox in his observation, that in Lord Danby's case this right was peremptorily negatived by the Commons, and that therefore the doctrine seems then to have been established.

The most difficult part of Mr. Serjcant Heywood's undertaking, and that in which he has exerted the greatest spirit and ingenuity, is his defence of Mr. Fox's endeavour to prove that the great and primary object of James II. was the establishment of arbitrary power, and not, as has been commonly supposed, the establishment of the Catholic religion, of which his only purpose was to obtain a full toleration. Mr. Fox attributes great importance to this distinction for this reason. "If this reign," says he," is to be considered as a period insulated, as it were, and unconnected with the general course of history, and if the events of it are to be attributed exclusively to the particular character and particular attachments of the monarch, the sole inference will be, that we must not have a Catholic for our king; whereas, if we consider it, which history well warrants us to do, as a part of that system which had been pursued by all the Stuart kings, as well prior as subsequent to the restoration, the lesson which it affords is very different, as well as far more instructive. We are taught generally the dangers Englishmen will always be liable to, if, from favour to a prince upon the throne, or from a confidence, however grounded, that his views are agreeable to our own notions of the constitution, we in any considerable degree abate of that vigilant and unremitting jealousy of the power of the crown, which can alone secure to us the effect of those wise laws that have been provided for the benefit of the subject; and still more particularly, that it is in vain to think of making a compromise with power, and by yielding to it in other points, preserving some favourite object, such, for instance, as the church, in James's case, from its grasp."

Now we do not feel any disposition to deny what Mr. Fox

VOL. II. NO. III.

D

inculcates the necessity of maintaining a watchful observance of the conduct of the prince, whether he be strictly protestant in principle, or inclined to the catholic faith. Power, in hu man hands, is so liable to be abused, that to preserve the wholesome rights of the governed will always, we are well per suaded, require their constant and unremitting watchfulness. But because this is a very wholesome doctrine to inculcate, we are not to strain the interpretation of any passage of history to support it. We have no doubt that James was a bigot both in religion and politics; and without inquiring whether his attachment to the popish religion, or to arbitrary power, was uppermost, they were evidently so allied in spirit, and were so blended in the mind of that prince, that we cannot think that the conclusion of Mr. Fox has any logical support from his premises. His inference has no such support, unless the religious principles of James were entirely separate from his political principles; for without this separation, how could he reason from the case of James the Second to that of any protestant monarch? In the article of our first Number, in which we treated of the catholic question, we considered the point, whether James's primary views were directed to the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion, or of arbitrary power; and shall, therefore, not enter again into that subject. We do not consider Mr. Serjeant Heywood's endeavours to shew the ascendancy of the love of power in the mind of James at all satisfactory, although we give him the greatest credit for ingenuity and research. He contends, that all that James desired was a toleration of his religion; and he enters with uncom mon address into the exposition of the French word 'établissement;' but we must have a faith in him strong enough to remove mountains of contrary evidence, before we can subscribe to his opinions on this subject. The Catholics have demonstrated, on many recent occasions, what they really understand by toleration; and if at any time they have been equivocal, their Protestant friends have explained them; and our readers have had many opportunities of judging whether by toleration, in the sense in which it is now used, any thing very short of establishment is really intended.

We have had a notable definition of toleration,' a little time ago, in a very celebrated periodical work*; to which we refer our readers, if they doubt the luxuriance into which that word may be made to expand under proper cultivation. What James himself designed by toleration, may be guessed at from

See Edinburgh Review, No. XXXIII. page 1.

See the article on the Catholic Question in No. I. of this Review,

the fact of his having dismissed the Duke of Queensberry, and the Earl of Rochester, on account of their refusing to become Catholics; and appointing Catholics to the high offices in the state. We cannot help asking, for it really forces itself upon us, what is there to prevent any future prince of this country from doing the same, if that which the Catholics of the present day contend for, and which is so modestly in sound, but emphatically in sense, called emancipation, be granted by the legislature?

It is true that James retained some Protestant advisers in his counsels; but modern events have proved, that Protestants in profession may be very zealous friends of the Catholics, especially if those Protestants do not happen to be attached to the Church of England. During his brother's reign, James might have contemplated little more than the toleration of the Čatholic religion; and as far as the interests of Catholicism were comprehended under general toleration, Lauderdale and Queensberry were not bad instruments for promoting these objects. The cruel measures of the Duke of York for enforcing the test in favour of the Scotch Episcopalians are an excellent comment upon his real intentions in respect to the Test Act when King of England.

Mr. Serjeant Heywood seems a great deal too much to rely upon James's declarations as testimony of his true designs; we, on the contrary, cannot help looking to his acts as a better and safer criterion. After the dismissal of Queensberry, we believe he retained in his councils only those who were avowed Catholics, or prepared to assist his schemes in favour of popery.

James's conversion seems to have taken place in 1669. His long and industrious concealment of his conversion was occasioned by his fear of the passing of the Test Act. This act was passed about six months after his conversion: he received, however, the sacrament, according to the rites of our church, in 1672, about Christmas. On the 15th of the June following he openly avowed his reconciliation, and resigned his employments. To this religion James sacrificed a kingdom. He had certainly two objects in view; but let it never be forgotten that these objects were connected in spirit and principle, and it can not greatly signify which had the strongest hold on his affections. Thus much is certain, that at the beginning of his reign the parliament was slavishly forward in offering the means of acquiring absolute power. The bigoted prince, by the strong current of his prejudices, was precipitated upon the rock of su perstition. Charles concealed his religion, because it interfered with his schemes of power. Why did not James pursue a simi