A History of the Early Part of the Reign of James the Second; with an introductory Chapter. By the Right Hon. Charles James Fox. To which is added an Appendix.

IT

T was predicted, by not a few, that the general estimate that had been formed of Mr. Fox's talents would not be heightened, but lowered by this publication. Their predictions have been verified. It is impossible that the warmest admirers of Mr. Fox can class the work before us with those of Voltaire, Hume, and Robertson: nor was it at all reasonable to expect that it should. It is not even to be classed among those of the second rate or middling historians. Men of enlarged minds and philosophical views, such as Tacitus among the antients, and Hume and Voltaire among the moderns, raise their voices to all times and countries, and while they walk over the elevated ground of great and interesting events, contemplate still human nature, placed in various situations, and teach us to know ourselves by a development of the passions and conduct of others; glancing now and then at characters

and events widely different in respect of place and time, and brought together by various associations of ideas in the mind of the learned and philosophical historian. Fine instances of such combinations we have in the learned and ingenious, the miserably pedantic, and affected Mr. Gibbon. Mr. Fox does not address his work to all ages; to the wide theatre of the world; but to his countrymen only. He appears very much, indeed chiefly, in the character of a critic, or political controversialist. And his style is languid, vapid, and in not a few instances, even ungrammatical-yet his book completely answers the expectations of those who formed a just estimate of Mr. Fox's character. Though he was not a philosopher, nor yet a man of profound learning, he appears to have been a good Latin and Greek scholar. And he possessed, in a degree that did honour to human nature, the amiable virtues of the heart, as well as the most splendid powers of reasoning, strengthened by long exercise in public debate. We repeat now, what we have said on a former occasion-" His unrivalled talents were universally acknowledged: but there still lurked in many

many breasts somewhat of a suspicion, that his political firmness and integrity was not inflexible. The sensibility of his heart, the unassuming affability and the sublime simplicity of his manners, the steadiness and warmth of his friendship, the soundness of his political principles, and the general consistency of his political conduct, which even the heavy weight of his India Bill did not counterbalance, in the process of time, though that not very short, produced an almost universal conviction, that Charles Fox was not only endowed with the most brilliant parts, but was an honest and good, as well as a great man."* It is sufficient commendation of the present volume to say, that though it is not distinguished by the features expected by what we may call the fanatical admirers of Mr. Fox, it is yet such a production as was to be looked for at the hands of such a character as has just been described. It breathes throughout the most humane sympathy, the most melting tenderness, and purest candour of disposition, and inculcates the sound and salutary maxims or fundamental laws of our political and civil constitution. It is in some measure, as it is, and would have been more so, if carried on and finished, an exhibition or display of constitutional principles founded on historical facts.

Prefixed to Mr. Fox's composition is a preface by lord Holland, which not only gives a satisfactory account of the progress of the work, but some glimpses also of the character and opinions of its author. Lord Holland has not been able to ascertain at what period Mr. Fox first formed the de

sign of writing a history; but from the year 1797, when he ceased to give a regular attendance in Parliament, he was almost entirely occupied with literary schemes and avocations.

Lord Holland thinks it necessary to observe, that Mr. Fox "had formed his plan so exclusively on the model of ancient writers, that he not only felt some repugnance to the modern practice of notes, but thought that all which an historian wished to say, should be introduced as part of a continued narration, and never assume the appearance of a digression, much less of a dissertation annexed to it. From the period therefore that he closed his Introductory Chapter, he defined his duty as an author, to consist in recounting the facts as they arose, or in his simple and forcible language, in telling the story of those times." A conversation which passed on the subject of the literature of the age of James the Second, proves his rigid adherence to these ideas, and perhaps the substance of it may serve to illustrate and explain them. In speaking of the writers of that period, he lamented that he had not devised a method of interweaving any account of them or their works, much less any criticism on their style, into his history. On my suggesting the example of Hume and Voltaire, who had discussed such topics at some length, either at the end of each reign, or in a separate chapter, he observed, with much commendation of their execution of it, that such a contrivance might be a good mode of writing critical essays, but that it was, in his opinion, incompatible with the

nature

nature of his undertaking, which, if it ceased to be a narrative, ceased to be a history.

But the political events are not the only events that are recorded even in antient history. How great the variety of matter in Herodotus, the best of historians! And in our times, when it is admitted that even political events cannot be fully understood, or accounted for without attention to the vicissitudes in public opinion and public spirit, to the preceding or concomitant changes in manners, ways of thinking, and general pursuits, it is not a little astonishing that Mr. Fox should propose or design to cramp himself by any such narrow and erroneous law of composition! We say design to cramp himself; but in fact he has not done it. On the contrary, he is remarkably full of argument and reflection, and the examination of evidence on subjects of no moment, and what Ammianus Marcellinus, in our quotation above, calls humilium minutias

causarum.

In the introductory chapter Mr. Fox sets out with noticing, that there are certain periods in the history of every country at which the mind naturally pauses to meditate upon, and consider them with reference, not only to their immediate effects, but their more remote consequences. The first of these periods, noticed by Mr. Fox, extends from the accession of Henry VII. to the year 1588. The second period from 1588 to 1640; a period of almost uninterrupted tranquillity, peace, and general improvement: and a third period, between the year 1640 and the "death of Charles II.; during which we have an opportunity of

contemplating the state in almost every variety of circumstances. Religious dispute, political contest in all its forms and degrees, from the honest exertions of party, and the corrupt intrigues of faction, to violence and civil war; despotism, first in the person of an usurper, and afterwards in that of an hereditary king; the most memorable and salutary improvements in the laws, the most abandoned administration of them; in fine, whatever can happen to a nation, whether of glorious or calamitous, makes a part of this astonishing and instructive picture."

In taking a more particular view, of this period, Mr. Fox, among a variety of excellent observations, remarks that "The reign of Charles II. forms one of the most singular, as well as of the most important periods of history. It is the æra of good laws and bad government. The abolition of the Court of Wards, the repeal of the Writ De Heretico Comburendo, the Triennial Parliament Bill, the establishment of the rights of the House of Commons in regard to impeachment, the expiration of the License Act, and above all, the glorious statute of Habeas Corpus, have therefore induced a modern writer of great eminence to fix the year 1679 as the period at which our constitution had arrived at its greatest theoretical perfection; but he owns, in a short note upon the passage alluded to, that the times immediately following were times of great practical oppression. What a field for meditation does this short observation from such a man, furnish! What reflections does it not suggest to a thinking mind, upon the inefficacy of human laws,

$

and

and the imperfection of human constitutions! We are called from the contemplation of the progress of our constitution, and our attention fixed with the most minute accuracy to a particular point, when it is said to have risen to its utmost perfection. Here we are then at the best moment of the best constitution that ever human wisdom framed. What follows? A time of oppression and misery, not arising from external or accidental causes, such as war, pestilence, or famine, nor even from any such alteration of the laws as might be supposed to impair this boasted perfection, but from a corrupt and wicked administration, which all the so much admired checks of the constitution were not able to prevent. How vain then, how idle, how presumptuous, is the opinion, that laws can do every thing! and how weak and pernicious the maxim founded upon it, that measures, not men, are to be attended to!

"The first years of this reign, under the administration of Southampton and Clarendon, form by far the least exceptionable part of it, and even in this period, the executions of Argyle and Vane, and the whole conduct of the government with respect to church matters, both in England and in Scotland, were gross instances of tyranny. With respect to the execution of those who were accused of having been more immediately concerned in the king's death, that of Scrope, who had come in upon the proclamation, and of the military officers who had attended the trial, was a violation of every principle of law and justice. But the fate of the others, though highly dishonourable to Monk, whose

whole power had arisen from his zeal in their service, and the favour and confidence with which they had rewarded him, and not perhaps very creditable to the nation, of which many had applauded, more had supported, and almost all had acquiesced in the act, is not certainly to be imputed as a crime to the king, or to those of his advisers who were of the cavalier party. The passion of revenge, though properly condemned both by philosophy and religion, yet when it is excited by injurious treatment of persons justly dear to us, is among the most excusable of human frailties; and if Charles, in his general conduct, had shown stronger feelings of gratitude for services performed to his father, his character, in the eyes of many, would be rather raised than lowered by this example of severity against the regicides. Clarendon is said to have been privy to the king's receiving money from Lewis XIV.: but what proofs exist of this charge, (for a heavy charge it is,) I know not. Southampton was one of the very few of the royalist party who preserved any just regard for the liberties of the people, and the disgust which a person possessed of such sentiments must unavoidably feel, is said to have determined him to quit the king's service, and to retire altogether from public affairs. Whether he would have acted upon this determination, his death, which happened in the year sixteen hundred and sixty-seven, prevents us now from ascertaining.

"After the fall of Clarendon, which soon followed, the king entered into that career of misgovernment, which, that he was able to pursue it to its end, is a disgrace to

the

the history of our country. If any thing can add to our disgust at the meanness with which he solicited a dependence upon Lewis XIV., it is the hypocritical pretence upon which he was continually pressing that monarch. After having passed a law, making it penal to affirm, (what was true,) that he was a papist, he pretended, (which was certainly not true), to be a zealous and bigoted papist; and the uneasiness of his conscience at so long delaying a public avowal of his conversion, was more than once urged by him, as an argument to increase the pension, and to accelerate the assistance, he was to receive from France. In a later period of his reign, when his interest, as he thought, lay the other way, that he might at once continue to earn his wages, and yet put off a public conversion, he stated some scruples, contracted, no doubt, by his affection to the protestant churches, in relation to the popish mode of giving the sacrament; and pretended a wish, that the pope might be induced by Lewis, to consider of some alterations in that respect, to enable him to reconcile himself to the Roman church with a clear and pure conscience."+

"The interval from the separate peace between England and the United Provinces, to the peace of Nimeguen, was chiefly employed by Charles in attempts to obtain money from France and other foreign powers, in which he was sometimes more, sometimes less successful; and in various false professions, promises, and other devices to deceive his parliament

Dalrymple's Memoirs, II. 33, &c.

and his people, in which he uniformly failed. Though neither the nature and extent of his connection with France, nor his design of introducing popery into England, were known at that time, as they now are, yet there were not wanting many indications of the king's disposition, and of the general tendency of his designs. Reasonable persons apprehended that the supplies asked were intended to be used, not for the specious purpose of maintaining the balance of Europe, but for that of subduing the parliament and people who should give them; and the great antipathy of the bulk of the nation to popery caused many to be both more clearsighted in discovering, and more resolute in resisting the designs of the court, than they would probably have shown themselves, civil liberty alone had been concerned."

if

"In an early period of the king's difficulties, sir William Temple, whose life and character is a refutation of the vulgar notion that philosophy and practical good sense in business are incompatible attainments, recommended to him the plan of governing by a council, which was to consist in great part of the most popular noblemen and gentlemen in the kingdom. Such persons being the natural, as well as the safest, mediators between princes and discontented subjects, this seems to have been the best possible expedient. Hume says it was found too feeble a remedy; but he does not take notice that it was never in fact tried, inasmuch as, not only the king's confidence

+ Ibid. II. 84.

was