to the dread of impending popery, and the fecurity of the res formed religion. Their conduct upon this occafion, whether exami ned by the rules of probity, or the dictates of enlightened charity, will be found deferving of explicit and marked expreffions of condemnation. Profeffing to guard against popery, did not the diffenters act under the influence of its worst principles? Did they not abandon their rights, as men and as chriflians ? rights, the renunciation of which, for a fingle day, no fear of danger, nor profpect of future peace, can juftify, at the tribunal of consci

ence.

The event of providence has inftructed us, by this, and every fimilar experiment, to reprobate the imprudence, as well as the immorality of that maxim, that it is lawful to do evil, when good may be obtained by it. A bill brought in for the relief of the proteftant diffenters, as the reward of their confent to the test act, was defeated by the difagreement of the two houfes, and the adjournment of parliament. And thus, the temporizing spirit of the diffenters has tranfmitted bondage to their pofterity, which the liberality of the age in which we live, never could have inpofed; but from which even that liberality is not adequate to emancipate them, while it is counteracted by religious bigotry, and the timid policy of thofe who difpenfe the favours of govern ment.'

In the courfe of thofe intrigues, the agents of Lewis, and the leaders of oppofition, united in the fame views of disband ing the army, and of diffolving the parliament. But a union fo unnatural could neither be durable nor fincere; and the former accordingly foon transferred their political alliance, from the members of oppofition to Charles himself, who had afterwards occafion to experience the falfehood of Lewis's pretended attachment.

The hiftorian gives a full detail of the arguments adduced on both fides, relative to the bill of exclufion; obferving, that it appears by no means eafy to decide, with which of the parties the strength of the argument lies. But where the advantages and the dangers appear fo equally balanced, he thinks that we may fairly give the credit of wifdom, and the praise of patriotifm, to thofe who divided on the affirmative of that important question.

We formerly fuggefted, in reviewing fir John Dalrymple's Memoirs, that Barillon, the French ambaffador, might have given a fallacious account of the money which he had distributed among the members of the English parliament; and put down the names of perfons who did not really receive money from him. The prefent hiftorian entertains the fame opinion, and thinks it far more probable that Barillon would maintain

G 2

a falfe

a falfchood, than that the celebrated Sydney would receive the wages of corruption.

A late hiftorian having peremptorily afcribed to the prince of Orange a clandeftine connexion with the duke of Monmouth, in his expedition againft James, Dr. Somerville makes many pertinent remarks in refutation of that charge. He obferves, that the prince of Orange, impelled by every motive of prudence, discovered the most anxious folicitude to maintain a strict friendship with his father-in-law, after his acceffion to the throne of England: that involved in domeftic and foreign dangers, and conftantly oppofed by the city of Amfterdam, his authority, as ftadtholder, stood upon a tottering bafis that the restless ambition and refentment of France had refolved on his destruction: that the only probable means of fecuring his perfonal authority, and the peace and independence of the ftates, feemed to flow from the fuccour and the friendship of England: that he was at this very time negotiating an alliance with France, to which the acceffion of James was effential that with regard to his views on the fucceffion to the crown of England, they were more likely to be obftructed, than promoted, by the expedition of Monmouth, whatever the event of it might be; and that the fuccefs of Monmouth, if it had taken place, would not have been eafily overturned. To the detail of the author's arguments on this fubject, we fhall fubjoin a few lines from the work.

"The following fentence (fays Dr. Somerville, in reply to Mr. Macpherson) particularly deferves to be attended to, becaufe it feems to fuggeft matter for confutation of the opinion which it contains. The generofity of the prince," fays he, "equalled not his professed zeal for the fervice of Monmouth. The unfor tunate duke derived from his own plate and jewels, his whole treafure for profecuting the war." Is it not unfair to assume as a fact, what is not proved; nay, what is so much against evidence; namely, the zeal of William for Monmouth's fervice? Is there not adduced by himself, a ftrong prefumption against what he afferts as a fact? He gave him no money. Was that like zeal for his fervice ?"

On the correspondence maintained with the court of St. Germains by different perfons in England, we meet with many juft obfervations. Dr. Somerville has no doubt of the authenticity of the letters published in the collection of Mr. Macpherfon; but thinks that very different opinions may be entertained of the meafure and force of evidence they convey, ei

• Mr. Macpherson.

ther

ther with respect to the ftate of political events, or the characters of persons concerned in them. He juftly obferves, that a great diftinction ought to be made, between thofe actually. found in correfpondence with the court of St. Germains, and. thofe who are only mentioned by agents as favourable to that. intereft, and approving of plans communicated to them for promoting it. That there may be various reafons for fufpecting the fincerity of perfons of the latter defcription, in the fentiments and attachments they profeffed; while there can be' little or no reason for entertaining any doubt, with respect to the guilt of perfons of the former clafs, who were perfonally engaged in correfpondence with James, and fpontaneously tendered their services. After investigating their different motives and intentions, and adducing ftrong reafons for fufpecting that fome of them were not fincere, the author draws from the whole the following conclufions; in which, though the tranfactions of that time are not yet fully elucidated, we think he is fupported by evidence fufficient to influence an unpreju diced mind. The conclufions are,

That, during the whole reign of William, his perfon and government were expofed to extreme danger; that, from his cosonation till his title was acknowledged by the French king at the peace of Ryfwick, a correfpondence was conftantly carried on between James and many perfons of the first rank and influence in England; that individuals of every party, and even fome of thofe, who had been the moft zealous agents in the revolution, were acceffary to that correfpondence; that many confpiracies were formed, and very confiderable preparations made for reftoring the authority of James; and that, even the most bafe and atrocious defigns were fet on foot, to put an end to the power and life of William.’

After the peace of Ryfwick, a charge deeply affecting the veracity and the honour of William was obliquely infinuated; but met with little credit at that time. It has, however, been revived by Mr. Macpherson, and with fuch pofitive affirmation, that Dr. Somerville has applied himself with much earneftneís to investigate the truth of the charge. It is alledged against William, that, by a fecret article of the treaty with Lewis, he confented that the fon of James fhould fucceed to the crown of England after his own demife; and that, upon this exprefs condition, Lewis engaged to acknowledge the title of William, and to give him no difturbance in the poffeffion of the crown during the remaining part of his life, Our author, in defending the character of this prince, recites the circumftances from which the imputation arofe, and

G 3

attends

attends to the different inferences drawn from them by contemporary authors. He next gives an account of the authority and evidence, upon which the opinion of Mr. Macpherson is founded; and flates the objections, to which both that evidence and his conclufions are liable. The imputation in question was founded upon the conferences between the earl of Portland and the marshal Boufflers, which, as the fubject of them was unknown, gave rife to a variety of conjectures. Dr. Burnet afferts, that the earl of Portland told him, that these conferences were concerning king James. Kennet informs us, that many of king William's friends entertained a fufpicion, that he had entered into a private agreement with the king of France about king James, or his iffue, upon conditions of hav ing the peaceful enjoyment of his dominions during life, and of being acknowledged king of Great Britain by his Chriftian majefty; that fome were of opinion, that thefe conferences related to the dowry of king James's queen; and that others again, at a later period, conjectured, that they were the foun dation of the partition treaty, afterwards concluded between William and the king of France. The author of the Life of William adopts the narrative of Kennet. In an extract of the Life of James, publifhed by Mr. Macpherion, it is pofitively affirmed, That the king of France had underhand prevailed with the prince of Orange, to confent that the prince of Wales thould fucceed to the throne of England after his death, But, according to the fame extract, the propofal was rejec ted by James, upon the fcore of confcience. He could not fupport the thoughts of making his own child an accomplice to his unjuft dethronement.' Upon the authority of this extract, as Dr. Somerville obferves, Mr. Macpherfon admits it as a fact, that the fucceffion of the fon of the exiled king was the fubject of the fecret negotiations, carried on by the earl of Portland and maríhal Boufflers, that William confented to the fon of James fucceeding to the throne of England after his death; that Lewis engaged, upon this condition, to acknow ledge his title ; and allow his reign to elapfe in peace, and that thus, a mystery, long impenetrable, is now clearly developed. From thefe conclufions, fays Dr. Somerville, this hiftorian declaims, with pointed invective, against the hypocrify, the -ambition, and the treachery, of the man, whofe actions have been hitherto afcribed to publie fpirit, and zeal for the caufe of civil and religious liberty. In order to fuftain the charge, and, perhaps, to extenuate the guilt involved in it, he enumerates the motives which, probably, prevailed with William to facrifice honour, principle, and confiftency of character, to political advantages. But if the fact be once admitted, the

pro

propriety of the detraction will not be controverted.' Dr. Somerville however difputes the validity of Mr. Macpherson's affertions on this fubject. The latter has acknowledged that the continuation of the Life of James, from which the extract containing this information is tranfcribed, was compofed, not by James himself, but by another hand; adding, that as it was done under his infpection, and corrected by himfelf, it poffeffes as much authority as if it had been written by him, in his own hand.' With regard to thefe affertions, Dr. Somerville puts the following questions, which, it must be acknowledged, carry with them a great degree of force:

From whom did he derive his information? From what evi dence is it concluded, that the work was revifed or corrected by James? Can any fatisfactory reafon be affigned, why James, who furvived four years after the peace of Ryfwick, and who had committed writing, with inceffant labour, many trivial incidents of his former life, fhould have laid down the pen, and difcontinued his journal when an event ftarted up, fo interefting to his family, fo reproachful to the character of his antagonist; an event which afforded fo honourable a teftimony, as he imagined, to the fteadiness and purity of his own principles; and which, in various points of view, must have appeared a diftinguished fubje& of record?'

The ingenious author appears particularly anxious to vindicate the character of William from this afperfion; and urges a variety of circumstances which render the fact alledged im probable. In the profecution of the fubject, he endeavours to account for the origin of this charge; his conjecture concerning which is fupported by the authority of the duke of Berwick; while the truth of Dr. Burnet's teftimony is corroborated by judicious and candid obfervations on his character as a hiftorian.

In the review of the affairs of Scotland, our author has occafion to remark the intolerant principles of the established church in each kingdom; and on the peculiar embarrassment experienced by William from this caufe, he breaks out into the following apoftrophe.

How hard his fituation! every favour to prefbyterians in Scotland, and to diffenters in England, awakened the jealousy of the English church; and every indulgence to the adherents to epifcopacy in Scotland, that of the prefbyterians there; fo that he loft the affections of both establishments. Attending to thefe facts, we are deeply impreffed with a fenfe of the inherent and unchangeable malignancy of bigotry, wherever it is found, and