in the prevailing manners of the people, and the monstrous patronage of the government. It can admit of no doubt, we suppose, that trade, which has made us rich, has made us still more luxurious; and that the increased necessity of expense, has in general outgone the means of supplying it. Almost every individual now finds it more difficult to live on a level with his equals, than he did when all were poorer; almost every man, therefore, is needy; and he who is both needy and luxurious, holds his independence on a very precarious tenure. Government, on the other hand, has the disposal of nearly twenty millions per annum, and the power of nominating to two or three hundred thousand posts or places of emolument; -the whole population of the country amounting (1808) to less than five millions of grown men. The consequence is, that, beyond the rank of mere labourers, there is scarcely one man out of three who does not hold or hope for some appointment or promotion from government, and is not consequently disposed to go all honest lengths in recommending himself to its favour. This, it must be admitted, is a situation which justities some alarm for the liberties of the people; and, when taken together with that general indifference to the public which has been already noticed, accounts sufficiently for that habit of presuming in favour of all exertions of authority, and against all popular discontent or interference, which is so remarkably the characteristic of the present generation. From this passive desertion of the people, it is but one step to abet and defend the actual oppressions of their rulers; and men, otherwise conscientious, we are afraid, too often impose upon themselves by no better reasonings than the following"This measure, to be sure, is bad, and somewhat tyrannical;-but men are not angels;ail human government is imperfect; and, on the whole, ours is much too good to be quarrelled with. Besides, what good purpose could be answered by my individual opposition? I might ruin my own fortune, indeed, and blast the prospects of my children; but it would be too romantic to imagine, that the fear of my displeasure would produce an immaculate administration-so I will hold my tonzue, and shift for myself as well as possible." When the majority of those who have influence in the country reason in this manner, it surely cannot be unnecessary to remind us, now and then, of the great things that were suffer tremendously in the period of transition If ambition and great activity therefore be no necessary to our happiness, we shall do wisely to occupy ourselves with the many innocent and pleasant pursuits that are allowed under all governments; instead of spreading tumult and discontent, by endeavouring to realize some political conceit of our own imagination Mr. Hume, we are afraid, is chiefly responsible for the prevalence of this Epicurean and ignoble strain of sentiment in this country,an author from whose dispositions and understanding, a very different doctrine might have been anticipated.* But, under whatever authority it is maintained, we have no scruple in saying, that it seems to us as obviously false as it is pernicious. We need not appeal to Turkey or to Russia to prove, that neither liberal nor even gainful pursuits can be carried on with advantage, where there is no political freedom: For, even laying out of view the utter impossibility of securing the persons and properties of individuals in any other way, it is certain that the consciousness of independence is a great enjoyment in itself, and that, without it, all the powers of the mind, and all the capacities of happiness, are gradually blunted and destroyed. It is like the privation of air and exercise, or the emasculation of the body; -which, though they may appear at first to conduce to tranquillity and indolent enjoyment, never fail to enfeeble the whole frame, and to produce a state of oppressive languor and debility, in comparison with which even wounds and fatigue would be delicious. To counteract all these enervating and depressing causes, we had, no doubt, the increasing opulence of the lower and middling orders of the people, naturally leading them to aspire to greater independence, and improving their education and general intelligence. And thus, public opinion, which is in all countries the great operating check upon authority, had become more extensive and more enlightened; and might perhaps have been found a suffi * Few things seem more unaccountable, and indeed absurd, than that Hume should have taken part with high-church and high-monarchy men. The persecutions which he suffered in his youth from the Presbyterians, may perhaps have influenced his ecclesiastical partialities. But that he should have sided with the Tudors and the Stuarts against the people, seems quite inconsistent with all the great traits of his character. His unrivalled sagacity must have looked with contempt on the done when the people roused themselves preposterous arguments by which the jus divinum against their oppressors. have suggested the cruelty of subjecting the enjoy. ments of thousands to the caprice of one unfeeling individual; and his own practical independence in private life, might have taught him the value of those feelings which he has so mischievously de. rided. Mr. Fox seems to have been struck with the same surprise at this strange trait in the character of our philosopher. In a letter to Mr. Laing, he says, "He was an excellent man, and of great powers of mind; but his partiality to kings and princes is intolerable: nay, it is, in my opinion, quite ridiculous; and is more like the foolish ad. miration which women and children sometimes have for kings, than the opinion right or wrong In aid of these actual temptations of interest and indolence, come certain speculative doctrines, as to the real value of liberty, and the illusions by which men are carried away who fancy themselves acting on the principle of patriotism. Private happiness, it is discovered, has but little dependence on the mature of the government. The oppressions of monarchs and demagogues are nearly equal 'n degree, though a little different in form; and the only thing certain is, that in flying from the one we shall fall into the other, and / of a philosopher." system of timidity so apt to graduate inte servility; and to familiarize his countrymen once more to speak and to think of Charles, of James, and of Strafford, and of William, and Russell, and Sydney, as it becomes Englishmen to speak and to think of such characters. To talk with affected tenderness of oppressors, may suit the policy of those who wish to bespeak the clemency of an Imperial Conqueror; but must appear peculiarly base and inconsistent in all who profess an anxiety to rouse the people to great exertions in the cause of their independence. The volume itself, which has given occasion to these reflections, and from which we have withheld our readers too long, consists of a preface or general introduction from the pen of Lord Holland; an introductory chapter, comprising a review of the leading events, from the year 1640 to the death of Charles II.; two chapters of the history of the reign of James, which include no more than seven months of the year 1685, and narrate very little but the unfortunate expeditions of Argyle and of Monmouth; and a pretty long Appendix, consisting chiefly of the correspondence between Barillon, the French confidential minister at the court of England, and his master Louis XIV. cient corrective of all our other corruptions, of Mr. Fox's, as likely to put an end to a had things gone on around us in their usual and accustomed channels. Unfortunately, however, the French Revolution came, to as tonish and appal the world; and, originating with the people, not only subverted thrones and establishments, but made such havoc on the lives and properties and principles of individuals, as very naturally to excite the horror and alarm of all whose condition was not already intolerable. This alarm, in so far as it related to this country, was always excessive, and in a great degree unreasonable: But it was impossible perhaps altogether to escape it; and the consequences have been incalculably injurious to the interests of practical liberty. During the raging of that war which Jacobinism in its most disgusting form carried on against rank and royalty, it was natural for those who apprehended the possibility of a similar conflict at home, to fortify those orders with all that reason and even prejudice could supply for their security, and to lay aside for the time those jealousies and hereditary grudges, upon which, in better days, it was their duty to engage in contention. While a aging fever of liberty was epidemic in the neighbourhood, the ordinary diet of the people Eppeared too inflammatory for their constitution; and it was thought advisable to abstain from articles, which, at all other times, were allowed to be necessary for their health and vigour. Thus, a sort of tacit convention was entered into, to say nothing, for a while, of the follies and vices of princes, the tyranny of courts, or the rights of the people. The Revolution of 1688, it was agreed, could not be mentioned with praise, without giving some indirect encouragement to the Revolution of 1789; and it was thought as well to say nothing in favour of Hampden, or Russell, or Sydney, for fear it might give spirits to Robespierre, Danton, or Marat. To this strict regimen the greater part of the nation submitted of their own accord; and it was forced upon the remainder by a pretty vigorous system of proceeding. Now, we do not greatly blame either the alarm, or the precautions which it dictated; but we do very seriously lament, that the use of those precautions should have degenerated into a sort of naional habit; and should be continued and approved of so very long after the danger which occasioned them has ceased. It is now at least ten years since Jacobinism was prostrated at Paris; and it is still longer since it ceased to be regarded with any thing but horror in this country. Yet the favourers of power would still take advantage of its name to shield authority from question; and to throw obloquy on the rights and services of the people. The power of habit has come unfortunately to their aid; and it is still unfashionable, and, we are afraid, not very popular, to talk of the tyranny of the Stuarts, and the triumph of the Revolution, in the tone which was universal and established within these last twenty years. For our parts, however, we see no sort of reason for this change; and we hail, with pleasure, this work Lord Holland's part of the volume is written with great judgment, perspicuity, and propriety; and though it contains less anecdote and minute information with regard to his illustrious kinsman than every reader must wish to possess, it not only gives a very satis factory account of the progress of the work to which it is prefixed, but affords us some glimpses of the character and opinions of its author, which are peculiarly interesting, both from the authenticity of the source from which they are derived, and from the unostentatious simplicity with which they are communicated. Lord Holland has not been able to ascertain at what period Mr. Fox first formed the design 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. The following little sketch of the temper and employments of him who was pitied by many as a disappointed politician, is extremely amiable; and, we are now convinced by the fragment before us, correctly true. "During his retirement, that love of literature, and fondness for poetry, which neither pleasure nor business had ever extinguished, revived with an ardour, such as few, in the eagerness of youth or in pursuit of fame or advantage, are capable of feeling. For some time, however, his studies were not directed to any particular object. Such was the happy disposition of his mind, that his own reflections, whether supplied by conversation, desultory reading, or the copied convers of life in the country, were always sufficient to call forth the vigour and exertion of his faculties. Intercourse with the world had so little deadened in him the sense of the simplest enjoyments, that even in the that keen relish of existence, which, after the first hours of apparent leisure and inactivity, he retained impressions of life, is so rarely excited but by great interests and strong passions. Hence it was that in the interval between his active attendance in parhament, and the undertaking of his History, he sever felt the tedium of a vacant day. A verse in Cowper, which he frequently repeated, 'How various his employments whom the world Calls idle!' was an accurate description of the life he was then leading; and I am persuaded, that if he had consulted his own gratifications only, it would have continued to be so. The circumstances which led him once more to take an active part in public dis cussions, are foreign to the purposes of this preface, It is sufficient to remark, that they could not be foreseen, and that his notion of engaging in some Iterary undertaking was adopted during his retirement, and with the prospect of long and uninterrupted leisure before him."-p. iii. iv. upon a a visit times. A conversation which passed on the sub ject 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 illus. trate 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 of his undertaking, which, if it ceased to be a narrative, ceased to be a history."-p. xxxvi. xxxvii. only to He seems to have fixed finally on the history of the Revolution, about the year 1799; bat even after the work was begun, he not only dedicated large portions of his time to the study of Greek literature, and poetry in general, but meditated and announced to his correspondents a great variety of publications, ns, very wide range of subjects. jects. Among these were, an edition of Dryden-a Defence of Racine and of the French Stage-an Essay on the Beauties of Euripides-a Disquisition upon Hume's History-and an Essay or Dialogue on Poetry, History, and Oratory. In 1802, the greater part of the work, as it now sands, was finished; but the author wished to consult the papers in the Scotch College, and the Depot des Affaires etrangères at Paris, and took the opportunity of the peace to pay to that capital accordingly. After his return, he made some additions to his chap. ters; but being soon after recalled to the enthes of public life, he never afterwards found leisure to go on with the work to which he had dedicated himself with so much zeal ardassiduity. What he did write was finished, however, for the most part, with very great care. He wrote very slow: and was extremely fastidious in the choice of his expressions; hollinz pedantry and affectation, however, in far greater horror than carelessness or roughness. He commonly wrote detached sentences on slips of paper, and afterwards dictated them of to Mrs. Fox, who copied them into the book from which the present volume has been preted without the alteration of single sylThe only other part of Lord Holland's state- history; and, now when it is generally adment, to which we think it necessary to call mitted, that even political events cannot be the attention of the reader, is that in which fully understood or accounted for without Now, we must be permitted to say, that this is a view of the nature of history, which, in so far as it is intelligible, appears to be very narrow and erroneous; and which seems, like all such partial views, to have been so little adhered to by the author himself, as exclude many excellences, without attaining the praise even of consistency in error. The object of history, we conceive, is to give us a clear narrative of the transactions of past ages, with a view of the character and condition of those who were concerned in them, and such reasonings and reflections as may be necessary to explain their connection, or natural on reviewing their results. That some account of the authors of a literary age should have a place in such a composition, seems to labe a he thinks it necessary to explain the peculiar notions which Mr. Fox entertained on the subject of historical composition, and the very nged laws to which he had subjected himself in the execution of his important task. "It is therefore necessary to observe, that he had formed his plan so exclusively on the model of andent writers, that he not only felt some repugnance to the modern practice of notes, but he 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 recoming the facts as they arose; or in his simple and farele language, in telling the story of those follow upon two considerations: first, because it is unquestionably one object of history to give us a distinct view of the state and condition of the age and people with whose affairs it is occupied; and nothing can serve so well to illustrate their true state and condition as a correct estimate and description of the great authors they produced: and, secondly, because the fact that such and such authors did flourish in such a period, and were ingenious and elegant, or rude and ignorant, are facts which are interesting in themselves, and may be made the object of narrative just as properly as that such and such princes or ministers did flourish at the same time, and were ambitious or slothful, tyrannical or friends to liberty. Political events are not the only events which are recorded even in ancient taking into view the preceding and concomi tant changes in manners, literature, commerce, &c. it cannot fail to appear surprising, that an author of such a compass of mind as belonged to Mr. Fox, should have thought of confining himself to the mere chronicling of wars or factions, and held himself excluded, by the laws of historical composition, from touching upon topics so much more interesting. The truth is, however, that Mr. Fox has by no means adhered to this plan of merely "telling the story of the times" of which he treats. On the contrary, he is more full of argument, and what is properly called reflec tion, than most modern historians with whom we are acquainted. His argument, to be sure, Ition; and even if it were not so, the question is chiefly directed to ascertain the truth of reputed facts, or the motives of ambiguous actions; and his reflections, however just and natural, may commonly be considered as redundant, with a view to mere information. Of another kind of reasoning, indeed, he is more sparing; though of a kind far more valuable, and, in our apprehension, far more essential to the true perfection of history. We allude now to those general views of the causes which influence the character and disposition of the people at large; and which, as they vary from age to age, bring a greater or a smaller part of the nation into contact with its government, and ultimately produce the success or failure of every scheme of tyranny or freedom. The more this subject is meditated, the more certain, we are persuaded, it will appear, that all permanent and important occurrences in the internal history of a country, are the result of those changes in the general character of its population; and that kings and ministers are necessarily guided in their projects by a feeling of the tendencies of this varying character, and fail or succeed, exactly as they had judged correctly or erroneously of its condition. To trace the causes and the modes of its variation, is therefore to describe the true sources of events; and, merely to narrate the occurrences to which it gave rise, is to recite a history of actions without intelligible motives, and of effects without assignable causes. It is true, no doubt, that political events operate in their turn on that national character by which they are previously moulded and controuled: But they are very far, indeed, from being the chief agents n its formation; and the history of those very events is necessarily imperfect, as well as uninstructive, if the consideration of those other agents is omitted. They consist of every thing which affects the character of individuals:-manners, education, prevailing occupations, religion, taste, and, above all, the distribution of wealth, and the state of prejudice and opinions. would still be,-by what change in the dis positions of the army and the nation Monk was able to make them do it. The second event, which must always appear unaccount. able upon the mere narrative of the circumstances, is the base and abject submission of the people to the avowed tyranny of the re stored Charles, when he was pleased at last to give up the use of Parliaments, and to tax and govern on his own single authority. This happened when most of those must have still been alive who had seen the nation rise upin arms against his father; and within five years of the time when it rose up still more unanimously against his successor, and not only changed the succession of the crown, but very strictly defined and limited its prerogatives. The third, is the Revolution itself; an evert which was brought about by the very individuals who had submitted so quietly to the domination of Charles, and who, when assem• bled in the House of Commons under James himself, had, of their own accord, sent one of their members to the Tower for having observed, upon a harsh and tyrannical expres sion of the King's, that "he hoped they were all Englishmen, and not to be frighted with a few hard words." It is not to give us the history of these events, merely to set down the time and circumstances of the occurrence, They evidently require some explanation, in order to be comprehended; and the narrative will be altogether unsatisfactory, as well as totally barren of instruction, unless it give some account of those changes in the general temper and opinion of the nation, by which such contradictory actions became possible. Mr. Fox's conception of the limits of legiti mate history, restrained him, we are afraid, from entering into such considerations; and they will best estimate the amount of his error, who are most aware of the importance of the information of which it has deprived us. Nothing, in our apprehension, can be beyond the province of legitimate history, which tends to give us clear conceptions of the times and characters with which that history is conversant; nor can the story of any time be complete or valuable, unless it look before and after,-to the causes and consequences of the events which it details, and mark out the period with which it is occupied, as part of a greater series, as well as an object of separate consideration. It is the more to be regretted, that such a mind as Mr. Fox's should have been bound up from such a subject by the shackles of an idle theory; because the period of which he treats affords the finest of all opportunities for prosecuting such an inquiry, and does not, indeed, admit of an intelligible or sa satisfactory history upon any other conditions. There are three great events, falling within that period, of which, it appears to us, that "the story" has not yet been intelligibly told, for want of come such analysis of the national feelings. One is, the universal joy and sincere confidence with which Charles II. was received back, without one stipulation for the liberties of the people, or one precaution against the abuses of power. This was done by the very people who had waged war against a more amiable Sovereign, and quarrelled with the Protector for depriving them of their freedom. not in general flow with much spirit or fa It is saying nothing, to say that Monk did this by means of the army. It was not done Bither by Monk or the army, but by the na In proceeding to the consideration of Mr. Fox's own part of this volume, it may be as well to complete that general estimate of its excellence and defects which we have been led incidentally to express in a good degree already. We shall then be able to pursue our analysis of the successive chapters with less distraction. The sentiments, we think, are almost al just, and candid, and manly; but the narrative is too minute and diffusive, and does cility. Inconsiderable incidents are detailed at far too great length; and an extreme and painful anxiety is shown to ascertain the serve the unjustifiable form of the proceed- far as we can judge from the event, the example mes against Lord Strafford, whom he qualifies was certainly not very effectual; since both the with the name of a great delinquent. With sons of Charles, though having their father's fate regard to the causes of the civil war, the most difficult question to determine is, whether the Parliament made sufficient efforts to avoid bringing affairs to such a decision. That they exact truth of doubtfal or contested passages, and the probable motives of insignificant and ambiguous actions. The labour which is thus visibly bestowed on the work, often appears, therefore, disproportioned to the importance of the result. The history becomes, in a certain degree, languid and heavy; and something like a feeling of disappointment and impatience is generated, from the tardiness and excessive caution with which the story is carried forward. In those constant attempts, too, to verify the particulars which are narrated, a certain tone of debate is frequently assumed, which savours more of the orator than the historian; and though there is nothing florid or rhetorical in the general cast of the diction, yet those argumentative passages are evidently more akin to public speaking than to written composition. Frequent interrogations-short alternative propositions and an occasional mixture of familiar images and illustrations, -all denote a certain habit of personal altercation, and of keen and animated contention. Instead, therefore, of a work emulating the full and flowing narrative of Livy or Herodotus, we find in Mr. Fox's book rather a series of critical remarks on the narratives of preceding writers, mingled up with occasional details somewhat more copious and careful than the magnitude of the subjects seemed to require. The his tory, in short, is planned upon too broad a scale, and the narrative too frequently interrupted by small controversies and petty inde. We are aware that these objections may be owing in a good degree to the smallness of the fragment upon which we are unfortunately obliged to hazard them; and that the proportions which appear gigantic in this Lite relic, might have been no more than majestic in the finished work; but even after making allowance for this consideration, we cannot help thinking that the details are too minte, and the verifications too elaborate. cisions. The introductory chapter is full of admiable reasonings and just reflections. It begas with noticing, that there are certain periods in the history of every people, which are obviously big with important consequenecs and exercise a visible and decisive infinence on the times that come after. The reign of Henry VII. is one of these, with relation to England ;-another is that comprised between 1588 and 1640;-and the most remarkable of all, is that which extends from the last of these dates, to the death of Charles II-the era of constitutional principles and practical tyranny of the best laws, and the most corrupt administration. It is to the reView of this period, that the introductory chapter is dedicated. Mr. Fox approves of the first proceedings of the Commons; but censures without re had justice on their side, he says, canı ot be reasonably doubted, -but seems to think that something more might have been done, to bring matters to an accommodation. With regard to the execution of the King, he makes the following striking observations, in that tone of fearless integrity and natural mild ness, which we have already noticed as characteristic of this performance. "The execution of the King, though a far less violent measure than that of Lord Strafford, is an event of so singular a nature, that we cannot wonder that it should have excited more sensation than any other in the annals of England. This exemplary act of substantial justice, as it has been called by some, of enormous wickedness by others, must be considered in two points of view. First, was it not in itself just and necessary! Secondly, was the example of it likely to be salutary or pernicious? In regard to the first of these questions, Mr. Hume, not perhaps intentionally, makes the best justification of it, by saying, that while Charles lived, the projected Republic could never be secure. But to justify taking away the life of an individual, upon the principle of self-defence, the danger mus! be, not problematical and remote, but evident and immediate. The danger in this instance was not of such a nature; and the imprisonment, or even banishment of Charles, might have given to the republic such a degree of security as any govern ment ought to be content with. It must be con. fessed, however, on the other side, that if the republican government had suffered the King to escape, it would have been an act of justice and generosity wholly unexampled; and to have granted him even his life, would have been one among the more rare efforts of virtue. The short interval between the deposal and death of princes is become proverbial; and though there may be some few examples on the other side, as far as life is concerned, I doubt whether a single instance can be found, where liberty has been granted to a deposed monarch. Among the modes of destroying persons in such a situation, there can be little doubt but that adopted by Cromwell and his adherents is the least dis honourable. Edward the Second, Richard the Second, Henry the Sixth, Edward the Fifth, had none of them long survived their deposal; but this was the first instance, in our history at least, where, of such an act, it could be truly said, that it was not done in a corner. "As to the second question, whether the advantage to be derived from the example was such as to justify an act of such violence, it appears to me to be a complete solution of it to observe, that with respect to England (and I know not upon what ground we are to set examples for other nations, or, in other words, to take the criminal justice of the world into our hands), it was wholly needless, and therefore unjustifiable, to set one for kings, at a time when it was intended the office of king should be abolished, and consequently that no per. son should be in the situation to make it the rule of his conduct. Besides, the miseres attendant upon a deposed monarch, seem to be sufficient to deter any prince, who thinks of consequences, from running the risk of being placed in such a situation; or if death be the only evil that can deter of former tyrants deposed by their subjects, would by no means encourage him to hope he could avoid even that catastrophe. As before their eyes, yet feared not to violate the liberties of the people even more than he had at tempted to do. "After all, however, notwithstanding what the more reasonable part of mankind may think upoa |