bent literary men of that period In 1772 he succeeded his friend Mickle as Corrector of the Clarendon Press, Oxford, and entered St Alban's Hall in that University. In 1806 he published a complete edition of Mickle's works, and prefixed to it an interesting memoir of the deceased Poet. During the latter years of his life he performed no clerical duty, but lived retired, amusing himself with literature till within a few days of his death. Sept. 2. At the age of 84, the Rev. Dr Robt. Macculloch, of Dairsie, known to the public as author of a much-esteemed work, in two volumes, on the Prophecies of Isaiah. His name will be long held in affectionate remembrance by his parishioners, with whom he was connected, in the relation of pastor for upwards of fifty years; and to whom he was endeared, not more by the soundness of his pulpit ministrations than by the practical illustration of them which his life exhibited. He was a clergyman of the old school, and exemplified in his clerical deportment not a little of the conscious dignity for which it was distinguished. He received, it is said, his first religious impressions when attending a sermon by the celebrated Mr Whitefield. His discourses were not only highly popular among his own congregation, but, until age enfeebled his faculties, attracted considerable numbers from the neighbouring parishes. They were formed on the model of the older divines, whose solemn energy and evangelical unction the admirers of orthodoxy triumphantly contrast with the unsubstantial graces of those beautiful moral essays, which, under the designation of sermons, have issued from the school of Blair. He devoted, while strength permitted, a portion of every day, during winter as well as summer, to exercise in the open air; which, with the strict regimen that in other respects he observed, was probably the means of extending his life beyond the usual boundary. Of such traits in his character as may be deemed peculiar, two may be mentioned-first, that he formed a code of laws for the regulation, even to the minutest circumstance, of his domestic concerns; which the dread of his rebuke (which it is said was no easy thing to bear) disposed all concerned to yield the most implicit obedience to; and, secondly, that, twelve years previous to his decease, he had ordered the coffin in which he was interred to be prepared, for the purpose of aiding, by a striking sensible image, those solemn meditations on his latter end which he was in the frequent practice of indulging. -At Edinburgh, Mr Thomas Lees, preceutor of the High Church of this city. He had been ill for some time, but was out the day he died. As a bass and glee singer he was much admired. He was a native of Lancashire, and was a plain, inoffensive, honest man. -At Edinburgh, Mrs Hannah Blackwell, late Housekeeper at Marchmont House, in the 91st year of her age. She dressed the late Lady Marchimont for the Coronation of his late Majesty, George the Third, and was present at that august ceremony. She retained her mental faculties till the close of her long life. 3. At Northampton, aged 87, Dr William Kerr, physician there. 5. At East Grange, Mr David Ker, son of the late James Ker, of East Grange, Esq, 6. At Old Aberdeen, Isabella, daughter of the late George Seton, Esq. of Mounie, and wife of Dr Skene Ogilvy, senior minister of Old Machar. -At Pendreich, near Lasswade, aged 27 years, Mrs Margaret Melrose, wife of Mr James Macleish, merchant, Edinburgh, much and justly regretted; also, at No. 12. Montague-Street, on the 12th current, Helen, their daughter, aged four months. -At Edinburgh, Isabella, eldest daughter of the late Rev. Andrew Chatto of Mainhouse. -At his seat, Linstead Lodge, in the county of Kent, the Right Hon. John Roper, Lord Teynham. His Lordship dying unmarried, is succeeded by his first cousin, Henry Roper Curzon, Esq. eldest son of the late Hon. Francis Roper. -At No. 16. Minto-Street, Newington, Edinburgh, Mrs Jean Robertson, widow of the Rev. James Robertson, late minister of Ratho. Sept.7. At Wall Dury, in Esex, in the 45th year of her age, Amelia, wife of Joseph Grove, and eldest daughter of the late Lieut-General Goldie, of Goldie Lea, near Dumfries. -At his scat, Sydenham, Kent, in the 67th year of his age, Andrew Laurie, Esq. of the Adelphi, one of his Majesty's Justices of the Pence for the City and Liberty of Westminster, and County of Middlesex. -At Musselburgh, Mr John Thom, late merchant in Edinburgh. -At Southfield, by Auchtermuchty, Mr William Couper, late upholsterer in Edinburgh. At Kincardine O'Neil, Patrick Henderson, Esq. advocate in Aberdeen. 8. At Edinburgh, Mrs John Jeffrey, daughter of Dr James Hunter, St. Andrew's. 9. At Balerno, near Currie, Mr John Logan, paper manufacturer. -Lord Viscount Hampden. His Lordship had enjoyed his title only a few days, and is succeeded in the entailed estates by George, Earl of Buckinghamshire. -At Cally, Dumfries-shire, aged 100 years, Mrs Grace Cantley, relict of the deceased Mr Richard Cantley, gardener there. She was scarcely ever known to be confined by sickness till within a short time previous to her death, and enjoyed a very contented disposition. - At Aberdeen, in his 21st year, James Massie, Esq. 10. At Portobello, Mrs Margaret Pringle, widow of John Pringle, Esq. surgeon, R. N. 11. At Craigend, John Morison, Esq. of Craigend, aged 79. - Mr William Andrew, writer. - In the island of St. Croix, Dr James Hill, of Dumfries, on the eve of his return to his native country. -At St. John's, Ayrshire, Margaret Isabella, youngest daughter of David Ramsay, Esq. W. S. 12. At Coldstream, James Bartie, youngest son of Captain A. D. M'Laren, Berwickshire militia. - At his seat, near Southampton, after a long and severe illness, the Rev. Sir Charles Rich, Bart. in his 73d year. 13. At his house, Canongate, Edinburgh, Henry Prager, Esq. At the house of his nephew, near Aberdeen, Dr John Bate, physician in Montrose. Dr Bate practised with great zeal, ability, and success, for the long period of fifty years, having settled in Montrose in the year 1773. His conduct was marked by the most benevolent disinterestedness -he looked only to the welfare of his patient, and too little to his own interest. At Dalkeith, Mr Alexander Innes, watchmaker, aged 67 years. -At Glasgow, John Preston, Esq. 14. At Crooks of Kirkconnel, Mary Ann, daughter of Robert Maxwell, Esq. of Breoch, aged 17. 16. At the manse, Falkirk, after a long illness, Elizabeth, only daughter of the Rev. Dr Wilson, minister of Falkirk. At Auchtertool manse, Mrs Moffat, Kirkaldy. At London, aged 79, Lieut.-General Andrew Anderson, of the Hon. East India Company's service, on their establishment of Bombay. 17. At Edinburgh, Mrs Ann Stevenson, relict of Mr Henry Watson, late merchant in Edinburgh. -At Mount Melville, Maria Louisa, youngest daughter of John Whyte Melville, Esq. aged 12 months. -At Grandholm Cottage, in the 7th year of his age, James Martin Lindsay, eldest son of Lieut. Colonel Lindsay, 78th Highlanders. 18. At Daldowie, Miss Bogle of Daldowie, in her 80th year. 19. Mr Archibald Grahame, writer, Glasgow. 21. At London, the well known Major Cartwright. He left his lodgings at Hampstead about a fortnight ago, on account of the illness which terminated in his dissolution. The taper of life might in him be said to have burned to the socket; his disease was old age. If he had lived to the 24th, he would have completed his 84th year. 22. At King-Street, Leith, Jane, daughter of the late Mr Henry Band, merchant there. J. Ruthven & Son, Printers. *** The Correspondents of the EDINBURGH MAGAZINE and LITERARY MISCELLANY are respectfully requested to transmit their Communications for the Editor to ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE & COMPANY, Edinburgh, or to HURST, ROBINSON, & COMPANY, London; to whom also orders for the Work should be addressed. Printed by J. Ruthven & Son. THE EDINBURGH MAGAZINE, AND LITERARY MISCELLANY. NOVEMBER 1824. EXTRACTS FROM THE PORTFOLIO OF A SCHOLAR. 1. Did the Scottish Generals and Commissioners at Newark, by and with the authority of the Scottish Parliament, SELL Charles I. to the English Parliament, for the sum of Four Hundred Thousand Pounds Sterling? Mr HUME says, (History of England, Chap. LVIII.) Yes.-I say No; and I think it will not be difficult to prove a negative. When Charles I. formed the resolution of leaving Oxford, and flying to the Scottish camp at Newark, his affairs were reduced to the lowest ebb; his army had been totally routed at Naseby,-Bristol had surrendered, the West had been subdued by Fairfax,-and Montrose, after a series of brilliant but unprofitable victories, had been defeated by David Lesley at Philiphaugh: in a word, the Royalist cause seemed utterly ruined. It was in these circumstances that, listening to the advice of Montreville the French Ambassador, and recollecting that, in all the disputes about settling the terms of peace, the Scots had uniformly adhered to the milder side, and endeavoured to soften the rigour of the English Parliament, Charles made the unfortunate experiment, the issue of which has been supposed to entail an indelible stain upon our country. Now, the question to be disposed of is this: King Charles, having thrown himself into the hands of the Scots, who had formed an alliance with the English Parliament, and marched an army of twenty thousand men to their support, and who, consequently, were as much the King's enemies as the Parliament,-what course ought they (the Scots) to have pursued, when the Parliament insisted on the surrender of the King's person into their own hands? In answering this question, we may safely put altogether out of view the fine writing of Hume and others about "romantic generosity," and the glory the Scots would have acquired by maintaining and defending the King's person against his enemies, their allies. A great cause was at stake: Charles had attempted to subvert the religious and civil liberties of Scotland: that nation had taken up arms in defence of both, and had marched to the assistance of the English, who were engaged in the same struggle: fortune had favoured the popular side: and the King, reduced to extremities, had thrown himself on the mercy of those he judged the least implacable of his enemies. But, because his Majesty thought proper to adopt this step, is it for an instant to be supposed that the Scots should have abandoned all the advantages which had been purchased at the sacrifice of so much blood and treasure,-deserted the men they were bound by the faith of treaties to support,-made common cause with their inveterate enemies, the Cavaliers,-and turned their arms against those with whom they had embarked in a common struggle for all that is most dear and valuable to society? Who in his senses can dream, that men, who had taken up arms in defence of their religion and liberty, would so stultify themselves as far as consistency is *3 S VOL. XV. concerned, and perjure themselves as far as the faith of treaties is concerned, and betray their country, and the cause with the defence of which they were entrusted, because an appeal was made to their "generosity” by an unfortunate Prince, when he had no longer the means of carrying on the war he had begun, in support of unlimited prerogative? Yet, had the Scots persisted in maintaining the custody of the King's person, they would have been involved in all this inconsistency and guilt, as well as in a contest the most absurd, unnatural, and pernicious; they would have been traitors to their country, and to the principles they had sworn to defend; for which they would have had, in return, the enviable compensation of being pronounced by Tory historians a nation capable of "fits of romantic generosity," and being branded for ever as drivelling and wavering idiots, who embarked in a great cause to-day, and betrayed it, in a "fit of romantic generosity," to-morrow. But further: the Scots were not principals in the war; they were merely the allies of the English Parliament; and though, viewing the matter generally, Charles was as much the King of Scotland as of England, yet, having put himself in the hands of the Scottish army, upon English ground, he was undoubtedly comprehended within the jurisdiction of that kingdom, and could not be disposed of by any foreign nation. Nay, the Scots themselves were at this moment comprehended within the same jurisdiction, and consequently could not, in that situation, assume the rights which it might have been competent to them to exercise, had the transaction taken place within their own frontier. But waiving this objection altogether, and admitting that, in point of right, both parties were on a footing of the most perfect equality,-in other words, that there were two parties, having each a coordinate vote in regard to the disposal of the King's person; it is evident that two equal and antagonist claims could only be adjusted by negociation, which presumes that one of them must give way to the other; and that, as far as the general question is concerned, it was immaterial, in point of justice or right, whether the Scots retained the disposal of the King's person, or entrusted it into the hands of his English subjects, who, on many grounds, had a preferable title to their allies. This brings me to what constitutes the peculiar feature of the case. Hume says, that the only expedient which the Scots could embrace, "if they scrupled wholly to abandon the King, was immediately to return fully and cordially to their allegiance, and, uniting themselves to the Royalists in both kingdoms, endeavour, BY FORCE OF ARMS, to reduce the English Parliament to more moderate terms;" but he admits that this would have been a measure "full of extreme hazard," and would have overturned "what, with so much expense of blood and treasure, they had, during the course of so many years, been so carefully erecting :" in other words, it would have been tantamount to an abandonment of the Presbyterian religion, which they were bound by the Solemn League and Covenant to maintain, and to which the whole nation was ardently attached,—it would have been a most glaring act of perfidy towards those allies whom they had taken up arms to support. it would have been a sacrifice of public liberty, which the fortune of war had enabled them to wrest from a despotic king and a slavish court,-in brief, it would have been equivalent to a combination with their old and inveterate enemies, against their old and tried friends, for the restoration of that unlimited prerogative of which the Royalists were so much enamoured, and which the friends of liberty had suffered and bled so freely to restrict within due limits. It seems, therefore, even by Hume's showing, that the surrender of the King was inevitable, and that the Scottish Commissioners and the Scottish Parliament would have been either madmen, idiots, or traitors, or rather a happy combination of all the three, had they hesitated about the course which was so clearly pointed out for their adoption. But now comes the gravamen of the charge. All these reflections, we are assured, occurred to the Scottish Commissioners, who, nevertheless, "resolved to prolong the dispute, and to keep the King as a pledge for those arrears which they claimed from England, and which they were not likely, in the present dispo |