to his father's government, observes, that "something may be attributed to his admiration of the talents of some, to his personal friendship for others, among the leaders of the whigs, more to the aptitude of a generous nature to adopt, and if I may so say, to become enamoured of, those principles of justice, benevolence, and equality, which form the true creed of the party which he espoused."

As Mr. Serjeant Heywood's book is designed as a complete answer to the publication of Mr. Rose in all its parts, to the introduction of Mr. Rose he has opposed a very well written preface. And as Mr. Rose has set out with claiming the merit of impartiality, the learned serjeant has begun with an endeavour to remove him from this ground: but in this endeavour we think there is some little unfairness imputable to him. When Mr. Rose intimates that his opposition to Mr. Fox has died with the object, it was too much to construe such a declaration into an admission, that his opposition was to the person and not to the principles of Mr. Fox. Being for so many years the strenuous friend of Mr. Fox's great political rival, and engaged in perpetual contest with Mr. Fox on the subjects within his department, or on which he had bestowed his attention, it was natural for him to feel towards Mr. Fox while alive, that animosity, which is so apt to be engendered by the constant irritation of dispute. As long as that animosity remained, he could scarcely have criticised any political, or indeed any other work, of Mr. Fox, with the requisite impartiality of personal feelings. This sort of disqualification, he means to say, lasted no longer than the source from which the irritation that occasioned it arose. And this seems to be an avowal deserving rather commendation than censure.

In the passage immediately succeeding, the learned serjeant finds fault with Mr. Rose for saying, that there was a time when he hoped to have seen a junction of Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt; but that in reading Mr. Fox's history, he had conceived a doubt how far their co-operation could have been permanent; because "the political principles of Mr. Pitt certainly would not have accorded with those of Mr. Fox, in the manner in which he has developed them," and then qualifying that observation by saying, that, “however, Mr. Fox might not have acted according to the demonstration of his principles in his book." The inference which Mr. Serjeant Heywood draws from these observations of Mr. Rose is, that they impute to Mr. Fox a concealment, during the greater part of his political life, of those principles which his book has developed; whereas the meaning of Mr. Rose, as he has expressed it, seems to be no more than this; that, though looking to the history of parties, it was not extravagant to hope that in the cri

tical state of the times, an union might be formed of the talents of these two great men for the service of their country, notwithstanding the apparent obstruction from their long parliamentary opposition to each other; yet that when he looked at the principles deliberately avowed by Mr. Fox, in a work that was to record them to posterity, he thought a solid co-operation between Mr. Fox and his great friend very improbable. Whether he was right or wrong in this opinion we do not pretend to decide; we mean only to vindicate the passage from the imputation of absurdity. Mr. Serjeant Heywood then observes, that Mr. Pitt could not but be acquainted with Mr. Fox's principles when he made overtures to introduce him into power. All this sounds well, but we are afraid that on these occasions the expectation of a coalition proceeds rather upon the mutual knowledge which party men possess of each other's weakness and want of wellfounded principles, or, in other words, of the greater respect felt on each side for men than measures, than on any particular acquaintance with each other's principles.

We should fatigue ourselves and our readers if we were to attempt to arbitrate between Mr. Serjeant Heywood and Mr. Rose, in all the minuter differences between them. Some of the disputed points are in themselves almost trifling, and only derive an importance from the skill which the serjeant has shewn in the discussion of them; for it must be admitted, and indeed we do most willingly admit, because we entertain a very high respect for the character and talents of Mr. Serjeant Heywood, that he has employed upon this contest the energies of a powerful mind, rendered more than ordinarily interesting by a dignified display of affection for his lost friend. Yet in some of his endeavours we think he has failed, and principally from his evident anxiety to leave Mr. Rose not an inch of ground to stand upon. The quotation from Barillon's letter of the 7th of December, 1684, produced by Mr. Fox in his Appendix, page viii. does appear to be open to the charge of mistranslation. The word 'pays,' as it seems to us, can never be properly translated 'mother country,' as in Mr. Fox's version; and that, when we are to chuse between mother country' and 'colony' in translating it, we feel no hesitation in preferring the latter. The passage in which it occurs consists of a piece of advice given to Charles by his tory ministers, in which they maintained, that his Majesty could, and ought to govern countries so distant, in a manner which should appear to him most suitable for preserving or augmenting the strength and riches of the 'mother country,' as Mr. Fox translates the French word 'pays,' or of the 'colony,' as it is translated by Mr. Rose. We have said we give the preference to Mr. Rose's

translation, and we think that his translation gives a much more reputable and salutary character to the advice; but we are far from suspecting that Mr. Fox was capable of any insidious perversion of the sense to serve any party object. The error, if it be one, seems wholly attributable to inadvertency.

We confess that the learned serjeant first brought us acquainted with the many inaccuracies of Mr. Rose's work, and were not a little astonished by the discovery, considering the official habits of that gentleman. They are certainly numerous; and we should be doing great injustice to his opponent if we did not express our admiration as well of the diligence and sagacity with which he has detected them, as of the nervous and perspicuous style in which he has made the communication. The serjeant must, however, forgive us for declaring, that we should have been, in general, better pleased if the sarcasms which accompany these communications had been spared; and that it appears to us that in some instances he has laid a little too much stress upon unsubstantial mistakes. The frequent error of Mr. Rose in alluding to passages as contained in Mr. Fox's history, which are either the words of his editor, or cited from private letters of Mr. Fox, seems very unaccountable. This sort of blunder, however, frequently occurs.

"He must be a very partial reader," says Mr. Rose, "who can complain of a free examination of a work in which such a man as Hume is characterized in the following words: 'He was an excellent man, and of great power 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 admiration, which women and children sometimes have for kings, than the opinion, right or wrong, of a philosopher."" Now, certainly, this character of Hume by Mr. Fox is not found in Mr. Fox's historical work, but in a private letter cited by his nephew in the introduction.

Mr. Rose makes a defence for Hume, which does not deserve, in our opinion, the contempt which his opponent endeavours to throw upon it. "That Mr. Hume had prejudices," says Mr. Rose, "I do not dispute; but they were the prejudices of systein, not of party. Viewing with the eye of a philosopher the origin and progress of the British constitution, he probably thought he discovered in it more of the monarchical, and less of the democratical preponderance, than common opinion had sometimes ascribed to it. That this general opinion occasionally influenced his opinions, and even coloured his narrative, I admit: but in his details of this very portion of the British history, which Mr. Fox has chosen as an era in the settlement of

its constitution, his account of the conduct of King James, and his reflections upon it during his reign, appear to me to be as severely reprehensive as could well be expected; although in giving his character on his abdication, he shewed him more favour than he probably would have done if he had known all that has since transpired." Mr. Serjeant Heywood considers this character of Hume, as an historian, by Mr. Rose, as perfectly agreeing with what is stated above to have been said on that subject by Mr. Fox, and therefore as affording no ground for the remark of Mr. Rose, that Mr. Fox's manner of characterizing Hume's partiality for kings, was a special reason for subjecting his work to a free examination. We have thus stated the question on this point between the parties, and we will leave the reader to judge how far the serjeant is justified in his ani

madversions.

A similar instance of erroneous quotation is afterwards produced by the serjeant, which will certainly reflect some discredit upon Mr. Rose's accuracy. We will state it in the words of our author, as they will at the same time afford the reader a specimen of the style and manner in which his comments are expressed.

"Another instance tending to shew the careless manner in which the observations have been written occurs respecting a quotation, supposed to be made from Mr. Fox's work respecting Lord Bolingbroke. It is stated to begin thus: Mr. Fox says, Bolingbroke in particular had confounded, &c.' Here Mr. Rose has made two mistakes: for neither in the historical work nor in any published letter of Mr. Fox is this paragraph found, and the passage to which it is presumed allusion is made, for he has omitted to refer to it, contains no assertion, but an inference only. By turning to the sixth page of Lord Holland's preface, the reader will find that the words quoted were written by him, and contain only an inference, which he, and not Mr. Fox, had drawn from his own observation. The sentence begins, ' it could not escape the observation of Mr. Fox, that, &c. and that Lord Bolingbroke in particular had confounded, &c.' For the justness of the remark Lord Holland alone is responsible, but the terms in which it is expressed preclude the idea that he intended to state positively that Mr. Fox entertained the opinion; he only infers that such must have been his opinion from the conviction impressed upon his own mind. This quotation serves as the introduction to five pages of extraneous matter, consisting chietiy of what Mr. Rose had heard the late Lord Marchmont say, he had heard the late Lord Bolingbroke say. Under what influence or bias these mistakes were made it is not

very material to inquire; but they do not exhibit a favourable view of the official accuracy to be expected in the ensuing pages of the work in question."

We cannot but think with Mr. Serjeant Heywood, that there was no reason to disapprove of the periods into which Mr. Fox has divided the history of this country before the era at which he takes it up, viz. 1st, from the accession of Henry the Seventh to the year 1588; 2dly, from the year 1588 to 1640; and, 3dly, from 1640 to the crisis with which he commences his work. We may make, if we please, a mere mechanical division of history, for the thing is quite arbitrary, but it seems more rational and useful to fix upon certain points of time at which the mind naturally pauses to reflect upon the immediate and remote consequences of events. Mr. Fox has assigned these periods with reference to those events which have induced important changes in the political, intellectual, and moral state of the people, rather than to those of greater absolute magnitude, but which have not been attended with consequences so permanent. The serjeant has defended the propriety of Mr. Fox's distribution of his historical periods with great sense and clearness, and as his observations are instructive and useful, we will extract the passage for the benefit of our readers.

"The commencement of the first period objected to, is fixed at the year 1588, and ends at the year 1640. To this arrangement Mr. Fox was naturally led by the consideration, that the preceding period, from the accession of Henry the Seventh to 1588, was one, in which the political state of the country was materially changed by regulations, of which tyranny was the immediate, and liberty the remote consequence. The next succeeding period he describes as one, in which, by the cultivation of science, and the arts of civil life, during a season of almost uninterrupted tranquillity and peace, there was a great general improvement in the people, but particularly in their manners and style of thinking. The distinction between the two periods cannot be mistaken by an attentive reader. Mr. Rose makes no objection to the commencement of this period, but would extend it so far as to include the whole of Elizabeth's reign, and gives four reasons for objecting to its concluding earlier. The first is, because there was no change of system in the government of Queen Elizabeth during her whole reign. To this it may be answered, that the second period is selected, not on account of its political features, but the general improvement of the people, which advanced more rapidly, because there was no change. And we may ask, how the steadiness of her government can be used as an argument on either side, or render her reign more fit to be placed in one period or the other?-The next reason is, that the authors, to whom Mr. Fox justly attributes the astonishing progress of literature, wrote in her reign. They certainly did, and for that reason,