litical theories on which governments have hitherto been formed; and thus conducting mankind, by flow but fecure advance toward the fummit of political wifdom. The British History, in particular, is eminently useful to our politicians; for this obvious reafon, that the prefent political ftate of Great Britain owes its existence to events which British hiftory records: but in order to render this ftudy advantageous in its full extent, it is neceffary that political facts fhould be accurately ftated; and it is defirable that they fhould be directed with their full force toward the point of political inftruction, by being detached from other fubjects.

In both these refpects, the important publication, which is now to pafs under our notice, has peculiar merit. Dr. Somerville, by making it his firft object to exhibit the political principles and fpirit of the period concerning which he writes, and only introducing coincident events for the purpose of explaining and illuftrating political affairs, has written what may ftrictly be called a Political History; and he appears to have very induftriously compared the various fources of authentic information, in order to remove the ambiguities, and to obviate the difficulties, with which the ftruggles of contending parties have hitherto encumbered this portion of the English Hiftory.

One material part of this writer's defign is, to examine the evidence that arifes from the original papers which fome late hiftorians have collected and published. Though he acknowleges that these papers, in many inftances, give authority to opinions formerly controverted, and correct and enlarge the information of the impartial and induftrious inquirer, yet he thinks great caution neceffary in admitting conclufions drawn by thefe writers from the facts which they themselves have difcovered, on account of the ftrong temptation which neceffarily induces them to over-rate their difcoveries. He is particularly defirous of refcuing from undeferved obloquy fome of thofe great names which were fo highly revered by our ancestors as fufferers in the caufe of liberty, or as inftruments of delivering the nation from flavery; and he therefore combats the opinions of Mr. Macpherson, with respect to many important tranfactions and characters which occur in this history.

The work opens with a concife view of the leading facts, which mark the political fpirit and character of the times at the reftoration of Charles II. Zeal for loyalty, our author obferves, was the principle which then predominated; and the prince, the miniftry, and the parliament, were united in the fame views of policy :-but during this ferene ftate of politics, the feeds of oppofition were fecretly fown; till at length, on

Ff 2

the

the fall of Clarendon, an epoch commenced which was crowded with buftle and intrigue, and which exhibited faction in its most diversified forms. The causes of the mutual diffatisfaction which now arose between Charles and his parliament, and of the sudden tranfition from war to peace and even friendly alliance with Holland ;-the manner in which the king endeavoured to execute his crooked fyftem of policy, by means of the fecret council called the cabal ;-and the wife and temperate oppofition, which was made, by the commons, to the arbitrary meafures of adminiftration;-are clearly ftated. The introduction of the teft-act, which remains to the prefent time an infuperable wall of feparation between fellow-citizens, who are equally bound to perform the duties, and entitled to fhare the honours, of citizenship, is thus related, with reflections on the conduct of the Diffenters of that period, which well deferve attention:

Both houfes now turned their attention to ftrengthen the barriers of the conftitution in that quarter into which the king had repeatedly attempted to push the ufurpations of prerogative. A joint addrefs was prefented by both houfes of parliament, reprefenting the dangers arifing from popish recufants, and praying the king to command priests and jefuits to depart from the kingdom, and to difband all officers and foldiers who refused to take the oaths. This address alfo met with a favourable answer from the king.

A more impregnable and lafting fence for the protection of the church of England the zeal of this parliament raised, by obtaining the royal affent to the teft act, which excluded from any office or place of trust or profit, all who did not renounce the doctrine of tranfubftantiation, and receive the facrament of the Lord's Supper, according to the form of the church of England. It is a curious and memorable circumftance, that an act, which fhut the door of preferment against the proteftant diffenters, and doomed them to the fame political incapacity with Roman catholics, not only paffed without any oppofition from the former; but, that it was promoted by the most refpectable leaders of their party.

This conceffion of the proteftant diffenters has been often applauded by their friends, as a fingular example of prudence and generofity; because they facrificed their rights and refentments, to the dread of impending popery, and the fecurity of the reformed religion. Their conduct upon this occafion, whether examined by the roles 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 work principles ? Did they not abandon their rights, as men and as chriftians? rights, the renunciation of which, for a single day, no fear of danger, nor profpect of future peace, can justify, at the tribunal of confcience.

The event of providence has inftructed us, by this, and every fimilar experiment, to reprobate the imprudence, as well as the immo

rality 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 re ard of their confent to the teft 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 impofed; but from which even that liberality is not adequate to emancipate them, while it is counteracted by religious bigotry, and the timid policy of those who difpense the favours of government.'

Other tranfactions of this reign are concifely related with a continual attention to the hiftorian's leading defign; from which we fhall felect, as particularly applicable to the present times, the author's account of the attempt which was made, in 1679, to correct abuses in public expenditure, to retrench the influence of the court on the parliament, and to extend the liberty of the fubject:

While the commons were vehemently engaged in forwarding the bill of exclufion, they contrived with dexterous policy, to introduce fuch inquiries as furnished new arguments for that measure; and which at the fame time obliquely reflected upon the character of the duke of York. They appointed a committee to inquire into the mifcarriages of the navy, the management of which had principally devolved upon him, and in which he had hitherto been fuppofed to poffefs diftinguished merit. A ftrict examination into the expenditure and the abuses of the revenue was carried on, with a view of expofing the corrupt practices of the king and his minifters during the late parliament; and to render infamous thofe members who had yielded to their influence. Charles Bertrey, who had received a commiffion for diftributing the fum of two hundred and fifty thousand four hundred and fixty-feven pounds, for the fecret fervice of government, was, by the order of the house, committed to the cuftody of the ferjeant at arms, becaufe he refused to ftate to them the particular articles in which that fum had been expended. Sir Stephen Fox, who had been employed by the court in the same office, was ordered to produce every account of money paid to members, or to other perfons, for the purpose of keeping public tables, and performing any fecret fervice for the court. From Sir Stephen Fox's evidence it appeared, that the fum of three thousand four hundred pounds had been paid, annually, in penfions to members of parliament; a fum which fell short of the expectation of the authors of this investigation. There is reafon however to fufpect, that this fum was but an inconfiderable proportion of the money diftributed for the purpose of corrupting members. For it is remarkable, that fome names were added, upon the knowledge of private members, to the lift of penfioners delivered by Sir Stephen Fox, who spoke merely from memory, and the books of account never were produced, nor could afterwards be found. It must also be observed, that this inquiry was confined to the abuse of the revenue; and it may be conjectured, that a great part of the money

Ff3

which

which the king received from France, was applied to the fame profligate purpose of domestic corruption.

To retrench the parliamentary influence of the court, a bill was twice read in the commons, to prevent any member of the houfe from accepting of any poft or penfion, during that feffion of parliament. They extended their views beyond a temporary reformation, and turned their thoughts towards the most effectual means for fecuring the independence, and preferving the integrity, of fucceeding parliaments. In order to prevent the court from conferring the privilege of voting on the very eve of an election, upon perfons devoted to its intereft, and often brought from a diftance, to counteract the natural and the pure influence of conftituents, the period of one year's refidence in the county or burgh in which they voted, and two hundred pounds clear of all incumbrances, were propofed to conftitute a qualification for a vote. Heavy penalties. were enacted against corruption, and the magiftrates and officers who fhould connive at it. The bill concluded with declaring, that no future parliament fhould, either by prorogation, adjournment, or any other method, be continued above the fpace of two years. That the commons might totally exclude the crown from every hope of fupply by any expedient, without their confent and authority, a bill was brought in and committed, to secure the fubje& from the illegal exaction of money. Thefe laudable efforts for improving the conftitution were fruftrated by a misunderstanding which happened between the two houles, in various points relative to the trial of lord Danby. A bill for fecuring the liberty of the fubject, known by the name of the habeas corpus, met with better fuccefs, and will for ever diftinguish this parliament, by the grateful remembrance of pofterity.'

Of Dr. Somerville's talents for political difquifition, this work affords many favourable fpecimens. Among thefe, is an entire chapter on the caufes of the change in the temper of the nation during the reign of Charles II. from loyalty to dif affection. The caufes on which he diftinctly and ably infifts, are, the oppreffive government which prevailed in Scotland; an unbounded licentioufnefs both in converfation and writing, which propagated fufpicions, and fomented jealoufies; the extreme dependence of the crown; its narrow influence, ftill farther diminished by the inftability of the king and the difunion of his minifters; the fupport which oppofition derived from the patronage of many perfons of the firft rank and influence, particularly the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Duke of Monmouth, and Lord Ruffel; and laftly, the intrigues of France, by which Charles fuffered himself to be fo fhamefully feduced, as to excite a general indignation among the people in England. Thefe feveral topics are ably illuftrated and fupported. We must fatisfy ourselves with quoting the concluding reflections on this period of hiftory, which more particularly refpect the conduct of oppofition; and to this paflage is added a curious note, con

taining

taining an interefting vindication of thofe great and immortal names, Sydney and Ruffel. The paffage is as follows:-the

note we are obliged to omit:

Several measures were purfued by oppofition in the three laft parliaments of Charles, the motives of which appear doubtful, and fome of them carry the plainest symptoms of a factious and turbulent fpirit.

The fanguinary violence with which fucceeding parliaments profecuted the difcovery of the plot, their partiality to the evidence of the most infamous witneffes, the artifices by which they propagated fufpicions against the innocent, and exaggerated the fears of a credulous multitude, have unfortunately enabled the enemies of the proteftant religion to charge it with acts of cruelty but little inferior to thofe atrocious deeds which ftain the hiftory of the papal inquifition.

The affociation bill, by which the members of both houses became bound to avenge the king's death, if that event fhould happen, upon the adherents to the Roman catholic religion, was a palpable act of injuftice, inasmuch as it affumed for certain an event which was contingent, and laid the foundation of arbitrary and of illfounded crimination. Under the mafk of loyalty, it provoked danger from a new quarter; it proclaimed impunity to the proteftant affaffin, and fuggefted to the bloody enthufiaft a fafe method, for the fatiating of his vengeance against that fect, which he hated and wished to extirpate.

If the commons had omitted to declare the right of the subject to petition the throne, after that right had been difcouraged by the frowns and prohibited by the proclamation of the king, they might have been accused of a breach of truft with refpect to the most important interefts of their conftituents. If not fatisfied with ascertaining this right, they had confined their inquiries and their cenfures merely to their own members who had voted against the petitions, they might have appeared to unprejudiced fpectators to have kept within the tract of a legal and temperate jurifdiction. But when they denounced vengeance against perfons who had not been guilty of any breach of privilege, when they fent their meffengers into remote parts of the country to apprehend perfons of a private ftation, who, by fair argument, and by an open and avowed declaration of their principles, had oppofed the late petitions, they trefpaffed upon the laws of moderation and of decency, and afforded their enemies too folid ground for retorting the reproach of that arbitrary fpirit which they afcribed to the court.

The refolutions of the commons, formed in oppofition to the judgment given by the lords, with regard to the right of bishops to vote in cafes of life and death, has been cenfured as an intrusion upon the jurifdiction of another court. If, however, any great national object had been at ftake, the importance of the end, and the purity of the motive, might have palliated the error of a new and an overtrained exertion of power; but when we trace this measure to the associated refentment of France, and of the country party, bent

Ff4