the seals. The parliament thanked the king for it, and for turning all Roman Catholics out of his service. Clarendon impeached. Sir William Coventry was active in it. His prudence and honesty in rejecting a proposal made by the Presbyterian party; who designed, thereby, a division between the king and the duke of York. He retires to France. The earl of Northumberland and Leicester, lord Hollis and another, met at Guildford. They made it no secret. Northumberland at St. James's, talked freely to the duke of York against the Chancellor, who was hated, and of the resolution to impeach him; but said, this was not all, the nation would not be satisfied unless the guards were disbanded, and other grievances redressed. He talked very seditiously, though the duke checked him. The earl told him, that he had said nothing but what he would repeat to the king the next day; as he did with insolence enough. The duke urged, in vain, the necessity of the guards, for the king's safety and national quiet; that the wart of them had been fatal to the late king and his governinent. The seditious stuck to their point, and joined with the Chancellor's enemies; hoping that his impeachment would breed a quarrel between the king and the duke of York. "The king took the seals from the Chancellor. He told the duke of York of the resolution; that it was not out of any dissatisfaction with the Chancellor, but the necessity of his affairs; and that it was better to do it of himself than let it be torn from him by the parliament. He ordered the duke to tell bim, that he must send the seals; and to shew his regard for him, he would confirm the little private pension he usually received. The Chancellor sent the seals; and told the duke of York, that his enemies would not stop there, but proceed to the last degree to expose the king and crown, to accomplish his ruin. So it proved. "The parliament met on the tenth of October. Sir T. Littleton moved thanks to the king, for his speech and for taking the great seal from Clarendon; and to consider the heads of the king's and the Lord Keeper's speeches. The clause about Clarendon would hardly have passed, had not the king ordered his servants to let it be known he desired it; and Clarendon charged his friends not to oppose it, being resolved to let none of his private concerns disturb the king's affairs. The same means were used in the House of Lords, when they were moved to join in the Address, else it had not passed there. When it came to a vote, the duke of York and several others withdrew, not to oppose the king, as they looked on it as an ill precedent for the crown. "On the 26th of October, the Chancellor was accused, on public fame; and a committee was appointed to consider of proceedings and precedents. That very day, the duke of York, in discourse with the king, about the talk of Clarendon's advising him to govern by an army and lay aside parliaments; the king assured him, that he had never given him such advice. His enemies considered not public good, but private malice; and getting to the head of affairs, give the king and crown a fatal blow. The king soon found the effects. The duke of York was seized with the small-pox in the beginning of November; and before his recovery the heat of the prosecution was over, else he would have been charged with influencing the Lords not to imprison Clarendon. Buckingham and lord Berkeley were so malicious, as, in their common discourse, to insinuate that the king was in danger, by letting his brother have his own guards to wait on himself at Whitehall; none knowing what the duke might be prevailed on to do by the Chancellor and his duchess. Some Presbyterians sent to Clarendon, offering to stand by him, if he would stand by himself. He saw their malice; and the king apprehending heats in the House of Commons, sent to him to withdraw out of the realm privately. Clarendon, as the duke was recovering, sent him word of the message and his resolution to obey it. The Presbyterians were very angry at his disappointing them. "Thus fell the earl of Clarendon; from whose fall one may date the beginning of all the misfortunes which happened since, and the decay of the authority of the crown; he generally supporting that prerogative, which his successors never minded. He was a private gentleman of a good family, bred in the law, had good sense, and very eloquent; always esteemed for his good parts. He was chosen by the late king a private manager for him in the House of Commons, which he performed with great dexterity and fidelity. He was entrusted at court with the most secret affairs; for his services, made Chancellor of the Exchequer; one of the council to the prince of Wales; relied on and went with him to France. He was sent ambassador with Cottington, then Lord Treasurer, to Spain. He returned to the king at Paris, and was made his first minister. He had the management of the Restoration, with Monk and Sandwich. At the Restoration, he was in such favour with the king, that nobody durst oppose him. He carried all before him. He made his friend Southampton, Treasurer; and by the aid of the duke of Ormond and the bishops, was caressed by most. As to the crown, he let the court of wards and purveyance be parted with. But he did not get a good substantial revenue settled on the crown, though it might have been easily done in the first parliament which the king called. This was out of fear, that the crown should grow too great and the Roman Catholic religion be brought in, if the king was at his ease; the duke of Ormond and Daniel O'Neil having, in the king's journey to Spain, observed him inclined to it. "Clarendon being removed, his enemies divided; each pretending to succeed in the ministry. Sir. William Coventry, without whose help Buckingham and Arlington could not have carried on the plot, expected it, and was the only man fit for it. But the other two joining against him, though of the best capacity of any in the kingdom, got him out of all his employments; and then strove who should have most credit with the king, whose affairs suffered by their disagreement and insufficiency. "After the Chancellor's removal, the ministers disagreed among themselves. Sir William Coventry was turned out of all his employments by Bucks and lord Arlington. They all joined to lessen the duke of York's interest with the king, lest he should get Clarendon recalled. When the duke recovered of the small-pox, he gave in the House of Lords, his reasons for voting against Clarendon's impeachment; because no proof was made of any of the crimes laid to his charge. The king was, on this account, colder to the duke. The malicious insinuations of his enemies were fruitless. The Chancellor's friends were removed." I have said that the Life of King James the Second, in Macpherson's Original Papers, &c. is there represented to have been extracted from the Memoirs of King James the Second, written in that prince's own hand: for it may possibly admit of question, whether Macpherson does or not assert this of it; though there cannot be a doubt that he intends his readers should believe it. He expresses himself with a generality which well illustrates the ancient maxiin of the lawyers, dolosus versatur in generali'bus.'* In his Advertisement' he says, Mr. Macpherson appears to have had great skill in the use of ambiguous terms. He concludes his Advertisement prefixed to his Original Papers, &c. thus "The Originals are now in the hands of the bookseller." It is absolutely impossible to determine with certainty what originals he means. Mr. Laing, in his admirable Dissertation on the Gaelic Imposture of Macpherson (it is scarcely possible too highly to commend the sagacity, the candour, the diligence, the learning and the genuine eloquence exhibited in that Dissertation) with shrewdness and with truth observes, (4 Hist. of Scotland, &c. 493.) of the bard of Badenoch and his coadjutor, "When his impure hands are imposed on history, the misquotations and fictions detected in his Introduction to the History of Britain, and his cold malig nity towards the most illustrious characters, should teach us to receive his Original Papers with extreme distrust, and we must regret that the State Papers of the Stuarts and of William, by some strange fatality, were reserved for the translator of Ossian and sir John Dalrymple." | "The extracts from the Life of King James the Second, were partly taken by the late Mr. Thomas Carte and partly by the editor, in a journey he made for that purpose to France." In his Introduction he tells us that Mr. Carte having obtained an order for inspecting such papers as lay open in the Scotch College at Paris, spent several months in that place, making extracts and collecting notes. In particular he made very large and accurate extracts from the Life of King James the Second, written in that prince's own hand. He then gives us to understand, that Carte's papers were placed in his hands, and adds,that "when he examined them with precision, he found that the extracts from the Life of King James the Second, threw a new and striking light on almost all the transactions of his brother's reign. This circumstance induced him to begin his history with the restoration of monarchy, and to satisfy himself, as well as to authenticate his materials to the public, he went to Paris to make still farther discoveries, and in particular to make fresh extracts from King James's Memoirs. “During his stay in France, he not only had an opportunity to be satisfied concerning the faithfulness of Carte's extracts, but even to make many valuable additions of his own. The Memoirs left by king James in his own hand, consist rather of memorandums made for his own use, when the transactions happened, than a regular narration of events. He frequently lays down with precision, the reasons which weighed with himself in directing his conduct; and upon the whole, his papers form very important materials for the history of Britain, during his own times. In Carte's extracts, as well as in those of the editor, the language of king James is, in a great measure, preserved. That prince was not an elegant writer; and an abridgment must, in its nature, be still more stiff and dry than an original. Instead, therefore, of expecting entertaining reflections, and a well connected detail of transactions, the reader must content himself with an unadorned narrative of such facts as were the secret, and hitherto unknown, springs of the great events of the times. "But if the Memoirs of king James canot raise their author to the rank of a fine writer, they certainly do him credit as a man. There is an air of veracity in all the accounts given by that prince, that is much more valuable to an intelligent reader, than the choicest flowers of rhetoric and best turned periods. Indeed, the manner in which the papers, called his Memoirs, were written, precludes every suspicion of unfaithfulness on his side. His notes were generally made upon the * These words "lay open," Macpherson prints in capitals. They may not be unim portant. See the extract inserted below, from Mr. Fox's Letter to Mr. Laing. spot; and always before there was any necessity to palliate the circumstances of the transactions related. Besides, he was not of a complexion to misrepresent. He affected to guide himself by principle in all his actions; and to deem the slightest deviation from truth a crime. In his opinions he is frequently wrong, but very seldom in any fact that fell within his own immediate knowledge." Here we may observe that sometimes the appellation Life, and sometimes the appellation Memoirs, is employed to denote papers in king James's own writing, and as the two appellations are not uncommonly used in the same sense, it is natural to conclude that Macpherson used them both as synonymous terms, to denote one and the same collection of papers: yet it is not improbable, that he designedly used the two words on account of their applicability to two different collections. We learn from bishop Burnet (1 Hist. of his own Times, 168 fol. ed. of 1724) that James kept a constant journal of all that passed, of which he shewed the bishop a great deal. The papers from which Macpherson extracted, might, according to his account of them, be reasonably inferred to be this journal: "They consist rather of memorandums made for his own use, when the transactions happened, than a regular narration of events." "His notes were generally made upon the spot, and always before there was any necessity to palliate the circumstances of the transactions related." But the internal evidence very little agrees with this character. Let us select a few instances. King James writing a journal at the time, would not in 1661 speak of a woman under a title which she did not obtain till nine years afterwards, (see 1 Macph. Orig. Pap. 20): nor would he in 1662 mention that persons then taken up were con fined till 1667, (see 1Macph. Orig. Pap. 21): nor insert Bristol's attack on Clarendon (the supposed journalist's father-in-law) among the occurrences of 1665, when it is notorious, and proved by the Journals of the House of Lords, that it took place in 1663, (see 1 Macph. Orig. Pap. 35). For one of these anticipations, and of another which occurs in p. 24, Macpherson accounts, very unsatisfactorily, by gratuitously supposing those particular paragraphs to have been written out of the order in which he publishes them. This is sufficient presumptive evidence to prove that Macpherson's extracts were not made from an original journal, and that he must at the time have known this to be the fact. But the matter seems to be put out of all doubt, by the following interesting pas sage from lord Holland's Address to the Reader, prefixed to Mr. Fox's History of the early part of the Reign of James the Second: "With respect to Carte's extract, I have no • doubt but it is faithfully copied; but on 6 'this extract it is necessary to make an observation, which applies to all the rest, 'both of Carte's and Macpherson's, and which leads to the detection of an impos'ture of the latter, as impudent as Ossian itself. The extracts are evidently made, not from a journal, but from a narrative; and I have now ascertained beyond all 'doubt, that there were in the Scotch College two distinct manuscripts, one in 'James's own hand, consisting of papers of ⚫ different sizes bound up together, the other a sort of historical narrative, compiled 'from the former. The narrative was said to have been revised and corrected, as to style, by Dryden the poet, (meaning probably Charles Dryden, the great poet's son,) and it was not known in the college whether it was drawn up in James's life, or by the direction of his son, the Pretender. 'I doubt whether Carte ever saw the origi 'nal journal; but I learn, from undoubted authority, that Macpherson never did, and yet to read his Preface, page 6 and 7, (which pray advert to,) one would have 'supposed, not only that he had inspected it ' accurately, but that all his extracts at least, if not Carte's also, were taken from it. Macpherson's impudence in attempting 'such an imposition, at a time when almost any man could have detected him, would have been in another man, incredible, if 'the internal evidence of the extracts them'selves against him were not corroborated 6 by the testimony of the principal persons ' of the College. And this leads me to a 'point of more importance to me. Principal Gordon thought, when I saw him at Paris, in October 1802, that all the papers were lost. I now hear from a well-informed 'person, that the most material, viz. those 'written in James's own hand-writing, were 'indeed lost, and in the way mentioned by 'Gordon, but that the Narrative, from which only Macpherson made his extracts, is still existing, and that Mr. Alexander Cameron, Blackfriars Wynd, Edinburgh, ei'ther has it himself, or knows where it is to 'be found.' There "The above information was correct. is strong presumptive evidence, that the manuscripts of king James the Second were destroyed; but the Narrative, as described, was then, and is now, in the hands of Dr. Cameron, Roman Catholic bishop in Edinburgh. It could not be in the possession of a person who is better qualified to judge of its merits, and on whose fidelity, should he be induced to print it, the public might more implicitly rely. I am indebted to his accu "It is the opinion of the present possessor of the narrative, that it was compiled from the original documents by Thomas Innes, one of the Superiors of the College, and author of a work entitled, A Critical Essay on the ancient Inhabitants of Scotland.""" racy and friendship, for some additional information respecting the manner in which the manuscripts of the Scotch College were lost. As the facts are in themselves curious, I lay before the reader his succinct and interesting relation of them, contained in a letter to me, dated Edinburgh, March 2, 1808. Before lord Gower, the British embassador, 'left Paris, in the beginning of the French 'Revolution, he wrote to principal Gordon, ' and offered to take charge of those valuable papers, (king James's Manuscripts, &c.) * and deposit them in some place of safety in Britain. I know not what answer was returned, but nothing was done. Not long thereafter, the Principal came to England, ' and the care of every thing devolved on Mr. A. Innes, the only British subject who re'mained in it. About the same time, Mr. 'Stapleton, then President of the English 'College of St. Omer, afterwards Bishop in England, went to Paris, previously to his ' retiring from France, and Mr. Innes, who 'had resolved not to abandon his post, con'sulted with him about the means of preserving the Manuscripts. Mr. Stapleton 'thought, if he had them at St. Omer, he I could, with small risk, convey them to England. It was therefore resolved, that they should be carefully packed up, ad'dressed to a Frenchman, a confidential 'friend of Mr. Stapleton, and remitted by some public carriage. Some other things were put up with the Manuscripts. The whole arrived without any accident, and was laid in a cellar. But the patriot'ism of the Frenchman becoming suspicious, 'perhaps on account of his connection with the English College, he was put in prison: and his wife apprehensive of the consequences of being found to have English Manuscripts, richly bound and ornamented 'with royal arms, in her house, cut off the boards, and destroyed them, The Manu'scripts thus disfigured, and more easily huddled up in any sort of bundle, were 'secretly carried, with papers belonging to 'the Frenchman himself, to his countryhouse, and buried in the garden. They were not, however, permitted to remain 'long there; the lady's fears increased, and 'the Manuscripts were taken up and reduced 'to ashes. "This is the substance of the account given 'to Mr. Innes, and reported by him to me ' in June, 1802, in Paris. I desired it might be authenticated by a proces verbale. A 'letter was therefore written to St. Omer, 'either by Mr. Innes, or by Mr. Cleghorn, 'a lay gentleman, who had resided in the English College of St. Omer, and was personally acquainted with the Frenchman, and happened to be at Paris at this time. 'The answer given to this letter was, that the good man, under the pressure of old age and other infirmities, was alarmed by the proposal of a discussion and investigation, which revived in his memory past sufferings, and might, perhaps, lead to a " renewal of them. Any further corres'pondence upon the subject seemed useless, especially as I instructed Mr. Innes to go "to St. Omer, and clear up every doubt, in a formal and legal manner, that some 'authentic document might be handed 'down to posterity concerning those valuable Manuscripts. 1 did not foresee that war was to be kindled up anew, or that my friend Mr. Innes was to die so 'soon.' "Mr. Cleghorn, whom I mentioned above, is at present at the Catholic seminary of 'Old-Hall Green, Puckeridge, Hertfordshire. 'He can probably name another gentleman 'who saw the Manuscripts at St. Omer, and 'saved some small things, (but unconnected 'with the Manuscripts,) which he carried away in his pocket, and has still in his possession. upon "I need not trouble your lordship with my ' reflections upon this relation; but I ought not to omit that I was told, sometimes, that all the Manuscripts, as well as their boards, were consumed by fire in the 'cellar in which they had been deposited their arrival at St. Omer.' "The gentleman alluded to in the latter part of the above letter, is Mr. Mostyn, from whom Mr. Butler of Lincoln's Inn very kindly procured a statement of the particu lars relating to this subject, in the year 1804, and transmitted it to Mr. Fox. It contains in substance, though with some additional circumstances, and slight variations, the same account as Mr. Cameron's, up to the period of the writer's leaving St. Omer, which was previous to the imprisonment of the Frenchman." "Mr. Fox, in a letter to Mr. Laing, remarks, that, to know that a paper is lost, is next 'best to getting a sight of it, and in some instances nearly as good.' So many rumours have been circulated, and so many misapprehensions have prevailed, respecting the contents and the fate of the Manuscripts formerly deposited in the Scotch College at Paris, that it is hoped the above account, the result of the historian's researches, will' not be deemed out of its place in a preface to a history of the times to which those Manuscripts related.” Macpherson does not distinguish with sufficient precision which are his extracts and which Carte's. He tells us that in Carte's extracts, as well as his own, the language of king James is in a great measure preserved. * "Mr. Mostyn's letter to Mr. Butler was published in one of the Magazines, it would therefore be superfluous to reprint it. The name of the Frenchman was Mr. Charpentier, and his country-house was at St. Momelin, near St. Omer." Louis XIV, after mentioning the Intrigues which followed the peace of Breda, thus introduces the fall of Clarendon; his reflections on which are very characteristical. "Ainsi je crus qu'il seroit bon de lui envoyer Ruvigny, pour faire, ou qu'il se déclarât en ma faveur, ou que du moins il demeurât neutre, comme il sembloit naturellement devoir faire, vu les fâcheuses nouveautés qui renaissoient à toute heure dans son Etat. Car il venoit encore tout nouvellement d'être forcé à bannir son chancelier de ses conseils; et bien qu'il fût vrai que ce ministre, pour avoir voulu prendre trop d'élévation, se fût de lui-même attiré beaucoup d'envie, il y a pourtant lieu de penser que la mauvaise volonté des Anglais ne se bornoit pas tout-a-fait à sa personne, puisque ni son entière dépossession, ni son exil volontaire, ne furent pas suffisans pour les contenter, mais qu'ils voulurent lui faire son procès sur des crimes qui sembloient lui être communs avec son maître. "D'un si notable événement, les ministres des rois peuvent apprendre à modérer leur ambition, parce que, plus ils s'élèvent audessus de leur sphère, plus ils sont en péril de tomber. Mais les rois peuvent apprendre aussi à ne pas laisser trop agrandir leurs créatures, parce qu'il arrive presque toujours qu'après les avoir élevées avec emportement, ils sont obligés de les abandonner avec foiblesse, ou de les soutenir avec peine; car pour l'ordinaire ce ne sont pas des princes fort autorisés ou fort habiles, qui souffrent ces monstrueuses élévations." Cuvres de Louis XIV, vol. 2, p. 315. Hume, in his account of Clarendon's fall, follows Burnet. On his character he bestows profuse and unqualified praise. The History of the Rebellion, he says, except Whitlock's Memorials, is the most candid account of those times, composed by any contemporary author:" No very definite commendation. Walpole's criticism is more precise. After ascribing to Clarendon "almost every virtue of a minister," he says, "As an historian he seems more exceptionable. His majesty and eloquence, his power of painting characters, his knowledge of his subject, rank him in the first class of writers-yet be has both great and little faults. Of the latter, his stories of ghosts and omens are not to be defended, by supposing he did not bekeve them himself; there can be no other reason for inserting them; nor is there any medium between believing and laughing at them. Perhaps even his favourite character of lord Falkland takes too considerable a share in the history. One loves indeed the heart that believed, till he made his friend the hero of his epic. His capital fault is, his whole work being a laboured justification of king Charles. No man ever delivered so much truth with so little sincerity. If he relates faults, some palliating epithet always slides in and he has the art of breaking his darkest shades with gleams of light that take off all impression of horror. One may pronounce on my lord Clarendon, in his double capacity of statesman and historian, that he acted for liberty, but wrote for prerogative."] : THE earl of Bristol having been opposed by the earl of Clarendon in the designs which he had formed in favour of the papists, resolved to take all methods to ruin him; not contented therefore with endeavouring to deprive him of the king's favour, he forms Articles of HighTreason and other Misdemeanors against him, which he shewed to the king; and though the king would have dissuaded him from it, yet the next day he carried the Charge to the House of Lords, which was as follows: Articles of High-Treason, and other Heinous Misdemeanors, exhibited against EDWARD Earl of CLARENDON, Lord High-Chancellor of England, in the House of Lords; on the 10th of July, 1663. By the Earl of Bristol.* "That being in a place of highest trust and confidence with his majesty, and having arro * See the preceding Case and the notes. See, too, his Speech in favour of lord Strafford, 2 Cobb. Parl. Hist. 750, and his Case upon the Impeachment shortly after preferred against himself, vol. 4, p. 153, of this Collection, where is inserted a character given of him by Lord Clarendon; who, when in banishment, composed another very copious and able account of him, which is printed in the Appendix to the 3rd volume of Clarendon's State Papers. He thus concludes it: "I did not intend to have reflected upon so many particulars, much less to have taken any survey of the active life of this very considerable person; but it was hardly possible to give any lively description of his nature and humour, or any character even of his person and composition, without representing some instances of particular actions; which, being so contradictory to themselves and so different from the same effects which the same causes naturally produce in other men, can only qualify a man to make a conjecture what his true constitution and nature was, and at best it will be but a conjecture, since it is not possible to make a positive conclusion or deduction from the whole or any part of it, but that another |