A vindication of Mr. Fox's History of the early Part of the Reign of James the Second

Preface

. The publication of Mr. Fox's Historical Work, though only an unfinished fragment, naturally excited a considerable degree of interest in the public mind ; however imperfect it might be, it was the production of a man, universally acknowledged to have been blessed with talents of the highest class, whose longpolitical life had rendered him peculiarly conversant with the subjects upon which he professed to write. To discover legitimate objects for criticism in almost any posthumous publication cannot be very difficult, but such works have usually been treated with much indulgence, and Mr. Fox's book has more than com mon claims upon the candour of the public. It is only a small portion of his intended work: we are not assured that, if he had lived, he would have allowed any part of it to have been laid before the public in its present state. On the contrary, it may be proved from the work itself,

PREFACE.

. that in the author's consideration it was not so far ad vanced as to be in a state fit tor the press; for one pas sage, which was meant to be substituted for another, is inserted in the manuscript, and yet the original one con tinues unobliterated, and both now make part of the printed text* from a praise-worthy delicacy of the noble editor, that there may not be a possibility of doubt, as to the authenticity of the publication. When Mr. Rose announced his intention to make some observations on this publication, his situation in life was a pledge to the public, that they would be written in the spirit of liberality, and his former publi cations concerning finance and records, of which the value must depend almost entirely upon their accuracy, induced a hope that errors might be rectified, and obscurities cleared up, if any there were, by his assistance : Mr. Rose himself seems to have been aware of the expectations of the public, and in his Introduction, as well as in different parts of the body of his work, makes the strongest professions of candour and ;iiiaiity, and censures the want of that accuracy, in winch from the offices he has filled, he supposes himself particularly to excel. He was aware of the delicacy * Mr. Fox's Historical Work, p. 181.

PREFACE.

. III of the situation in which he placed himself, when he undertook to comment on Mr. Fox's Work, from his having been " very long honoured with the con " fidence, and enjoyed the affectionate friendship of " his principal political opposer*." But to obviate this objection, he assures us, " that the opposition of every " liberal man has died with its object;" which is a pretty strong admission that his opposition was not to the principles, but to the person of Mr. Fox, for the principles remain though the person is gone; and yet he adds, that " his opposition was altogether on public " grounds." He says, there was a time when he hoped to have seen a junction of Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt, but 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."

He however intimates that in power, he might not have acted ac cording to the demonstration of his principles in his book. Mr. Rose, then, by his own acknowledgment, had been very long in the habit of opposing the political measures of Mr. Fox, and had been honoured with, the confidence and affectionate friendship of his principal political opponent. * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p. xxxiv. a2

PREFACE.

. wr He might base added, that Mr. Pitt to him had bCCn a patrdn, &s well as a friend, and that under his duspices, he had acquired nearly the summit of wealthand honour. Mr. Pitt was not so implacable in his enmity as Mr. Rose, and at the close of his life was become sincerely desirous that Mr; Fox should assist in the government of the country, and even Mr. Rose had hoped for it. But from some dreadful principles disclosed in Mr. Fox's book, which during the greater part of a life spent in political contest, he had carefully concealed, or Mr. Rose had not had the sagacity to discover, he now doubts whether the co-operation of these celebrated rivals could have lasted, because the political principles of" Mr. Pitt could not have accorded with those which the tardy penetration of Mr. Rose has discovered in the posthumous work of Mr. Fox !

An appeal may safely be made to the opponents as well as the supporters of the latter, whether he was ever in the habit of concealing his principles, and to any person, except Mr. Rose, who has read his work, whether there are any principles developed in it inconsistent with those, which he had uniformly avowed and acted upon- We shall examine hereafter whether Mr. Rose has fairly represented the passages, from which he has drawn his conclusion, and whether, if fairly represented they would justify it. But we are inclined to think more highly of Mr. Pitt; he, (whatever

PREFACE.

. V Mr. Rose might be) could not but be perfectly well acquainted with the principles of Mr. Fox when he made overtures to introduce him into power ; and we may safely conclude that he felt none of those apprehensions, which have so recently found their way to the bosom of Mr. Rose. It will be found in the progress of this work that no opinion, supported by Mr. Fox, is calculated to alarm the most * zealous friends of the monarchical part of our constitution. But that his principles are such, as Mr. Pitt or any Minister of the Crown might have avowed in the presence of his without a blush, and, what is not unworthy of notice, are conveyed in expressions less offensive to *>c/i j i iocj. L^iij monarchy than some of those, in which Mr. Rose has unnecessarily indulged himself. Mr. Rose certainly must have been unacquainted with the honorable mind, and manly feelings of Mr. Fox, when he insinuates, that if he had come into power he might not have acted " according to the demonstration of the principles in his book," and must have forgotten that the experiment had been tried before the Observations were written.

Mr. Fox had been in power for a few months, and during that short period had proved that in him, change of situation induced no alteration of sentiment. For through the exertions of that administration of which he was adistm- VI

PREFACE.

. guished member, the friends of humanity may now exult in the abolition of the slave trade, and his ardent wishes for the success of the catholic claims remained unchanged to his last moments. The hostile bias of Mr. Rose towards Mr. Fox's politics is not only visible in the passages just com mented upon, but will be apparent in many others noticed hereafter. But after Mr. Rose's excuses " for suspecting "-the accuracy of Mr. Fox's statement, and the justness of " his reflections," and the observation that " with perfect " rectitude and impartiality of intention a man in a particu " lar political situation, can hardly form impartial opinions," because " he breathes an atmosphere of party, with which " the constitution and temperament of his own mind can " hardly fail to be affected ;"* we may justly doubt, whether Mr. Rose himself, having long breathed this atmosphere, is entitled to be ranked among the fortunate few, who have escaped the contagion.

If the political influence, he alludes to, were confined merely to the leaders of parties, he might perhaps have been free from it. But he does not confine it to them, and there is no good reason why it should not extend to those who have filled inferior situations ; on the contrary, they, surely must be in greater danger, who are attached not only to the party by common principle but Mr. Rose's Introduction, p.

PREFACE.

. VII to its leader by the still stronger ties of personal interest, gratitude, and affection. We, therefore, should be justified upon his own principle, in suspecting the accuracy of Mr. Rose's statements and the justness of his reflections, and in questioning his capacity, though not his intentions of forming impartial opinions. Mr. Rose is perfectly sensible of the justness of this remark, and therefore obviates it by assuring us, that, on this account, he is particularly jealous " of his own judgment" and had been more scrupulous of his authorities and his own opinions than he might have been, in commenting upon the work of any other au thor*." He therefore cannot be displeased at his readers being doubtful of his judgment, and investigating with some degree of minuteness, the weight of his authorities, and the propriety of his opinions.

If professions of impartiality and candour, would make a man candid and impartial, Mr. Rose would certainlv be entitled to that character. And we will not deprive him of the credit of intending to fulfil, and even thinking he has fulfilled those professions; but we lament that his good intentions have not been proof against the contagious atmosphere of politics, in which he has so lonobreathed. He cannot be impartial, the spirit of oppo sition to Mr. Fox, which actuated the Secretary to .the Treasury under his political opponent, still reigns in the * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p.

PREFACE.

. vm bosom of the Treasurer of the Navy, and is every where visible, notwithstanding his good resolutions. It may be traced in the numerous incorrect quotations, and groundless objections found in every part of Mr. Rose's publication, in his attacking without cause Mr. Fox's arguments and conduct, and charging him with dangerous political principles, neither advanced in his work, nor to be deduced from it. Mr. Rose observes that particular circumstances in the private situation of an author rarely afford a satisfactory apology for a failure in argument*, and yet alledges with some confidence, as an excuse for his own deficiencies, that he had not been many more weeks in composing his Observations, than Mr. Fox had been years in writing his Historical Work. That work was the produce of his occasional labours for about four years, and Mr. Rose therefore must have completed his Observations in the short period of not many more than four weeks, in the midst too, of almost unremitting attention to official duties.

But the truth of the assertion is not meant to be disputed here; almost every page of the Observations corroborates the statement. To the baneful effects of the political atmosphere before alluded to, and the hurry in which Mr. Rose has written the * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p.

PREFACE.

. IX Observations may be owing his unfortunate failure in accuracy. For allowing, most willingly, that he felt an honest anxiety upon the subject, his authorities are very frequently not correctly quoted, and generally either fail to prove, or directly contradict the propositions they are intended to support. These charges are not light ones, but the ensuing pages will exhibit abundant proofs of their being well founded. In the mean time it may be proper, in illustration of these remarks, to call the attention of the reader to some particular passages in Mr. Rose's Intro duction. To prove that Mr. Fox was misled by a propensity to apply every historical incident to the defence of those politi cal principles, on which he had himself acted, Mr. Rose charges him with having translated incorrectly a passage in a letter of Mr. Barillon.

The alledged mistranslation is admitted to have been made without intention, and therefore the propensity is to be inferred merely from the mistake itself. This would be a rather harsh rule to lay down for Authors, and Mr. Rose might find some difficulty to vin dicate either himself) or Sir John Dalrymple from the charge of an improper bias having operated upon their minds, inferred . from the numerous errors of this description, into X

PREFACE.

. which they have both fallen, and some of which will be noticed hereafter. Upon the disputed meaning of the original it might be dangerous for an Englishman, and one not confident in his critical knowledge of the French language to offer an opinion. And such is the complicated construction of the passage that its satisfactory discussion must necessarily run into considerable length. I shall therefore leave the gram matical merits, and the real meaning of it, due regard being had to the general style of epistolary correspondence, and of Barillon's letters in particular, to Mr. Rose and the Critics. In which ever way they may decide, the fact related is equally favourable to the political principles of Mr. Fox, and consequently the construction, which he put upon the words, could not have arisen from any propensity influ encing him to distort historical incident to the purpose of defending his political principles and conduct.

To make out the charge alledged by Mr. Rose it would not be sufficient to prove that Mr. Fox had mistaken the meaning of the words, it must be shewn either that he had given them a meaning more favourable to his general view of politics, or was so deficient in mental powers as not to perceive that their real meaning was as* well, or better, suited to his

PREFACE.

. XI purpose and would equally serve to introduce the observations he makes upon them. The quotation in question is from Barillon's letter of the 7th of December 1684*, and Mr. Fox says, all the other Ministers " maintained, that his Majesty could, and " ought to govern countries so distant, in the manner that " should appear to him most suitable for preserving or " augmenting the strength and riches of the mother coun- " tryf ." Mr. Rose would strike out the words " mother " country," and substitute the word " colony," we will therefore suppose the correction to be made, and consider the effect of it. The proceeding, of which Barillon is giving an account to his master, took place in Council, where the Marquis of Halifax argued strongly for modeling the Charters of the British Colonies of America upon principles analogous to those of the British Constitution, and the passage in dispute contains the substance of the answers made to his arguments by the other Ministers.

This opinion of Halifax was made use of to the King, as a proof of his dangerous principles, by the Duke of York and the French interest, in order to accomplish his removal * Fox, App. p. viii. t Fox, p. 59. b %

PREFACE.

. from power. And Mr. Fox remarks " there is something " curious in discovering that, even at this early period, a " question relative to North American liberty, and even to " North American taxation, was considered as the test of " principles friendly, or adverse to arbitrary power at " home*." Now, whether Mr. Rose's correction is made or not, this observation of Mr. Fox's and the one which follows, founded upon it, are not in the smallest degree affected. Both these observations are equally well applied, whether we read " mother country," or " colony ;" and Mr. Fox, if we stopped here, must, according to this system of reasoning, have acted under an improper influence when he fell into the mistake, because it makes no difference what ever in his argument. But if Mr. Fox can be supposed to have had a further view, which he did not choose to avow, in presenting this page to the notice of his reader, it must be an extraordinary sort of propensity, which blinded him so far as to induce him unintentionally to translate incorrectly that, which truly translated, would have been more to his purpose.

For by adopting Mr. Rose's correction, this passage becomes to a certain extent a direct and strong authority for those principles, which Mr. Fox so strenuously, and at last successfully maintained in the House of Commons. * Fox, p, eo.

PREFACE.

. XIU We learn, adopting the amendment of Mr. Rose, that Halifax argued that the colonies1 ought not to be taxed at the pleasure of the government at home, even for their own benefit, and that the Ministers of Charles the Second did not venture to urge a right in the mother country to derive a revenue to itself from its colonies, but contented themselves with asserting its right to tax them only for the promotion of their own internal prosperity. The claims of the mother country were not in Lord Halifax's time so extravagant as those Mr. Fox had to contend with, for the folly of attempting to impose taxes upon colonies for the benefit of the mother country was reserved for later times. And, if the principles of the tory advisers of Charles the Second had not been departed from, we might not have had to lament in our own days the horrors of a civil war, or seena large portion of British subjects forcibly separated from the parent state.

The Earl of Halifax and Mr. Fox not only professed principles nearly similar upon the subject of American taxation, but they were both unjustly calum niated for it by their opponents, as entertaining sentiments hostile to the monarchical form of government under which they lived. Mr. Rose apologizes for entering into a free examina

PREFACE.

. tion of the Historical Work, because the object of that work, " is to examine severely and minutely the authorities, " on which former historians have asserted facts, or from " which they have deduced opinions, and he must be," says he, " a very partial reader, who can complain of a free " examination of a work, in which such a man as Hume, " is characterised in the following words. ' He was an " excellent man, and of great power of mind, but his parti " ality 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 philoso- " pher*.'" Mr. Rose is somewhat unfortunate in this apology, for this character of Mr. Hume is found, not in Mr. Fox's Histori cal Work, but a private letter cited by his nephew in the In troduction : where then was the boasted official accuracy of Mr. Rose ? twice at least by his own statement, has he per used Mr. Fox's work, and once attentively ; is it then unchari table to suppose that he must have known that this passage was not where he states it to be, or been blinded by some * Rose's Introduction, p.

PREFACE.

. XV sort of propensity which deluded his imagination into a belief that it was there ? The object of Mr. Fox's book, it may be admitted, was to give an accurate history of the principal tacts, which led to the revolution, and of the revolution itself. To do**this, it was necessary for him to examine the authorities of former writers, and the turn of his mind led him to be very minute in his enquiries, but the word " severely," if meant to convey the idea of those enquiries having been conducted with a View to find fault with others, is certainly misapplied. No friend of Mr. Fox would complain of) and no friend to literature or political liberty but must wish for a full and free examination of it*. But such examination should be conducted with candour, and not taken advantage of to depreciate the political tenets of the author, under the mask of examining his errors in history.

The defence, which Mr. Rose goes out of his way to set up for Mr. Hume, against the charge of partiality to Kings and Princes is curious. He admits the existence of this partiality, but excuses it by saying that his prejudices were1 " those of a system not of a party," and that his theory, founded upon them, influenced his opinion and even co loured his narrative. He further says, that in giving the

PREFACE.

. character of James " on his abdication, he shewed him " more savour than he probably would have done, if he ** had known all that has since transpired*." If then Mr. Fox's private letter has adopted Mr. Rose's own senti ments, and characterised Mr. Hume, œ, Mr. Rose himself would have done, how can his having drawn so true a character be a special reason for subjecting his Historical Work to a free examinations however, Mr. Rose, breathing the atmosphere of party, continues to retain his suspicions, and has carefully selected every passage in Mr. Fox's work, with the addition of others not to be found in it, which could by any possibility tend to shew that he thought hostilely or even lightly of monarchy. But it cannot be supposed for a moment that 0 Mr. Rose could have in view, by dwelling upon the expressions used by Mr. Fox to enforce his opinion of an individual writer, to induce a belief in careless readers that they were meant to be applied to monarchy itself.

The same private letter has given rise to a paragraph tending to illustrate the spirit, in which Mr. Rose's Obser vations were penned. Mr. Fox, after complimenting Mr. Laing upon his History of Scotland, which had been recent- * Rose's Introduction, p.

PREFACE.

. XVII ly published, says, f it is a most valuable acquisition, and will " serve to counteract the mischief which Hume, Dalrymple, " Macpherson, Somerville, and some others of your country " men have done. You will easily believe that I do not " class Hume with the others, except as to the bad tendency " of their representations*." The attack is commenced by an insinuation, that Mr. Fox had started with a prejudice against some other historians, besides Mr. Hume, (who is admitted to be a prerogative writer) from a general idea of their " toryism but without giving any reasons for his censure of " them. Some of them," Mr. Rose says, " he appears not to " have read, characterising them without distinction under " one general description, whose principles of historical dis " cussion seem to be entirely opposite.

And in particular, if " Mr. Fox had ever read Somerville's History, he must have " strangely forgotten what he met with in it, to have classed *' him with Hume and other prerogative writers." Here we must repeat the remark that the passage, now criticized as part of Mr. Fox's work, is a paragraph in a private letter, written when his work was but just begun, and therefore, if he had been too indiscriminate in his censure, * Fox, Pref. p. xxi. c

PREFACE.

. XVIII or had not even read the works of the authors named, it does not follow that he did not afterwards read them, and acquire a more accurate knowledge of their respective merits. Mr-*, Rose's observation might be true, when the letter was written, and yet unfounded when the ..further progress of the Historical Work was' interrupted by the duties of office, and subsequent sickness and death of the author. Mr. Rose proceeds on the assumption that Mr. Fox had not read these writers, because he gives no reason for his censure. Upon referring to the passage, the reader will find two reasons expressly given, namely that they had " done mischief," and that their representations had a bad tendency. Hume and Macpherson, Mr. Rose himself acknowledges, may be reckoned amongst the tory writers, and he gives a reason why Dalrymple has been suspected to belong to them ; but he struggles hard to preserve the zealous whig historian, Somerville, from so odious an im putation, and charges Mr. Fox, if he had ever read his history, with having " strangely forgotten what he " had met with in it, to have classed him with Hume, " and other prerogative writers*." It turns out then at * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p.

PREFACE.

. XIX last, that Mr. Fox's observation is admitted to be well founded, as to all the authors he mentions except one, and supposing it is acknowledged in return that he was mistaken respecting him, it does not prove that Mr. Fox had a prejudice against writers, merely because they were suspected of toryism. The amount of the charge is that, in writing to a private friend, he inadvertently inserted a name, which if he had thought for a moment, (as he would have done if he had been writing his history) he might have omitted. Against such an error I am not solicitous to defend the memory of Mr. Fox. It might have happened to any man, and fortunate indeed would Mr. Rose have been even with his shield of official accuracy if he could defend himself as well from charges of more serious aspect. But we are not called upon to admit that there has been any mistake, for, notwithstanding Somerville was a whig, Mr. Fox may have disapproved of his history, and been deliberately of opinion that he ought to be placed in the class, from which Mr. Rose is so anxious to rescue him.

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, * Fox, p. vi. c

PREFACE.

. XX respecting Lord Bolingbroke. It is stated to begin thus, " Mr. Fox says • Bolingbroke in particular had confound «" ed,'" &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 only is responsible, but the terms, in which it is expressed, preclude the idea of his intending 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 chiefly of what Mr. Rose had heard the late Lord Marchmont say, he had heard the late Lord * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p.

PREFACE.

. XXI 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. To Mr. Rose the acknowledgments of the public are due for the communication of Sir Patrick Hume's Narrative, but the friends of Mr. Fox have peculiar reason to rejoice at it, for that Narrative confirms in every particular the observa tions he has made upon Sir Patrick Hume's conduct. If Mr. Rose had been aware of this, he probably would not have published it, or at all events would not have declared the object of its publication to have been the vindication of the memory of Sir Patrick from charges, which it does not contradict, but support. Mr. Rose must possess a most delicate sensibility of nerves to have been affected, as he describes himself * to have been, at the perusal of the Historical Work ; but whether he was actuated by the impulse of personal respect to Lord Marchmont's me mory, or by the particular interest he felt in the story and character of his illustrious ancestor is not quite clear. * Mr. Rose's Introduction, p. •>»■ XXII

PREFACE.

. The object of this tender interest died in the year 1724, But because he had been the " ancestor of a man", who had treated Mr. Rose as a parent, and he conceived he had the means of justifying him in his possession,, he could not bear that severe and unmerited reflections should be adopted in his day without being noticed ; he could not remain silent. This Mr. Rose avows to be " his sole " motive at first for deciding to publish on the subject." It has been observed already that Sir Patrick Hume's Narrative, thus published for his justification, proves that the reflections, which occasioned it, were well founded, as we shall shew in the subsequent pages. Mr. Rose's respect for the memory of one, who had been 85 years numbered with the dead, is the more striking, as it shews that he was more feelingly alive to the reputation of this ancestor of his friend, than that ancestor himself had been.

Mr. Rose says, that " Sir Patrick Hume, from anticipation " as it would appear, of the obloquy which is apt to be " fastened on men concerned in unfortunate enterprizes, " drew up during hisresidence in Holland, before he was " joined there by his family, a narrative of the rise, pro " gress, and issue of the expedition of the Earl of Argyle " in as far as he was himself concerned, which is the