peared afterwards to be of less consequence than the perusal of the latter part of the same history made us apprehend. This historian has obtained from Mr. Fox the praise of impartiality; which he well deserves.

It should also be here acknowledged, that a statement in bishop Burnet's work at pp. 31, 32, of the first volume, ought to have been corrected from the earl of Cromarty's Account of the Conspiracies of the Earls of Gowry, published in 1713. The bishop affirms, that the last earl of Gowry was descended through a daughter of lord Methuen, from Margaret daughter of king Henry the Seventh, although this king's daughter had in reality no issue by her third husband Henry lord Methuen, whom our author erroneously calls Francis Steward, father of a lord Methuen. Gowry's grandmother was daughter of Henry lord Methuen by his second wife, a daughter of the earl of Athol, married to him after Margaret the queen dowager of Scotland's death. See the Earl of Cromarty's Account, p. 8-12. As in this case the earl of Gowry had no well founded claim to the succession of the crown of England, if king James of Scotland were removed out of the way, he could scarcely be influenced by it to attempt the assassination of that prince, according to

the bishop's suggestion, not sanctioned, as he himself owns, by any other historian.

On the other hand a confirmation of our author's testimony has lately occurred, and the question, so ably discussed by sergeant Heywood in his Vindication of Fox's Historical Work, as to the conduct of general Monck during the pending trial of the marquis of Argyle, has been finally set at rest. It now appears, on the authority of sir George Mackenzie, one of the assigned defenders of the marquis, that Monck, when "advertised "of the scantiness of the probation," did actually transmit to Scotland several official letters formerly received by him from the marquis for the purpose of procuring that nobleman's condemnation. See vol. i. p. 217, and sir George Mackenzie's Memoirs of the affairs of Scotland just published, p. 4.

In printing the text of Burnet, the first edition has been followed, and the alterations of his style in subsequent editions have been neglected. It is true, that in the title-page of the first octavo edition, the whole work is said to have been revised and corrected by the editor, the bishop's son; but allowing this, the original MS. was still further departed from, than even in the folio edition. The

few alterations which occur in the editor's Life of his father have been adopted.

The Index to the text of Burnet has been improved by Dr. Bliss, whose name we have already had occasion to mention; the other Index to the principal contents of the notes was entirely prepared by the same gentleman. The author finished his history of the reigns of Charles II. and James II. about the beginning of the eighteenth century; that of king William, and the former part of queen Anne's reign in 1710. The continuation of the work to the conclusion of peace in 1713 was completed by him in that year; less than two years before his death. The present year 1823 is nearly the hundredth since the publication of the first volume in folio, comprising the two first reigns above mentioned, together with a summary of public affairs before the restoration. It appears to have excited more interest than the second volume, which followed in 1735, after an interval of eleven years. But this is by no means to be wondered at, considering the author's frequent relations in the subsequent volume of military and foreign affairs in a general and perfunctory manner, and the diminished influence of the good or ill qua

lities of individuals on the public events and transactions of this latter period.

The great influence which personal character had formerly on events, together with other causes, occasions the reign of Charles the first, in which the contest for political power commenced, to form the most interesting period of English history, whether we are disposed to triumph with the conquering party, or to espouse and commiserate the cause of high honour and suffering loyalty. The frequent and remarkable changes of government during the interregnum, as well as the singular and energetic character of the protector Cromwell, secure the attention of every reader. The disputes, which arose between an unprincipled, but good humoured monarch, regardless alike of his own honour and the national interest, and a restless, violent, and merciless faction, are subjects of deep concern, on account of their melancholy results. At the same time, the mind feels consolation in the virtues of Ormond, Clarendon, and Southampton. And, notwithstanding the enormities of courtiers and anticourtiers, we reflect with pleasure on the freedom then first securely enjoyed, from every species of arbitrary taxation, and from extrajudicial imprisonment; on the provision made

for the meeting of parliament once in three years at the least; in a word, on the possession of a constitution, which king William admired so much, that he professed himself afraid to improve it. The gloom of the next reign, overcast and ruined as its prospects were by folly and oppression, and finally closed by means of intrigue, falsehood, and intimidation, is in part enlivened by a view of the courageous and disinterested conduct of Sancroft, Hough, Dundee, Craven, and a few others. Some of these persons, desirous of a parliamentary redress of grievances, thought, that instead of the force put upon the person of the king, an accommodation might and ought to have been effected with him ; as he had a little before, when threatened with the just and open hostility of his subjects for his perversion of law, and maintenance of a standing army, made very important concessions. Yet it may reasonably be doubted, whether a composition with a prince of his disposition and feeble judgment, whatever good qualities he was otherwise possessed of, would eventually have been lasting, or even reducible to practice. The appeal made by him to his subjects immediately after his retreat to another country, was signed by a secretary of state employed contrary to law.