there are not convincing proofs of all this." Neither is the letter of lord Sunderland to be found in the Stuart collection. He is pofitively faid, however, to have written fuch a letter as is defcribed by Mr. Macpherfon; and, confidering the duplicity of that nobleman's character, there can be little reafon to doubt the truth of the fact. Allowing that many perfons of rank made profeffions of attachment to James, and that numbers wifhed well to his caufe, it is ftill certain that the accounts of the affair are exaggerated. The agents of the excluded monarch were misled, partly by their own eagernefs, and partly from the defign of encouraging and engag ng Lewis XIV. to fupport James with a powerful army: for moit of the papers, which exalt the ftrength and zeal of the Jacobite party, were intended as memorials for the court of France. Our opinion, upon this fubject, is farther confirmed by the direct teftimony of one of the more judicious adherents to the Stuart family. This gentleman was induced, by the different fentiments which prevailed, concerning the power and number of James's friends, to travel round the kingdom, that he might be able to give a juft and fatisfactory account to the court of St. Germains; and he found, in general, that neither the number nor the power of the late king's friends was fo confiderable as he had been made to believe; and that there was no room to expect the hearty concurrence of the Proteftants, in replacing him upon the throne. Our Hiftorian fhould have paid fome attention to this evidence, which occurs in the original papers, when he was reprefenting the ftate of the

nation.

Among the perfons who are defcribed as intriguing with the excluded family, none make fo diftinguifhed a figure as the lord Godolphin and the duke of Marlborough. Their profeffions of attachment to that family appear to have been reiterated, at intervals, by Godolphin, to his death, and by Marlborough, to the acceffion of the houfe of Hanover. The proofs of this are fo numerous, that the truth of the fact cannot reasonably be called in queftion. Neither are we greatly furprised at the conduct of thefe two noblemen. Both of them were originally Tories; they had been highly favoured and promoted by king James; they were attached to him by gratitude and affection: but they facrificed their principles to ambition and intereft. We know there was an opinion in the earl of Godolphin's family, that he was permitted to correfpond with the Stuarts, for political purposes; which opinion, if true, may be thought to exculpate him in fome degree. Upon the whole, however, the ftrength of evidence is in favour of his having acted from perfonal inclination. As to the duke of Marlborough, Torcy's Memoirs have already afforded

afforded abundant proof of his feeming zeal for the pretender. At the fame time, he was equally ardent in his profeffions to the elector of Hanover. Indeed, it is very apparent, from the history and papers before us, that he was a man void of integrity. His difcovery, in 1694, of the defign against Breft, the evidence of which is decifive, was a fhameful act of treachery.

Our Author's character of king William is ingenious and elaborate but we think that it plainly partakes of the prejudice against that prince, which we noticed in a former article. Though we, by no means, confider William as having been exempt from faults, we have a much higher opinion both of his abilities and integrity than is entertained by Mr. Macpherfon. Part of our Hiftorian's character of this monarch we shall lay before our Readers :

In the diftribution of favours, he was cold and injudicious. In the punishment of crimes, often too eafy, and fometimes too fevere. He was parfimonious where he fhould be liberal; where he ought to be fparing, frequently profufe. In his temper he was filent and referved, in his addrefs ungraceful; and though not deftitute of diffimulation, and qualified for intrigue, lefs apt to conceal his paffions than his defigns. Thefe defects, rather than vices of the mind, combining with an indifference about humouring mankind through their ruling paffions, rendered him extremely unfit for gaining the affections of the English nation. His reign, therefore, was crowded with mortifications of various kinds. The difcontented parties among his fubjects, found no difficulty in efranging the minds of the people from a prince, poffeffed of few talents to make him popular. He was truited, perhaps, lefs than he deferved, by the most obfequious of his parliaments; but it feems, upon the whole, apparent, that the nation adhered to his government, more from a fear of the return of his predeceffor, than from any attachment to his own perfon, or refpect for his right to the throne.

These harfh features of the mind of king William, presented themselves only to thofe who took a near and critical view of his conduct. To men who obferved him at a distance, and as a principal object in the great fcale of Europe, he appeared a refpectable, a prudent, and even a great prince. During the last twenty years of his life, his abilities, by a dexterous management of the events of the times, raised him to an influence in Chriftendom, fcarce ever before carried by a Prince beyond the limits of his own dominions. Peculiarly fortunate in the fuccefs of his political measures, he obtained his authority through channels the moft flattering, because the most uncommon. He was placed at the head of his native country, as the last hopes of her fafety from conqueft and a foreign yoke. He was raised to the throne of Great Britain, under the name of her deliverer from civil tyranny and religious perfecution. He was confidered in the fame important light by the rest of Europe. The Empire, Spain, and

D 3

Italy

Italy looked up to his councils, as their only refource against the exorbitant ambition and power of Lewis the Fourteenth; and France herself, when the affected to defpife his power the moft, owned his importance, by an illiberal joy upon a falfe report of

his death.

But if the private character of William has been too critically examined, here the praife beftowed on his public conduct ought to terminate. Though he was brave in action, and loved war as an amusement, he poffeffed not the talents of a great general and he was too prodigal of the lives of men. Though he obtained the name of a deliverer in England, and though, in fact, he might be confidered in that light with regard to Europe, more is owing to his own ambition, than to a general love of mankind. In Holland, where he obtained the chief authority, in a time of pubJic diftrefs, he frequently exercifed his power in a manner inconfiftent with the rights of a free flate. In England, he scarce adhered, in any thing, to the moderate declaration which paved his way to the throne. Though he obtained the crown by election, he fhewed no difpofition to relinquifh any of its hereditary orna. ments; and though he affected to defpife royalty, no prince was ever more fond of the diftinction paid to a king. His intrigues to expel his uncle from a throne, which he himself intended to mount, were by no means fuitable with any ftrict adherence to virtue. To gain to his intereft the fervants of king James, may not have been inconfiftent with thofe allowances generally made for ambitious views. But there was a confiderable degree of immorality, in his being acceffary to fuggefting thofe unpopular meafures, which he turned, afterwards, with fo much fuccefs, against that unfortunate, as well as imprudent monarch. Upon the whole, if we must allow that king William, with all his faults, was a great prince, it ought alfo to be admitted, that virtue was never an unfurmountable obftacle to his ambition and views on power.'

There are few things in hiftory more fingular and striking than the different characters and fituations of Godolphin and Oxford, as reprefented in this work. Godolphin was a Tory, and appears to have had the highest affection for the excluded family, fo that he must have fecretly wished for its restoration; and yet he placed himself at the head of the Whigs, promoted their defigns, and, in general, conducted affairs on their principles. The earl of Oxford, on the other hand, had a real attachment to the fucceffion in the houfe of Hanover, and wifhed well, upon the whole, to the liberties of this country. Nevertheless, to carry on the purposes of his ambition, he became the leader of the Tories, and, as fuch, was neceffitated, in a very high degree, to comply with their views, and to execute their fchemes. Thus thefe two great men were often thrown into embarraffing circumftances, and were obliged to act in direct repugnance to their inclinations and fentiments. Their peculiar fituations are

well

1

well difplayed in the prefent hiftory. We fhall transcribe our Author's general characters of Godolphin and Oxford, given at the clofe of each of their administrations. That of the earl of Godolphin is as follows:

Though the court of St. Germains placed little faith in the profeffions of the earl of Godolphin, they lost the chief fupport of their caufe, when that minifter was forced to retire. His attachment to the family of Stuart, though cautiously and fuccefsfully concealed from the world, was certainly, next to his inherent timidity, the ruling paffion of his mind. He is faid to have only regretted his difgrace, as it deprived him of the power of ferving effectually the excluded line. He declared to his intimate friends, that he had been always in unhappy circumftances. That, being first diftreffed by the Tories, he was forced to throw himfelf into the hands of the Whigs. That his whole ministry had been spent in a ftruggle with the latter party; and when he faw himself entirely master of his meafures, he was turned out of his office, by an event as trivial as it was unexpected. He hoped, however, he faid, that Harley would restore the king, for fo he called the Pretender. "But HE will make France neceffary to that meafure. I defigned to have done the bufinefs alone; and to fhew the French how poorly they had treated that unfortunate prince, and how little they deferved at his hands.".

Had his fecret defigns and intrigues remained unknown to the world, the earl of Godolphin might have been tranfmitted to pofterity with an unblemished character. He was born with extenfive talents. A long experience had, in a particular manner, qualified him for the great line of bufinefs. He understood the interests of the kingdom, the genius of the people, the fecret views of particular men, as well as the difpofition of parties. In his public capacity, he was frugal of the money of the nation, without cramping its exertions with penury. An economift of his private fortune, without the leaft tincture of avarice. Though forbidding in his ad. drefs, through the fern gravity of an habitual filence and an ungraceful manner, he gained mankind by the apparent fincerity of his character. He never kept fuitors in an unprofitable fufpenfe. He promifed nothing that he was not refolved to perform. He confidered diffimulation as an unmanly breach of veracity. He refufed, with frankness, where he could not ferve with generofity. In the common line of bufinefs, he fhewed fuch undeviating attention to justice, that those who were disappointed by his decifions, could not with-hold their efteem from his impartial conduct. Though he found it neceffary to difguife his own principles, he never affected to poffefs thofe of others, to gain either their fupport or their fa. vour. Political timidity was the greateft defect of his mind. That paffion overcame, frequently, in his public tranfactions, that fincerity which he uniformly obferved in his private conduct. The weaknefs which induced him to adhere, in his opinions, to the excluded branch of the house of Stuart, was a kind of virtue. He was firit placed in the line of fortune and ambition by that family; and their confidence in his fidelity and attachment, contributed to continue

D 4

tinue that gratitude, which he owed for their many and great favours.'

The character of the earl of Oxford, fays Mr. Macpherson, has been described in all its fingularities as the incidents arose. But the throwing into one view its most striking features, may give a more complete portrait of the man. The talents bestowed upon him by nature were neither extenfive nor obvious; and thefe feem to have been little improved by education, though he has been called a patron of learning and of learned men. His whole progrefs in literature was confined to that flight knowledge of the dead languages, which men intended for public life generally bring from school. He neither understood foreign languages, nor wrote, with any degree of elegance, his native tongue. In the difpofition of his mind he was reserved, distrustful and cold. A loyer of fecrecy, to fuch a degree, that he affumed its appearance in mere trifles; fond of importance, without any dignity of manner; fo full of profeffions, that he was always deemed infincere. In his public meafures he was rather tenacious of his purpose, than either firm or refolute in hi conduct: yet much more decifive in the means of annoying his enemies, than in those calculated to gratify his friends. With a facility of temper that could deny no request, but with a defect of mind that could beftow nothing with grace, he offended the disappointed, and even loft those whom he ferved. The difpofal of offices, which gives influence to other minifters, was a real misfortune to the earl of Oxford. He often promised the fame place to five perfons at once; and created four enemies, without making the fifth his friend.

But if the earl of Oxford was not remarkable for striking virtues, he had the good fortune to be free from glaring vices. Though undecifive in the great line of business, he was not fubject to perfonal fear. Though thoroughly ambitious, he was a tranger to haughtiness and pride. Though perfevering in his oppofition to his enemies, he was not in his temper revengeful; and though he made no fcruple to tempt the honeity of others with money, he he himself cannot be accused, with juftice, of the leaft tincture of avarice. In his public measures he can never deferve the character of a great minifter. There was a narrowness of fentiment, a vulgarity of policy, and even a meannefs in his conduct, that frequently excited the contempt of his belt friends. In his private intrigues for power, in his dexterous management of two parties, by whom he was equally hated, in his tempering the fury of the Jacobites, in his amusing the vehemence of the Whigs, in his advancing the interests of the house of Hanover, when moft diftrusted by themselves and their adherents, he fhewed a confiderable degree of addrefs and political knowledge. The nation owed to a defect in Oxford's mind, a greater benefit, than they could have derived From a minier of more fplendid talents. Had he been poffeffed of the pride infeparable from great parts, his refentment for the ill ufage, which he experienced from the Whigs and the agents of the house of Hanover, might have induced him to defeat the Proteftant fucceffion, and bring about thofe very evils of which he was unjustly accused.'

From