ticularly in France and the Saxon heptarchy; and abfurdly äpplied the pious admonitions of St. Paul to the Corinthians on their litigious fpirit, as an example to fhew, that it was lawful for churchmen to intermeddle in fecular affairs: he endeavoured to prove, that legislative power was the birthright of the clergy; that bishops held their feats by virtue of their ecclefiaftical capacity, not by the baronies annexed to their fees; and that they had hitherto made the third eftate in parlic ment*. In the courfe of his fpeech he remarked a contradiction in the motive for difpoffefling bifhops of their feats in parliament, and a falvo in the bill for bifhops poffeffed of temporal peerages; fince, as he justly obferved, noblemen who had entered into holy orders could be no lefs tied by the peculiar duties of their calling than commoners.'

As a proper fupplement to this quotation, we fhall extract the fentiments of a ftill higher dignitary of the church, viz. archbifhop Laud, on the fame fubject.

Some time after this, Laud published a petulant answer to lord Say. He afferted, that the fathers of the church would never have undertaken the burthen of fecular affairs, if it had been inconfiftent with their function; and quoted the honeft industry of St. Paul, who, to fupport himself in a virtuous independency, laboured at the trade of tent-making, as an authority that bishops might intermeddle in ftate concerns. If the counsel of fome bishops had been taken, he said, neither the king nor the church would have been in fo bad a condition as they now were. Bishops could preach the Gospel more publicly, and to far greater edification in a court of judicature, or at a council, where great men were met together to draw things to an issue, than many preachers in their feveral charges could;

* This matter was highly difputed between the popular party in the kingdom and the royalifts. The popular party called the king one of the three eftates; but Charles affumed the fovereignty over the eftates, and afferted, that the eftates were, the lords fpiritual, the lords temporal, and the com.ions. This was a very abfurd pretenfion; fince no power can be fuperior to the legislative; and if the king is not part of the legislative, he can be only the executive, which is a power fubordinate to the legislative.

The lawyer Bagshaw argued, that bishops fat in parlia ment in virtue of their temporal baronies; and that their total absence from parliament could no more obftrust, the proceedings of parliament, than the abfence of any other number of lords.

befides, there was not that neceffity of preaching now as formerly, when the world was little acquainted with the Gofpel: he prayed God it had not got a dangerous furfeit. To fhew that parliaments had been the occafion of hedding blood as well as the clergy, he quoted the example of that noble parliament who depofed Richard II. and called it an irreligious, traitorous parliament. In this anfwer he made it plainly appear, that he had no idea of the fenfe of moral obligations; for having taken a great deal of pains to prove the dominion of priests in the Jewish commonwealth, he foncludes, that if the law could not give rule in this kind to thofe that live under the Gospel, a man might remove his neighbour's land-mark ; he might lead the blind out of the way; he might fmite his neighbour; for theic things were only prohibited by the law.'

We hope we have here given the public a proof of our orthodoxy with refpe&t to the prefent conftitution of church and ftate, and that the unanswerable reafoning of those two bright luminaries in both, will have a proper effect upon all who dare to be of a different opinion. Notwithstanding the majority for liberty in one houfe, we learn that certain forms and delicacies in another retarded the work of reformation; and that the king, by tampering with the Scotch commiffioners, who were in high reputation in England, at one time, bade fair to overfet the whole plan of freedom. In the courfe of our author's notes, mention is made of an attempt to correct the thameful abufe of diftributing honours, or, in other words, to reftrain the crown in the exercife of its capital prerogative. Mrs. Macaulay, perhaps, carries her reflections on this topic rather too far, because they feem applicable to the present times. We shall not enter either upon an arraignment or defence of her fentiments; though we think Charles I. and his father were indefenfible in thofe peerages they created, to which an inadequate degree of property was annexed. They undoubtedly ennobled many indigent perfons, whom they turned loose to grafe and fatten upon the common of the public, great part of which was inclosed for their use. It is however a political problem, whether the order of nobility is rendered more conderable by being enlarged; and we think that an English nobleman's importance and power in the ftate, towards the clofe of queen Elizabeth's reign, was more formidable than it has been in any period fince that time; neither can we imagine that the English conftitution will ever be endangered by new creations of peerages, fo long as they are joined to great property, and provided the independency, rights, and privileges, of the lower house are maintained facred and inviolated.

Our

Our author, notwithstanding the high opinion fhe entertains of the patriotic houfe of commons of 1641, gives us the following note.

Among thofe heroic exertions in the cause of Liberty which fignalize this houfe of commons, it must be owned that the particular urgency of circumftances occafioned them to lay fome very arbitrary reftraints on the prefs. It was ordered, that all stationers and printers fhould take the name of every perfon who brought any thing to them to be printed, fold, or published, that they might, under pain of incurring the fame penalty as the author, be ready to give account as they should be required. It is remarkable, that the printers themselves preferred a bill for regulating their trade, and that there should be no bocks printed without licence.',

Mrs. Macaulay, in her fecond chapter of this volume, relates the attempt of the leaders of the popular party to wrest from the king the power over the militia. Here a point of the utmoft confequence is ftarted by Mr. St. John, who declared, that such power over the militia as might be neceffary for the fecurity of the kingdom, was not yet by law vested in any perfon, not even in the crown. This doctrine was new to Charles and the royalists, who always fuppofed that the power of the militia was unalienably fixed in the crown. Ten propofitions were drawn up by the commons, and affented to by the lords, for vefting the forts and militia of the kingdom in proper hands; and the court party making a ftrong oppofition to this measure, ftanding committees were appointed to oblige them to comply with the propofitions. Our author next mentions the attempts made to corrupt the English army by royal emiffàries ; while the munition and artillery belonging to the king at Hull, were ordered not to be removed but by parliament. If we may credit Ludlow's Memoirs, and another authority quoted by Mrs. Macaulay, the four northern counties, with the plunder of London, were offered to the Scotch army, provided they would interrupt the proceedings of the English parliament. In narrating the progrefs of affairs in Scotland, which Charles vifited at this time, our hiftorian puts a mark of reprobation upon the power which the king formerly enjoyed there, of enforcing obedience to proclamations under the penalty of hightreafon. It is (fays fhe in a note) furprizing the Scots fhould ever fancy themfelves a free people, whilft they permitted their prince to enjoy a prerogative which, in a manner, invefted him with the whole legiflative authority.'

Charles at this period diffembled fo artfully, that he pretended to be a profelyte to liberty. He made several popular promotions, and agreed that no member of the privy

G 3

council,

council, no officer of ftate, none of the judges, fhould be appointed, but by advice and approbation of parliament; and all the officers of ftate were to hold their places quamdiu fe bene gefférint. In fhort, the prefbyterian church-government was now entirely restored in that kingdom; and Charles even appeared to profefs it. Such a conformity certainly creates the greatest fufpicions of infincerity in the king, who had no ruling paffion equal to his hatred of prefbytery and his reverence for epifcopacy. Our author has explained the reafons why he was disappointed in all his machinations. She alfo mentions a fuggeftion of Montrofe to the king, that it would be for his fervice to procure the murder of the earl of Argyle, and the duke of Hamilton and his brother. That those three noblemen were at this time apprehenfive of fuch a defign, is indifputable; but nothing was more common in those days than the affectation of fuch panics by the leaders of all parties. It must be acknowleged, however, that Montrofe advifed his mafter to violent measures. This is confirmed by a letter from the queen, dated the 31st of May, but the year not mentioned, and which Mrs, Macaulay perhaps has not feen. It contains the following expreffions:

"COUSIN,

"I have received your letter, and-fee by it, that you are of opinion the king's affairs in Scotland are in a very bad condi tion, and that this is occafioned by my refusing to hearken to the advice you gave me at my arrival; in this I obferved the king's orders *"

Thus we see that the fury of the queen and Montrose was moderated by Charles himself; and it is certain, that whatever apprehenfions the Hamiltons and Argyle might affect, it was by their advice the king refused to follow the counsel of Montrofe, who recommended putting all the covenanter's, (no less than four-fifths of the kingdom,) to the fword. This is confirmed by Wifhart, who was chaplain and hiftorian to Montrofe.

Our author's narrative of the original of the Irish massacre in 1541, is uncommonly curious.

*Mon Coufin,

icelle vois que vous auroiez que

'J'ai recue votre lettre, et par les affaires en Ecoffe font en fort mauvais etat pour le fervice du roy, et cela parmi negligence, pour n'avoir pas ecouté aux propofitions qui n'ont été fait à mon arrive; en cela j'ai fuivi les commandemens du roy."

To fecure the dominion of Ireland to the British crown, thofe lands which had been forfeited by rebellion, and others fraudulently and forcibly obtained from the inhabitants, were conferred on British planters, who, allured by gain, had gone over in large colonies to settle in that barbarous country. The old Irish held their property by a whimfical tenure, called Taniftry. Individuals had no hereditary right: a whole fept, or clan, had a title to a whole territory; these used to chufe the chieftain, who took upon him the title of king, or lord: he, thus elected, had the feignory of all the lands within his territory, with a power to make an arbitrary diftribution to his vaffals, who were all tenants in villainage, and were neither qualified to be fworn on juries, or to perform any public fervice. The chieftain himself held the figniory but for life, and each new lord had the power to make a new diftribution according to his pleafure. Thus, neither the defcendants of the chieftains or vaffals had a right to particular lands; but, as the lord was always chofen out of the principal branches of the fept, the immediate defcendants of the old chieftains fancied they had a right to these feignories, and fondly imagined, if they could throw off their dependance on the state of England, matters would be adjusted to their fatisfaction. As, from the uncertainty of the ftates of the old Irish, they neglected to build, or improve their lands, and were in a manner difunited from the government, by an immediate and abfolute dependance on their chiefs, who governed them in an arbitrary manner, inflicting on them what punishments they pleased, in the reign of James and Charles it was the particular care of the lieutenants and governors of that country to obtain furrenders, and re-grant them on English tenures. Sir Arthur Chichester, lieutenant of Ireland in king James's time, coming into his government with the advantage of a fubdued rebellion, went great lengths towards the entire deftruction of the Irish lordfhips. The cuftoms of Taniftry and the Brehon law were in all their branches abolished; he offered the protection of the English laws to all the natives; fent judges into every county of Ireland; appointed fheriffs; prohibited the chieftains from tyrannizing over their tenants; and directed these, if they met with oppreffion, to complain to the minifters of juftice. Steps were daily taken by the government to fecure the property, as well as protect the perfons, of these barbarians; yet fuch was their ignorance, that they difdained thefe unexperienced bleffings, and envied the poffeffions of the British, whom they looked on as robbers and invaders; notwithstanding that the inftructions they had received in tillage, buildings, manufactures, and other civilized arts, was a large return for their uncultivated

G4