to the action itself, it was the most unparalleled folly that ever was committed.

"Mr. Echard with great pro

P. 535. bability," &c.

A charge against the Papifts has always great probability with this Hiftorian. It is a known uncontroverted fact that the advice was Digby's; nay the Hiftorian confirms it by obferving, that on its ill fuccefs Digby immediately withdrew out of the Kingdom. Yet in the fame breath he tells us, it is more probable it was a project of the Queen and her cabal of Papists; and this on the authority of that poor fcribler, Echard. They neither of them knew that at this time the Queen was almost frightened out of her wits, for fear of an impeachment; was actually projecting her efcape; and was incapable of any vigorous counfel, intent only on her own fafety to effect which, she gave up Strafford to the flaughter, by that poor and ungrateful postfcript the perfuaded the King to add to his letter to the Lords.

P. 536,

P. 536.

"To leave Whiteball."

When a man runs away from his own house, it is a plain proof, I think, that he could ftay no longer in it with safety. It is confeffed the people were on the fide of the Parliament. In fuch a fituation we see how commodious it was for that body to pretend fears; it was the attaching the people more closely to them. But for the King, in this fituation, to pretend fears, was acting the part of an idiot; for as all love of Majesty was gone, and the people reftrained only by the apprehenfions of its power, for the King to fhew by pretended fear that he had no power was removing the only barrier to their rage and infult. We must needs conclude therefore that the King's were real, and not pretended.

P. 540.

them," &c.

"The band of God was against

The Puritans have a strange kind of logic. A feat in the civil Legislature for the Bishops the Puritans deemed an abuse. They are now deprived of their feat, which, in the fenfe of the Puritans, was bringing them

them nearer to the primitive standard. Yet this bleffing (for such an one it was, if it brought them nearer to the practice of the pureft times) must be reckoned, by these very Puritans, the hand of God in judgment for their fins. A Puritan goffip met a Churchwoman, her neighbour, one morning in the streets of Exeter. Heark you, neighbour, fays the firft, do you hear the news? Merchant fuch an one is a bankrupt, and Merchant fuch an one, the Churchman, lofes ten thousand pounds by the break: there is God's judgment for You; the Merchant was ever a great fcoffer at the Conventicle. And is this all And is this all you have heard? faid the other. Yes. Why then you have heard but half the news. Mercer fuch an one of your religion has lost fifteen hundred pounds by this break. I muft confefs, replied the first, a severe trial.

Ch. xi. p. 544. "Refolutions of the Councils at Windfer, I leave with the Reader."

The judicious reader will laugh at our Hiftorian for referring this question to his deter

7

determination. The Parliament was not now acting on the principles of Grotius's book De Jure, but on thofe of Machiavel's, called the Prince, where every thing is juft, that is profitable.

P. 550." The whole controverfy."

It is very evident, these fuppofitions (demonftrable as they are) this impartial Historian is by no means willing we should make, by his illufory expreffion in the first of them, where he says, the King left his Par. liament, and would act no longer in concert with them. If by leaving he means deferting, as he would have the reader underftand it, it is falfe: and if, by not acting in concert, he means that he refufed doing his part in the Legislature, that is falfe likewife. If by leaving, he only meant removing from them to a distance, the King had reafon; He was drove away by the tumults. If by not acting in concert, he meant not doing every thing the Parlia ment commanded, the King had reafon here, too; for they would have stripped him of his whole Prerogative.

P. 551. "In the opinion of the Lords and Commons."

Here is fome mistake. The Hiftorian is here appealing to his reader's opinion (not the opinion of the Lords and Commons), and telling us what conclufions the reader fhould make from his own opinions. So, if the reader thinks the conftitution was entire, that the laws were fufficient to fecurè us against Popery and Slavery, he was to conclude the King's arguments ftrong. But if the two Houfes declared that the King had deferted them, &c. what then? Why then we are to conclude that the two Houses are in the right: not the more for their declaration, I promise you. But fuch a reafoner is this Hiftorian. He does not know how to state the oppofite parts of his propofition.

P. 567. His Majefly had his ambiguities."

Here was no ambiguity. The King understood by foreign aids what certainly the Parliament meant, foreign troops. Are

arms