OBSERVATIONS ON THE HISTORICAL WORK OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE CHARLES JAMES FOх. (E. REVIEW, 1809.) Observations on the Historical Work of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox. By the Right Honourable George Rose. pp. 215. With a Narrative of the Events which occurred in the Enterprise of the Earl of Argyle in 1685. By Sir Patrick Hume. London, 1809. THIS is an extraordinary performance in itself; - but the reasons assigned for its publication are still more extraordinary. A person of Mr. Rose's consequence-incessantly occupied, as he assures us, 'with official duties, which take equally,' according to his elegant expression, 'from the disembarrassment of the mind and the leisure of time,' thinks it absolutely necessary to explain to his country the motives which have led him to do so idle a thing as to write a book. He would not have it supposed, however, that he could be tempted to so questionable an act by any light or ordinary consideration. Mr. Fox and other literary loungers may write from a love of fame, or a relish for literature; but the official labours of Mr. Rose can only be suspended by higher calls. All his former publications, he informs us, originated in 'a sense of public duty;' and the present, in 'an impulse of private friendship.' An ordinary reader may perhaps find some difficulty in comprehending how Mr. Rose could be 'impelled by private friendship' to publish a heavy quarto of political observations on Mr. Fox's History:-and for our own parts, we must confess, that after the most diligent perusal of his long explanation, we do not in the least comprehend it yet. The explanation, however, which is very curious, it is our duty to lay before our readers. Mr. Rose was much patronised by the late Earl of Marchmont, who left him his family papers, with an injunction to make use of them, if it should ever become necessary.' Among these papers was a narrative by Sir Patrick Hume, the Earl's grandfather, of the occurrences which befell him and his associates in the unfortunate expedition undertaken by the Earl of Argyle in 1685. Mr. Fox, in detailing the history of that expedition, has passed a censure, as Mr. Rose thinks, on the character of Sir Patrick; and, to obviate the effects of that censure, he now finds it 'necessary' to publish this volume. All this sounds very chivalrous and affectionate; but we have three little remarks to make. In the first place, Mr. Fox passes no censure on Sir Patrick Hume. In the second place, this publication does by no means obviate the censure of which Mr. Rose complains. And, thirdly, it is utterly absurd to ascribe Mr. Rose's part of the volume, in which Sir Patrick Hume is scarcely ever mentioned, to any anxiety about his reputation. In the first place, it is quite certain that Mr. Fox passes no censure on Sir Patrick Hume. On the contrary, he says of him, that he had early distinguished himself in the cause of liberty;' and afterwards rates him so very highly, as to think it a sufficient reason for construing some doubtful points in Sir John Cochrane's conduct favourably, that he had always acted in conjunction with Sir Patrick Hume, who is proved by the subsequent events, and indeed by the whole tenor of his life and conduct, to have been uniformly sincere and zealous in the cause of his country.' Such is the deliberate and unequivocal testimony which Mr. Fox has borne to the character of this gentleman; and such the historian, whose unjust censures have compelled the Right Honourable George Rose to indite 250 quarto pages, out of pure regard to the injured memory of this ancestor of his deceased patron. Such is Mr. Fox's opinion, then, of Sir Patrick Hume; and the only opinion he any where gives of his character. With regard to his conduct, he observes, indeed, in one place, that he and the other gentlemen engaged in the enterprise appear to have paid too little deference to the opinion of their noble leader; and narrates, in another, that, at the breaking up of their little army, they did not even stay to reason with him, but crossed the Clyde with such as would follow them. Now, Sir Patrick's own narrative, so far from contradicting either of these statements, confirms them both in the most remarkable manner. There is scarcely a page of it that does not show the jealous and controlling spirit which was exercised towards their leader; and, with regard to the concluding scene, Sir Patrick's own account makes infinitely more strongly against himself and Sir John Cochrane, than the general statement of Mr. Fox. So far from staying to argue with their general before parting with him, it appears that Sir Patrick did not so much as see him; and that Cochrane, at whose suggestion he deserted him, had in a manner ordered that unfortunate nobleman to leave their company. The material words of the narrative are these: On coming down to Kilpatrick, I met Sir John (Cochrane), with others accompanieing him; who takeing mee by the hand, turned mee, saying, My heart, goe you with mee? Whither goe you, said I? Over Clide by boate, said he. - I: Wher is Argyle? I must see him. - He: He is gone away to his owne countrey, you cannot see him. -I: How comes this change of resolution, and that wee went not together to Glasgow ? — He : It is no time to answer questions, but I shall satisfy you afterward. To the boates wee came, filled 2, and rowed over,' &c. - An honest gentleman who was present told mee afterward the manner of his parting with the Erle. Argyle being in the room with Sir John, the gentleman coming in, found confusion in the Erle's countenance and speach. In end he said, Sir John, I pray advise mee what shall I doe; shall I goe over Clide with you, or shall I goe to my owne countrey? Sir John answered, My Lord, I have told you my opinion; you have some Highlanders here about you; it is best you goe to your owne countrey with them, for it is to no purpose for you to go over Clide. My Lord, faire you well. Then call'd the gentleman, Come away, Sir; who followed him when I met with him.' - Sir P. Hume's Narrative, pp. 63, 64. Such are all the censures which Mr. Fox passes upon this departed worthy; and such the contradiction which Mr. Rose now thinks it necessary to exhibit. It is very true that Mr. Fox, in the course of his narrative, is It is under the necessity of mentioning, on the credit of all the historians who have treated of the subject, that Argyle, after his capture, did express himself in terms of strong disapprobation both of Sir Patrick Hume and of Sir John Cochrane; and said, that their ignorance and misconduct was, though not designedly, the chief cause of his failure. Mr. Fox neither adopts nor rejects this sentiment. He gives his own opinion, as we have already seen, in terms of the highest encomium on the character of Sir Patrick Hume, and merely repeats the expressions of Argyle as he found them in Woodrow and the other historians, and as he was under the necessity of repeating them, if he was to give any account of the last words of that unfortunate nobleman. this censure of Argyle, then, perhaps, and not any censure of Mr. Fox's, that Mr. Rose intended to obviate by the publication before us. But, upon this supposition, how did the appearance of Mr. Fox's book constitute that necessity which compelled the tender conscience of Lord Marchmont's executor to give to the world this long-lost justification of his ancestor? The censure did not appear for the first time in Mr. Fox's book. It was repeated, during Sir Patrick's own life, in all the papers of the time, and in all the historians since. Sir Patrick lived nearly forty good years after this accusation of Argyle was made public; and thirty-six of those years in great credit, honour, and publicity. If he had thought that the existence of such an accusation constituted a kind of moral necessity for the publication of his narrative, it is evident that he would himself have published it; and if it was not necessary then, while he was alive to suffer by the censure of his leader, or to profit by its refutation, it is not easy to understand how it should be necessary now, when 130 years have elapsed from the date of it, and the bones of its author have reposed for nearly a century in their peaceful and honoured monument. That the narrative never was published before, though the censure, to which it is supposed to be an antidote, had been published for more than a century, is a pretty satisfactory proof that those who were most interested and best qualified to judge, either did not consider the censure as very deadly, or the antidote as very effectual. We are very well contented to leave it doubtful which of these was the case; and we are convinced that all the readers of Mr. Rose's book will agree that it is still very doubtful. Sir Patrick, in his narrative, no doubt, says that Argyle was extremely arrogant, self-willed, and obstinate; but it is equally certain, that the Earl said of him, that he was jealous, disobedient, and untractable. Both were men of honour and veracity; and, we doubt not, believed what they said. It is even possible that both may have said truly; but, at this distance of time, and with no new evidence but the averment of one of the parties, it would be altogether ridiculous to pretend to decide which may have come nearest to an impartial statement. Before the publication of the present narrative, it is plain from Woodrow, Burnet, and other writers, that considerable blame was generally laid on Argyle for his peremptoriness and obstinacy; and, now that the narrative is published, it is still more apparent than ever that he had some ground for the charges he made against his officers. The whole tenor of it shows that they were constantly in the habit of checking and thwarting him; and we have already seen that it gives a very lame and unsatisfactory account of their strange desertion of him, when their fortunes appeared to be desperate. It is perfectly plain, therefore, we conceive, that the publication of Mr. Fox's book constituted neither a necessity nor an intelligible inducement for the publication of this narrative; and that the narrative, now that it is published, has no tendency to remove any slight shade of censure that history may have thrown over the temper or prudence of Sir Patrick Hume. But, even if all this had been otherwise, - if Mr. Fox had, for the first time, insinuated a censure on this defunct Whig, and if the narrative had contained the most complete refutation of such a censure this might indeed have accounted for the publication of Sir Patrick's narrative; but it could not have accounted at all for the publication of Mr. Rose's |