Sivut kuvina

Page 232, line 33, note.

I will give one other specimen of the arts which are thought legitimate where the fame of Penn is concerned. To vindicate the language which he held on this occasion, if we suppose him to have meant what he said, is plainly impossible. We are therefore told that he was in a merry mood; that his benevolent heart was so much exhilarated by the sight of several pious and learned men who were about to be reduced to beggary for observing their oaths and adhering to their religion, that he could not help joking; and that it would be most unjust to treat his charming facetiousness as a crime. In order to make out this defence,—a poor defence even if made out, the following words are quoted, as part of Hough's letter, “He had a mind to droll upon us.” This is given as a positive assertion made by Hough. The context is carefully suppressed. My readers will, I believe, be surprised when they learn that Hough's words really are these : “When I heard him talk at this rate, I concluded he was either off his guard, or had a mind to droll upon us.”

Page 250, line 16, note.

The King was only Nell's Charles III. Whether Dorset or Major Charles Hart had the honor of being her Charles I. is a point open to dispute. But the evidence in favor of Dorset's claim seems to me to preponderate. See the suppressed passage of Burnet, i. 263, and Pepys's Diary, Oct. 26, 1667.

Page 434, line 43, note.

I take this opportunity of giving an explanation which well-informed persons may think superfluous. Several critics have complained that I treat the Saint Germains Life of James the Second sometimes as a work of the highest authority, and sometimes as a mere romance. They seem to imagine that the book is all from the same hand, and ought either to be uniformly quoted with respect or uniformly thrown aside with contempt. The truth is that part of the Life is of the very highest authority, and that the rest is the work of an ignorant and silly compiler, and is of no more value than any common Jacobite pamphlet. Those passages which were copied from the Memoirs written by James, and those passages which were carefully revised by his son, are among the most useful materials for history. They contain the testimony of witnesses, who were undoubtedly under a strong bias, and for whose bias large allowance ought to be made, but who had the best opportunities of learning the truth. The interstices between these precious portions of the narrative are sometimes filled with trash. Whoever will take the trouble to examine the references in my notes will see that I have constantly borne in mind the distinction which I have now pointed out. Surely I may cite, as of high authority, an account of the last moments of Charles the Second, which was written by his brother, or an account of the plottings of Penn, of Dartmouth, and of Churchill, which was corrected by the hand of the Pretender, and yet may, with perfect consistency, reject the fables of a nameless scribbler who makes Argyle, with all his cavalry, swim across the Clyde at a place where the Clyde is more than four miles wide. (1857.)


Page 191, note *.

Wolseley's exploit at Scarborough is mentioned in one of the letters published by Sir Henry Ellis.

Page 239, note *.

I will cite the testimony of another man of genius in support of the doctrine propounded in the text. No human being has ever had a finer sense of the beauties of nature than Gray. No prospect surpasses in grandeur and loveliness the first view of Italy from Mount Cenis. Had Gray enjoyed that view from the magnificent road constructed in this century, he would undoubtedly have been in raptures. But in his time the descent was performed with extreme inconvenience and with not a little peril. He therefore, instead of breaking forth into ejaculations of admiration and delight, says most unpoetically, “Mount Cenis, I confess, carries the permission mountains have of being frightful rather too far; and its horrors were accompanied with too much danger to give one time to reflect upon their beauties.”— Gray to West, Nov. 16, 1739.

Page 308, note *.

Dorset ridiculed Edward Howard's poetry in a short satire, in which thought and wit are packed as close as in the finest passages of Hudibras.

Page 385, note *.

The letter in which Tillotson informed Lady Russell of the King's intentions is printed in Birch's book: but the date is clearly erroneous. Indeed I feel assured that parts of two distinct letters have been by some blunder joined together. In one passage Tillotson informs his correspondent that Stillingfleet is made Bishop of Worcester, and in another, that Walker is made Bishop of Derry. Now Stillingfleet was consecrated Bishop of Worcester on the 13th of October, 1689, and Walker was not made Bishop of Derry till June, I690.

Page 416, note *.

It has been asserted that I have committed an error here, and that Armstrong's head was placed on Temple Bar. The truth is that one of his quarters was placed on Temple Bar. His head was on Westminster Hall. See Luttrell's Diary, June, 1684

Page 426, note f.

So early as the days of Charles the Second, the leanness and ghastliness of Caermarthen were among the favorite topics of Whig satirists. In a ballad entitled the Chequer Inn are these lines:–

“He is as stiff as any stake,
And leaner, Dick, than any rake:
Envy is not so pale;
And though, by selling of us all,
He has wrought himself into Whitehall,
He looks like bird of gaol.”

Page 437, note t. But he is mistaken as to the preacher.

Page 523, note t.

Since the first edition of this part of my work appeared I have learned that the Jacobite Form of Prayer which produced so much excitement and controversy in 1690 was, to a great extent, copied from a Form of Prayer which had been composed and clandestinely printed, soon after the battle of Worcester, for the use of the Royalists. This curious fact, which seems to have been quite unknown both to the accused Bishops and to their accusers, was discovered by Mr. Lathbury, after the publication of his History of the Nonjurors, and was, in the most obliging manner, communicated by him to me.

Page 559, note f.

The doctrines of those more moderate nonjurors who call themselves the Reformed Presbyterian Church have been recently set forth in a prize catechism by the Reverend Thomas Martin.

Page 574, note f.

The memorandum relating to Pennsylvania ought to be quoted together with the two sentences which precede it. “A commission given to me from Mr. P. — Fr. Fl. hinder Eng, and D. from joining—two vessels of 150l. price for Pensilvania, for 13 or 14 months.” I have little doubt that the first and third of these sentences are parts of one memorandum, and that the words which evidently relate to the fleets were jotted down at a different time in the place left vacant between two lines.


Page 17, note f.

It ought to be observed that this part of the Life of James was revised and corrected by his son.

Page 30, note *.

A Latin epitaph on the Church of England, written soon after Tillotson's consecration, ends thus: “Oh Miseranda Ecclesia, cui Rex Batavus, et Patriarcha non baptizatus.” In a poem called the Eucharisticon, which appeared in 1692, are these lines:

“Unblest and unbaptized, this Church's son
Hath all his Mother's children half undone.”

Page 42, note *. This passage was corrected by the Pretender with his own hand.

Page 53, note *.

The description of this young hero in the Dramatis Personae is amusing: “Sir Nicholas Dainty, a most conceited fantastic Beau, of drolling, affected Speech; a very Coxcomb, but stout; a most luxurious effeminate Volunteer.”

Page 99, note *.

On the 8th of December 1797, Mr. John Nicholls, a reformer of much more zeal than wisdom, proposed, in the House of Commons, a resolution framed on the model of the resolution of the 12th of December 1691. Mr. Pitt justly remarked that the precedent on which Mr. Nicholls relied was of no value, for that the gentlemen who passed the resolution of the 12th of December 1691 had, in a very short time, discovered and acknowledged their error. The debate is much better given in the Morning Chronicle than in the Parliamentary History.

Page 104, line 16, note.

I have left my account of the East India Company as it stood in 1855. It is unnecessary to say that it contains some expressions which would not have been used, if it had been written in 1858.

« EdellinenJatka »