sition of that nation, to obtain BY ANY OTHER EXPEDIENT." In the whole compass of English History, I defy any man to produce an assertion more gratuitous, malevolent, and unfounded, than that contained in the words here printed in italics and capitals, namely, that in the present disposition of the English nation, the Scots were not likely to obtain the arrears due to them "BY ANY OTHER EXPEDIENT" than detaining and huckstering about the surrender of the King's person! As the whole opprobrium of the transaction hinges upon this insidious clause, it will be necessary to give it a little of our attention.

In the first place, when the Scots invaded England in 1640, the condition upon which they lent their aid to the English malcontents was, that their army should be paid and supported by their allies; and when a precarious peace was patched up by the Treaty of Rippon, in which neither party was probably sincere, not only was this condition fulfilled, but £.300,000 were voted by the English Parliament as a "fit proportion for the friendly assistance afforded, and the losses sustained by our brethren of Scotland," (Journals of the Commons, Feb. 3, 1641.) At this time the Scots had not the King in their hands, and could not, therefore, make use of the " scandalous expedient" of detaining his person, in order to secure "their wages.' If, therefore, the English Parliament in 1641 not only paid the arrears due to the Scots, but voted them a gratuity of £.300,000 for their "friendly assistance," over and above their just claim,-upon what ground can it be asserted that they would have acted differently in 1646, even had the King never quitted Oxford, and had the Scots been in the same situation as in 1641? Mr Hume has offered no proof of his allegation, that," in the present disposition of the English nation," the Scots were not likely to obtain the arrears due to them, by any other expedient than detaining the King as a pledge; but as the whole controversy turns upon this point, it surely required to be supported by some authority. It is doubtless at all times easier to assert than to prove, and few things I know of are more annoying than to be called upon for authorities when there are none to produce. In this predicament stands Hume's false and malicious averment, which supposes, that, had not the King imprudently put himself in the hands of the Scottish leaders, the English would have sent their army back to Scotland without paying them sixpence of what they had expressly stipulated for. Why he should presume, or how he could know, that the English intended to be guilty of a proceeding so dishonest in itself, and which must have converted their Scottish allies, by whose means they had gained some of their proudest triumphs, into dangerous and implacable enemies, I must leave to the ingenuity of his readers to determine. But,

In the second place, it is not too much to presume, that a force of 20,000 men, with arms in their hands, had an argument for the fulfilment of the conditions stipulated in regard to their pay and arrears, infinitely more conclusive than the possession of all the crowned heads in Christendom. It is, therefore, perfectly monstrous to suppose that so powerful an army would have been refused payment of what was justly due to them, if they had not fallen in with an opportunity of committing an act of treachery, by selling the person of their Sovereign; or that the English Parliament would have dared to be guilty of conduct equally inconsistent with the principles of sound policy and common honesty. The men who at this time governed England were unquestionably dark and gloomy enthusiasts; but there was method in their madness; the most absurd deliration in theory was strangely blended with consummate prudence in council, and vigour in action: and no man, acquainted with the history of the times, and the characters of the men who figured in them,-I mean on the Parliament side,— will ever be induced to credit an allegation so extraordinary, as that they intended to cheat their allies out of their arrears of pay, and that they were only induced to fulfil their engagements by an anxiety to get the King's person into their hands. Yet this is substantially Hume's assertion, the incredible absurdity of which will appear in a still more striking light, if the reader will only give himself the trouble of imagining what consequences

would have ensued, had the Parliament carried their fraudulent intentions into effect, and thereby thrown the whole force of their allies into the Royalist scale.

In the third place, having already shown that the Parliament honourably acquitted themselves of their obligations to the Scots in 1641, and that it would have been worse than madness—a sort of felo de se-had they entertained the remotest thought of acting differently on the present occasion, it is evident that the arrears must have been paid, even had the King never quitted Oxford, and therefore that these arrears can, by no force of construction, be viewed as the price of an act of baseness and treachery; for if they were to be so considered, the Scottish Commissioners must have been singularly deficient in that prudence which is generally supposed, on the south side of the Tweed at least, to be characteristic of their country. It has never been pretended by any Royalist Historian that the sum they received was more than the arrears actually due to them; and if, therefore, they sold their King for what they would unquestionably have got had the King never put himself in their hands, they were guilty of an act of the most gratuitous and unparalleled wickedness, and exhibit a solitary instance, in the history of mankind, of treachery committed without a motive, and without the hope of reward. But it is proper to attend to the amount of these arrears. After some discussion, they were fixed at £.400,000, one half of which was to be paid immediately, and the other at two subsequent instalments. Now, in 1641, the Scots, who were only about a twelvemonth in England, received £.300,000 in name of arrears; whereas in 1646, after more than three years of hard service, they agreed to take £.400,000 in lieu of all demands. Very moderate traitors these same Scots must have been, verily!

In the fourth place, the negociation regarding the arrears, and that for the surrender of the King's person, being contemporaneous, the Royalist Historians have artfully represented them "as one and the same," and thus succeeded in giving a colour of plausibility to the charge. This is the misfortune of the case. Hume says, 66 common sense" requires that both trans actions should be considered as identical. It is somewhat strange, to find him referring to "common sense," which, when it served his purpose, he could treat with the coolest derision; but if for "common sense" here, we read "the charge against the Scots," we will come somewhat nearer the truth; for unless both transactions are regarded as virtually and substantially the same, the accusation falls to the ground. Upon what ground, then, is it asserted that the settlement of the arrears was made a condition of delivering up the King? "Common sense requires" that it should be so, says Hume. But what has "common sense" to do with a matter which must be determined either by the evidence of documents, or by reasoning from all the circumstances of the case?"The English, it is evident,” he adds, had they not been previously assured of receiving the King, "would never have parted with so considerable a sum;" but it is matter of historical fact, that, in 1641, they "parted with" a sum nearly as "considerable," and that in compensation for only a year's service, during the greater part of which the Scots had received £.850 per diem, in name of pay. Hume's ar gument, if it may be dignified with that name, falls, therefore, to the ground; and from the whole of the foregoing reasoning, no less than from the de claration of the English themselves, it is manifest that the transactions were completely distinct, and that it is only by wilfully confounding them, by flourishes about " common sense,' and boldly declaring that to be evident" which is the very thing requiring to be proved, that any sort of plausibility has been given to a slander the most unjust and undeserved which has ever been embodied in the pages of history.

Lastly, it is not difficult to account for the anxiety of the Scots to settle their pecuniary concerns with the English at this time. It was now known that Vane had over-reached them in the Treaty concluded at Edinburgh in 1642; that the Parliament never intended to establish Presbytery in England, as the Scots, in their simplicity, had been led to believe; that the power had fallen into the hands of the Independents, who were inimical to

that, and to every form of ecclesiastical polity; and that matters were likely to be pushed much farther than the Scots, who still adhered to the principle of a limited monarchy, could go along with. They had taken up arms against the King, because, in virtue of his prerogative alone, he sought to overturn, at once, the religion and liberties of their country; but it had never entered into their heads to subvert funditus the whole fabric of the monarchy, and erect a commonwealth in its stead. Hence, they were anxious to withdraw from an alliance which was likely to lead to results they had never anticipated-results which they were bound by the Solemn League and Covenant to oppose; and with this view they availed themselves of the earliest opportunity to effect an adjustment of their claims, that they might be at full liberty to pursue the course pointed out by their duty to God and their country.

These considerations, which it is hoped will serve to expose the utter fallacy of Mr Hume's allegations, are strikingly confirmed by subsequent events. The Scots, it is evident, had no suspicion that the English would ever dare to take away the King's life; for, two years after, they entered into a solemn engagement to deliver him from imprisonment, and marched into England an army of nearly 40,000 men in support of his authority; and when he was put to death, they instantly proclaimed his son,-sent commissioners to bring him home to Scotland,-caused him to be solemnly crowned at Scone,-fought the battles of Dunbar and Worcester in his cause,—and even after these defeats maintained a long and persevering struggle against Cromwell and the regicides, whom they cordially detested. Is it conceivable, that the men who acted this part, and who, in fact, employed the money they had received from the English Parliament in raising forces for the King when his life was in danger, could have been guilty of the baseness ascribed to them by Hume and other Royalist Historians? Is it credible, if the Scots had sold their King to destruction, that they would have made such an effort to save him? Is it credible that, had they been hostile to the monarchy, or in any degree attached to regicide principles, they would have proclaimed Charles II.,-fought the battles of Dunbar and Worcester,-exposed their country to all the miseries of war,-and, notwithstanding the whole power of the Usurper, kept the royal banner unfurled almost till the very moment that Monk began his march to England? Let these events be taken in conjunction with the preceding reasoning in answer to Hume, and I will venture to say, that altogether they form as strong and convincing a demonstration of the falsehood and injustice of " the reproach" so frequently thrown in the teeth of the Scots, "of selling their King and betraying their Prince for money," as it is possible to conceive beyond the pale of the exact sciences, and in a question where moral evidence alone can be employed.

But by whom, let me ask, is this "reproach" most frequently cast in our teeth? By the English. They say we sold our King *. Well; what then?

When the above remarks had been brought to a close, my attention was acci dentally directed to the following passage in SIR GEORGE MACKENZIE'S Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, from the Restoration of King Charles II. A.D. MDCLX, printed at Edinburgh 1821; which has afforded me the liveliest satisfaction from the coincidence of opinion it exhibits in regard to the transactions at Newark and Newcastle. The Lord Advocate of Charles II. and James VII. will not be suspected of any partiality or tenderness for the men who then governed in Scotland.

"The Parliament of Scotland, [which met at Edinburgh on the 1st of January 1661,] taking to their consideration how much and how unjustly this kingdom was injured, by an aspersion cast upon it for the transactions at Newcastle in anno 1647, at which time the King was delivered to the Parliament of England; which was called, in some histories, A SELLING OF THE KING; did, by an express act, condemn and reprobate all that treaty, and declare that the same was no national act, but was only carried on by some rebels, who had falsely assumed the name of a Parliament. Nor wanted there many, even in that Parliament, who protested against all that procedure, and who had the courage and honesty to cause registrate that protestation. And I must here crave leave to expostulate with our neighbours of England, for inveighing so severely against our nation for delivering up their

They bought him. They accuse us of "betraying our Prince for money." Be it so. They paid the price of the act of treachery; and surely they who hire treason are little better than the traitors; for wherein does the suborner of false testimony differ from the perjured witness? or in what respect is he who sets on a bravo better than the miserable tool he employs to execute his vengeance? But it is clear that the Scottish Commissioners, in delivering up the King into the hands of his English subjects, (who pretended that they had the best right to the custody of his person, because he was upon English ground,) had not the remotest idea that these same English meditated an act of regicide; and, therefore, their guilt, if guilt it must be called, is absolutely nothing in comparison of that of the purchasers, who paid £.400,000 that they might be enabled, first to imprison, and thereafter murder one of the most accomplished and gallant princes who ever wore a crown! Verily the English should cautiously avoid stirring up the remembrance of a subject where recrimination is so easy and so effective, and where, go the main question as it will, there is a moral certainty that they will come off only second best; nor would it be an improper wish, on their part, that the memory of this unhappy transaction, as well as of the tragedy which followed, were buried in the tomb of all the Capulets.

2. THEORY OF THE COLONIZATION OF ITALY, by a Led Captain of the Nineteenth Century; being a crumb from a Great Man's table.

-

Sub Rosa the Captain delivereth himself thus:- "The Greeks who colonized Italy were Goths themselves, and they found Gothic tribes in possession of that country, these Gothic tribes had many ages before (they "colonized Italy?") driven the original Celts beyond the Alps; and if this man had known any thing at all of Greek, or Latin, or Gothic, he would have known, that every monument that has descended to us, of the LANGUAGE of the Italian tribes conquered by the Romans, PROVES that these tribes were Gothic tribes who had attained different degrees of PROGRESS in polishing their Gothic dialects-some of them acting upon the same principles which guided the Greeks in the work of polishing their Gothic dialect, and others upon very nearly the same principles that have conducted the refinement of the Gothic dialects now in use over the greater part of the European world."

The reader will have the goodness to give his attention for a moment to this " clear, complete, and satisfactory theory" of the colonization of Italy. "The Greeks who colonized Italy were Goths," says our literary Bobadil

King; SEEING HE WAS ONLY DELIVERED UP TO THEIR PARLIAMENT, WHO FIRST IMPRISONED AND THEREAFTER MURDERED HIM; whereas, how soon EVEN OUR REBELS discovered their design, they carried into England a splendid and mighty army for his defence; and when his murder came to their ears, they proclaimed his son their King, and sent Commissioners to treat with him, and bring him home to Scotland; and WHEN HE WAS ARRIVED, THEY DID CONTRIBUTE THEIR LIVES AND FORTUNES FOR HIS SAFETY. And albeit some bigot Presby. terians did use him unkindly, out of too much kindness to their own principles; yet even these did VERY GENEROUSLY oppose CROMWELL, and SUCH AS HAD MUR. DERED THEIR KING; as is clearly the attack made by General Major Montgomery at Musselburgh, and by the Remonstrators at Linlithgow. They fought also two battles for him at Dunbar and Worcester, and suffered the greatest hardships ima ginable. After which, first the Earl of Glencairn, and then the Earl of Middletoun, did keep the fields under his displayed banner; nor did ever his Majesty want some Scottis to stand in arms for him in Scotland, till it pleased God, in re turn of this loyalty, to make them the great instruments of encouraging General Monk in his bringing home the King; having offered to assist him with their lives and fortunes against Lambert, and having contributed three months' cess per advance for payment of his armies. And so remarkable was our loyalty to the world, and amongst strangers, that his Majesty was always called King of Scots; and it was believed and presumed in all places where our nation travelled, whether in England or beyond sea, that a Scot was still a Royalist." pp. 25-27.

This is, no doubt, a mere assertion, and, as such, might fairly enough be answered by a counter allegation, that "the Greeks who colonized Italy" were not Goths, any more than they were Crees or Caffres. But I shall not treat the Captain in so scurvy a fashion, especially as, with the help of Jornandes, (De Rebus Geticis,) and other ancient historians and chroniclers, a pretty accurate opinion may be formed in regard to that great people who broke the Roman power, sacked the Capitol, and reigned in Gaul, Spain, and Italy. It appears, then, that the Gothic writers themselves deduced the first origin of their nation from the great Scandinavian peninsula; that many vestiges, which cannot be ascribed to the arts of popular vanity, attest the ancient residence of the Goths in the countries beyond the Baltic; that, as early as the Christian era, and as late as the age of the Antonines, the Goths were established towards the mouth of the Vistula, in that rich province where the commercial cities of Thorn, Elbing, Königsberg, and Dantzic, were long afterwards founded; but that there is not a shadow of evidence, in the whole of ancient history, that a single Goth landed in Italy till the third century of the vulgar era! Nay, the first considerable occasion in which history mentions that people is A. D. 250, when Decius, who had been lately raised to the purple, was summoned to the Banks of the Danube, by a formidable invasion of the Goths, in attempting to repel which he lost both his army and his life. (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, I, 331-341.) But the settlement of the Hellenic Colonies in Magna Graecia dates from the century in which Rome was founded; and before their arrival, five successive immigrations of Illyrians, Iberians, Celts, Pelasgians, and Etruscans, (two of which, the Pelasgians and Etruscans or Tyrrhenians, were unquestionably of Greek origin,) may be clearly traced by the light of ancient history, and the help of such monuments as have escaped the ravages of so many ages. Of these five different races or tribes, the Etruscans rose to the greatest eminence in wealth, power, and refinement, and were in possession of part of Italy at least a thousand years before the building of Rome: so that if the Greeks who first colonized Italy were Goths, the Captain has discovered the existence of these same Goths fully Two THOUSAND YEARS before history makes the slightest mention of their name, or of any circumstance by which they can be distinguished! If, however, it be alleged, that he refers only to the settlement of the Hellenic Colonies in Magna Graecia, his blunder, in point of chronology, is one half less; for, upon that hypothesis, he is only about a thousand years in error, which, of course, is a mere trifle. The alleged identity of the Greeks and Goths is disposed of by the same argument; and, in fact, no one but this presumptuous ignoramus ever supposed that the Greeks were of Scandinavian origin; in other words, Swedes and Norwegians.

But further: "the Greeks who colonized Italy were Goths themselves, and they found Gothic tribes in possession of the country;" that is, the Greeks who colonized Italy were Scandinavians, and they found Scandinavians in possession of the country which they (the Greeks) colonized; and, what is still more wonderful, these Gothic (or Scandinavian) tribes had many ages before driven the original Celts beyond the Alps!" The only semblance of an idea that glimmers through the haze of "this man's" ignorance is, that the Celts were the Aborigines of Italy, and that they were "driven beyond the Alps" by the Scandinavian tribes in possession of that Country BEFORE the arrival of the Greeks who colonized it, and who were also Scandinavians. Now, if Bobadil chooses to assert that the Celts were the Aborigines of Italy, I, who am a Celt myself, shall not contest the point with him; but most certain it is, that these Celts were NEVER "driven beyond the Alps" either by Goths or Greeks; that, on the contrary, they retained possession of the Great Plain of Northern Italy, afterwards called Cisalpine Gaul; that they waged many long and bloody wars with the Romans; and that, when vanquished by the arms of the Republic, they were not expelled "beyond the Alps," but united, in the form of a province, to the territory already subject to Rome.