From this infernal state of existence our Author was deliver ed, by the interpofition of the Queen of England; of which tranfaction he relates the following particulars.

During the Congrefs at Utrecht for a general peace, we had <ftrong expectations that we might be included in the treaty; and that our deliverance would be ftipulated among other ar⚫ticles. We knew that the Proteftant Powers greatly interested themfelves in our favour; but foon all thefe pleafing hopes. were fruftrated, by the conclufion of the treaty, in which no • mention was made of us.—

Hereupon the Marquis of Rochegaude, a native of France, and a Refugee among the Cantons of Switzerland, had been employed by the Cantons at the Congrefs of Utrecht to folicit in our favour. But failing in this, he was refolved to pursue ⚫his defign ftill, with a vigour furprizing for a man of his years and infirmities. He went from Utrecht to the North, where •he obtained a letter from Charles the XIIth to the Queen of England, in our behalf; another from the King of Denmark; others from the King of Pruffia, and feveral German Princes; from the Proteftant Cantons of Switzerland, the United Provinces, and all the Proteftant Powers of Europe; recommending us to the powerful interceffion of her Britannic Majesty. The Marquis upon this went over into England, and demanded permiffion of my Lord Oxford, to be admitted to an audience of her Majefty. His Lordship afked what his business ⚫ might be with the Queen? I have, faid the Marquis, letters to deliver to her from all the Proteftant Powers of Europe. • Give them then to me, faid my Lord; I will take care to deliver them, and back them with my interest. This the Marquis refused; but his Lordfhip, however, procured him the audience defired. The Queen, upon receipt of the letters, 'committed them to her Secretary of State, who had orders to examine them, and return the proper anfwer.

About a fortnight paffed over before the Marquis heard any more of this affair. Uneafy at fuch delay, and being inform ed that her Majefty was to walk that day in St. James's Park, he refolved to throw himself in her way, fo as to be taken no⚫tice of.

This project fucceeded; for the Queen obferving the old Gentleman, ordered him to be called; and faid to him, Mr. Rochegaude, I entreat you will let thofe poor creatures on board the galleys know, that they fhall foon be fet at liberty. This antwer was pious, and without equivocation. The Marquis quickly informed us of her Majefty's anfwer, which again infpired us with hope; and we gave glory to him on Gg 2 • high

high, who had again interested even crowned heads in our favour.

• Some time after there came from Court an order to the In⚫tendant of Marseilles, to fend up a lift of all the Protestants ⚫ who were on board the galleys. This was accordingly done; and a few days after, towards the latter end of May, an order was fent down to the Intendant, to deliver an hundred and thirty-fix of the Proteftant flaves; whofe names were contained in a lift accompanying the order.

It was impoffible to determine by what policy the Court was influenced in not manumiting the whole, which amounted to • upwards of three hundred, who fuffered for the fame caufe. • Whatever was the reafon, they were not delivered till about a after.'

year

We cannot more properly conclude this article, than with the emphatical words of another periodical Writer*, who, fired with generous indignation against French cruelty, and tyrannical oppreffion, breaks into the following laudable reflection.

"Happy England! that knows no fuch slavery, no galleys! no whips, nor chains, nor cruel tafk-mafters! no popifh ty❝ranny! no perfecution for conscience fake! no regal Savage, "armed with defpotic power to enflave, and mangle, and mur❝ der his miferable fubjects, at his own inhuman pleasure !— "Let us then, with one heart, and one voice, blefs God that "we are born in the Land of LIBERTY!"

GRAND MAGAZINE for April, 1758-article relating to the Memoirs of a Proteftant.

An Hiftorical and Critical Account of the Life and Writings of Charles I. King of Great Britain. After the Manner of Mr. Bayle. Drawn from original Writers and State-papers. By William Harris*. 8vo. 5s. Griffiths, &c.

I

T feldom happens that the merit of Hiftorians is weighed in the equal fcale of unbiaffed judgment. They are often extolled without reason, and cenfured without caufe: for their worth is generally estimated rather from the principles they espouse, than from the excellence or demerit of their work.

Author of the Life of James I. See Review, Vol. X. p. 300.

Lo

In this nation, where past experience feems to teach us that Divifions and Factions are interwoven in our Conftitution, there are few Readers to be found entirely free from party attachments; and each man admires the Writer who inclines to his own favourite bias.

It is no wonder, therefore, that we fo rarely meet with Hiftorians who are totally impartial. Few have the power to divest themselves of party prejudices; or if they had, perhaps they might be apprehenfive, that a rigid impartiality would be neither favourable to their intereft, or general reputation.

Should a Writer pen the History of this kingdom with fuch even judgment, as to fhew himself to be neither Whig or Tory, he would probably be difregarded and difliked by both, for his moderation. The furious Partizans of each, would either defpife him as a lukewarm friend, or abhor him as a fufpicious enemy. But if he appears an Enthufiaft on either fide, he may depend on the warmest encouragement; and, let his performance be ever fo contemptible, yet, like Sacheverell's foolish Sermon, it will be idolized by a bigotted party.

But it is obfervable, that Writers, except fuch as are under the immediate influence of fome powerful Patron, deem it most conducive to their profit, to take the fide of oppofition. They are then fure to engage a number of Readers; for, in fuch cafe, it is no matter how well they write, but how boldly. The public love a man of intrepidity, who will entertain them at his own peril; and they will fee him fkim along the border of treafon, with the fame curiofity with which they gape at a Tumbler fhewing his dangerous activity upon the wire.

The Tory Writers have, for many years paft, been the Bravoes of the Prefs; and at this day, a man who can bend his pliant talents to libel a dead King, and rail against the Revolution, may be fure that his writings will have as liberal a circulation as the hand-bills of a Quack Doctor-nay, they may even keep pace with fuch a rare commodity as the Eftimate.

But as the merit of Hiftorians is too often determined from party prejudice, fo it is the misfortune of the Reviewers, to be included in their common fate. If we cenfure the indigested crudities of a ranting Tory, though ever fo gently, the Bigots of that party ftigmatize us as Whigs; while the Whigs, on the other hand, condemn the lenity of our criticism, and fufpect us, from our moderation, to be na fincere friends to their cause.

Yet, notwithstanding thefe difadvantages, we will not, on any occafion, knowingly fwerve from truth, to oblige either

Gg 3

party.

party. We will deliver our fentiments with frankness and impartiality; always remembering, that it is the privilege of our Readers to judge of us, with the fame freedom with which we judge of others for we do not, in any cafe, prefume to direct their determination, but only to affift their judgment.

We have thought this introduction neceffary, as the fate of the unhappy Charles, whofe Hiftory is now under our confideration, has occafioned more furious party Divifions than, perhaps, any other fubject whatever. How high thefe difputes have run, the Calves-head Club is a fufficient teftimony; and as time has not yet been able to reconcile thefe violent differences, a Writer on this fubject will find it difficult to acquit himself with general fatisfaction.

The flavish Partizans of the tyrannical House of Steuart, have urged it as an objection against our Author, that a Writer of humanity would pitch upon a respectable character, which he would wish to eternize, on account of his virtues. But fuch an objection betrays ftrong malice, and profound ignorance; be fides, that it is a tacit confeffion of the unworthiness of the character in queftion. A Writer who paints a Nero, fhews himself no less a friend to mankind, than he who describes a Titus. A deteftation of the unworthy, is furely as confiftent with the principles of humanity, as a love for the virtuous: and it is as juft, and as ferviceable to the world, to transmit the infamy of the one, as to record the virtues of the other. If good characters only are, without reproach to humanity, to be made the fubjects of Biography, then Plutarch, Nepos, Suetonius, and other Biographers, may be deemed inhuman: and if we difcard worthlefs characters, we may reduce the many numerous biographical productions, to one portable volume. It is of fingular importance to every one, who would with to know the Hiftory and Conftitution of our country, to have a juft idea of the character of Charles, and of the tranfactions during that unhappy and turbulent reign. This can only be obtained by stating the evidence on both fides, with freedom and impartiality; and he who performs this talk with care and integrity, does honour to himself, and has an undoubted title to public thanks and encouragement.

With respect to our Author, his book, is wrote after the manner of the great Mr. Bayle, whofe example many late Biographers have purfued: fo that we are not here to expect a copious Text, the Notes, in this method of writing, ufually making up the bulk of the volume.

His bufinefs has been chiefly that of a Compiler, and we may venture to fay, that he has collected a greater number of autho

rities, pro & con. than ever were affembled on the fame subject; of which feveral never were in print before. He has likewife fhewn great care and accuracy in his Compilation, and has, in general fummed up the evidence on both fides, with great judgment and impartiality.

As an inftance of his merit in this laft particular, we will produce his vindication of Charles's fidelity to the marriage-b -bed. • The licentiousness,' fays our Hiftorian, of fome Writers is very amazing; not content with reprefenting Princes as they. really are, they study to blacken them without foundation. This has happened to Charles very remarkably. One fhould. have thought his attachment to the Queen, her afcendancy over him, the regard he paid to her, and his having no Miftrefs publicly mentioned, fhould have hindered even a thought. of his unchastity. But he has not pafied unfufpected of this, as • well as other matters, in which, probably, he had no concern.'

After having cited what Lilly, Peyton, and Milton have urged against Charles, he obferves- That many objections arife on the face of this evidence against Charles's chastity. Lilly does not pofitively fay that he had any natural children, but that he did not hear of above one or two; which is a very indeterminate way of talking, in fuch an affair. Peyton is very pofitive, we fee; but he names no lady, tho' he speaks of two: which I am perfuaded, from his hatred to the memory of Charles, he would have done, had he known on whom with certainty to have pitched; not to take notice that the Queen • never was at Oxford after her return from France, as Peyton feems to affert. Milton is a name at all times to be mentioned with honour; but truth compels me to fay, that what he here speaks, has much, too much, the air of declamation, to be entirely relied on. Buckingham was lewd; but no one, but Milton, hints that Charles was a partaker of his vices; and his evidence, delivered in fuch a way, (as he himself • could not have been a spectator) is not fufficient to condemn him. The handling virgins and matrons breafts, though not feemingly confiftent with the gravity Charles remarkably pre⚫ ferved in his whole behaviour, depends much on the custom of ages and countries; and therefore, had it been ever fo publicly done, cannot of itself determine against a man's chastity, A fingle fact, advanced with proper vouchers, would have been of more force in determining the chaftity of Charles, than a thousand of these kind of affertions and inferences. But as fuch a fact, properly attefted, has not been brought, even by Peyton or Milton, we may, I think, conclude, that they could not; and confequently, that in this matter he was • blameless.'

Gg 4

He