adduces another eight, wherein he compares the Icôn with Gauden on one side, and the king, not in the Icôn, on the other; with what success we must leave our readers to judge. (pp. 114-119.) With regard to the remark from Synergus of Mr. B.'s instances being most of them brought from the Hieraspistes, which he contends to be too far, both from the Icôn before, and the claim after, to be subject to our former observations, either a parte ante, or à parte post; we affirm, without fear of contradiction, that no hour of resemblance after the appearance of the Icôn is too near or too far, to prevent its being much more probable of the two, that the posterior writer is indebted to the prior one, than that the posterior one's claim to being identified with the prior can be grounded, either mainly or at all, on a seeming similarity, whether in language, or sentiment, or both.

Before parting with Mr. Broughton, we must say a few words on his "morality," at the conclusion. In the first place, we must reprobate, with what we trust will be thought no more than just indignation, the perfect sang froid with which Mr. Broughton takes for granted, and reads a solemn lecture on the "dishonesty in purpose," of "Duppa, Morley, Clarendon, and the rest;" (p. 89.) without one tittle of evidence but Gauden's to support it: of whose good fame whatever may be the lot, that of those named here before him is not to be trifled with. Respecting these distinguished personages, we beg Mr. Broughton to withdraw his exhortation, till he has positive and unquestionable proof of its being applicable and appropriate. The remainder of Mr. Broughton's ethics (in which Synergus follows him) we as little subscribe to. "Whatever may

become of others," he says, (p. 90,) "THE MARTYR is here without reproach." Here, however, the difference, after all, between us and Mr. Broughton is rather one of fact than morals, though partaking somewhat of both.

We maintain that the Martyr is not without reproach, very far from it, if Bishop Gauden was the writer of Icôn Basilikè. We have stated our conviction in a former Number, (Vol. VIII. p. 144,) that "it is next to impossible, from the contents, and under the circumstances of the work, to detach the king from all share either in its composition or publication. For our proof of this opinion, we have referred to two places in Dr. Wordsworth's first book (Who wrote, &c.) pp. 341, and 134-146. To the former of these two references, Synergus answers in one word-" Duppa." The argument, however, involved in this single word is, at the very best, one of probability only, (we think of very remote probability indeed,) and cannot, therefore, claim to be one founded on record and fact. As such, we dismiss it, as of no weight opposed to our reference which it aims at.

Consequently, our premises being unshaken on the above hypothesis of Gauden's authorship, we repeat our conclusion, that "King Charles was not an honest man." If, therefore, "THE MARTYR" must be as free from "reproach" as it appears clear Mr. Broughton wishes him to appear, it can only be on the condition of his being the whole and sole author of Icôn Basilikè. We hope Mr. B. will, at least, sooner or later, see reason to embrace this condition, which will serve, if consistent with truth, (as we are more and more convinced it is,) to rescue so many distinguished men from his rebuke. Should Mr. B. become thus convinced, we hope, and we think it but just to him to add, we believe, that he will acknowledge and avow this his conviction.

4. The EDINBURGH REVIEW, Dr. Wordsworth's next antagonist, our limits positively forbid our dilating on so fully as we could have wished. But at no period of our undertaking have "Reviewers Reviewed" occupied a large portion of our pages; and we cannot, in justice to Dr. Wordsworth, fail of reserving all the space we can for the just castigation he has given to his last competitor in the field, Mr. Hallam. We will confine ourselves therefore to a few leading points, and those chiefly which have not been touched or dwelt on by the former controversialists on Gauden's side. First, let us take up here a series of happy observations of Dr. Wordsworth's, (at p. 133, &c.) showing that Clarendon was not the only person silent about the Icôn. If he "loved the king," Whitelock and Ludlow, historians of the day, who "loved him not," are silent also. "Why? but that in their hearts they knew, or verily believed, not that the king was not, but that in truth he was the author of Icôn Basilikè?"

After taking up the three-fold division of the Reviewer, Dr. W. notices, under the first head, at p. 258, that "not merely as respects Lord Clarendon, but as respects all the other parties, and finally, also, as respects the public at large, how surprising is it, we have no evidence that deserves the name; none but what is circumstantial; and none even of that nature, save of these two facts, that the claim was made; and that, openly at least, it was never confuted and disallowed?

For the other points in the Review, we must refer to Dr. W. himself, with one exception, which we cannot pass over, viz. the Reviewer's observations on the twelfth chapter of the Icôn, relating to the Irish rebellion. A charge of insincerity is fastened upon Charles from this chapter, supposing him to be the author of it: and Dr. W. plays off very spiritedly and sportively the alternations that exhibit themselves in the Reviewer's mind, between a reluctance on one hand to admit Charles to be the author, and yet an unwillingness on

the other to part with this imputation, provided he is so. The truth is, Charles might have been the writer of this chapter, and yet not insincere in it. We cannot go into the details of this matter; suffice it to say, that we believe not one reader in a hundred would peruse attentively Dr. W.'s pages, from 219 to 226, without rising from them firmly convinced, that to make the Reviewer's remarks applicable, the title of the chapter must undergo a thorough change; and instead of being "The Rebellion and Troubles of Ireland," must be, to meet the Reviewer's purposes, "The Negotiations for a Treaty, and the Pacification with the Rebels of Ireland." Dr. Wordsworth fears he sees reason for suspecting some degree of wilfulness in the Reviewer's mistake: and his reasonings certainly appear very cogent. We wish the reader to consult the two writers for himself. On a passage in the same chapter, Dr. W. builds a strong conviction, arising out of the very transaction adverted to by the Reviewer, that Charles wrote the Icôn. Thus we conclude with the Edinburgh Review.

5. The contents of the last few pages of Dr. Wordsworth, with which we have just been employed, present a good specimen of well-applied and spirited vituperation; and are, in this respect, a suitable preamble to the still severer castigation which Dr. W. has inflicted on his last antagonist, Mr. HALLAM, and which we scruple not to consider the most forcible and vigorous portion of Dr. Wordsworth's powerful book. First, Mr. Hallam brings into court Dr. Gauden's three witnesses. Mrs. G., the first witness, Dr. W. in contradiction of Mr. H. once more repeats, was not an original independent one; next, in opposition to him also, she was not a disinterested witness in her expression with regard to her husband, as " of him that did hope to make a fortune by it." Thirdly, he gainsays Mr. H.'s observation, with proof that her account does not "tally exactly with what Dr. G. says in writing to Lord Clarendon, of her share and privity in the transaction." Dr. W. even doubts, and there seems good reason for the doubt, "whether ever, properly speaking, she was an accomplice in her husband's guilt." (p. 233.) On Mr. Hallam's remarks concerning Walker, and Dr. W.'s reply to them, we think it unnecessary to dwell. The passage in which Mr. H. adverts to the external evidence in behalf of the king, (for we have thought it due to our present undertaking to consult them at large in Mr. Hallam's own Postscript) we are prepared to say, are such as to justify Dr. W.'s declaration" I am prepared to show, that hardly a single sentence has flowed from him, which is not disgraced by misrepresentation, and blunderings, and a temper just such as we have seen. But I designedly suppress what I had written; not because Mr. Hallam deserves to be spared, but because I trust I have done enough to satisfy every reasonable expectation." (p. 239.)

The arguments on the internal evidence from Mr. Hallam's pen call loudly for our attention. Mr. H. it is remarked, seems to treat the Icôn as

A series of meditations, arranged in strict chronological order, each of them written upon some one leading event, at the time when that event happened; and having been so written, that each essay was at the moment stamped and sealed, and could thenceforth never receive any particle of addition, revision, alteration, or modification_whatsoever. These are Dr. Wordsworth's words. (p. 240.) He goes on in the next page-" But who in the world ever maintained this principle respecting the composition of the Icon, or any thing like it? I have not, I am well assured. Every ground of argument concurs in witnessing that the book was repeatedly revised and transcribed by the King.

For the "blunders" exposed by Dr. Wordsworth, from p. 241 to p. 243, we must refer to his volume. They are truly remarkable. But we have still graver matter to lay before our readers. Mr. Hallam has lately appeared before the public, as the writer of what he calls "The Constitutional History of England ;" and the " Postscript" to this work is what we are now tracing Dr. W. in the handling of. Of this "History," a kindred writer to one we have already treated of here, viz. an Edinburgh Reviewer, says, (No. 95, pp. 98, 99)" We do not scruple to pronounce it the most impartial book that we ever read." Now let us compare the " Postscript" of this book with other authentic records.

Hallam.

Vane, appointed for his son's sake, &c.

Sir Henry Vane the elder named on the Council of State, &c.

Archbishop Williams not "harassed

or crushed."

Lord Say in the highest power and influence, &c.

Thus:

Other Authorities.

Not Vane the Father, but no other than the identical son, Sir Henry Vane the younger.-Parl. Hist. p. 1290. Whitelocke, p. 370.

Sir Henry Vane the younger proposed indeed, but rejected by 54 against 44.-Parl. Hist. p. 1346.

The faction, to which he (Archbishop Williams) knew himself sufficiently obnoxious.-Bishop Hall's Hard Measure. Ecclesiastical Biography, Vol. V. pp. 319, 320.

The Archbishop of York as deep in the hatred of the common people as, &c.-Phillips's Life of Williams, p. 279.

The people call very outrageously for him (Say) to justice. Say complains of the force and violence whereby they (he and others) have been trampled under the feet of a rabble people.Rushworth, Vol. VII. p. 754.

Whatever may be said of Mr. H.'s " impartiality," these do not appear very splendid achievements of his accuracy. In a series of citations from the Icôn that follows, Mr. Hallam attacks "the sound taste and rational piety of Charles," on the supposition of his being the writer of the Icôn, only to have his attack triumphantly repelled

by his adversary, without surrendering the royal authorship. admirer of Hooker and Shakespeare" (Charles) is made consistent with the latter at least, by a happy citation from the Merchant of Venice. But above all, Dr. W. has been eminently happy in his reply to Mr. H.'s remarks on what he calls this "happy stroke on being delivered to the Scots." "If I am sold by them, I am only sorry they should do it, and that my price should be so much above my Saviour's."

We will take our leave of Mr. Hallam in the following pathetic extract from Dr. Wordsworth; and which we commend to Mr. Hallam's reflection (p. 255):

May I not appeal to Mr. Hallam, whether he does not recognize in himself an emotion of a (religious) nature, from the moral and affecting tone of feeling, in those other words :-"I am only sorry they should do it." To my taste, here is a tenderness not very congenial to Gauden's affections, and not unworthy, perhaps, of Mr. Hallam's high notions of King Charles.

After having thus gone through the several performances of the antagonists of Dr. Wordsworth's former volume, and likewise examined the arguments, wherewith Dr. W. in his present publication, has replied to them, it must be evident to our readers, that we entertain a high opinion of the value of Dr. Wordsworth's book, and of the triumphant success he has had in the encounter with his adversaries; so triumphantly, indeed, does he appear to have handled this question for the second time, (a question we must consider as one of deep nationa] interest) that we much question, whether any further attempt will be made to disturb the ground Dr. W. has now occupied. Be this as it may, we cannot retire from, we fear, a somewhat tedious investigation, without congratulating Dr. Wordsworth on the high moral tone he has been enabled to sustain throughout his share in the inquiry. We are deceived, if his two larger publications on this subject do not stand, in the eyes of posterity, as lasting monuments of unswerving integrity. Encompassed with innumerable temptations to indulge prepossessions that he does not affect to conceal, he has, nevertheless, exercised himself in that patient self-discipline, which no one, indeed, should be wanting in, who emulates the dignified office of throwing light upon a doubtful point in history. We wish we could persuade ourselves, that the jealous self-controlling impartiality, from the contemplation of which we are now about to retire, could be employed in the farther elucidation of an era in our history, which needs, more than any we know of, the rigid and distinguished exercise of this arduous attainment. Having faintly uttered this wish, we cannot, in the mean time, part with the persuasion, that, with regard to King Charles the First, however there may be shades and blemishes in his character, which Dr. Wordsworth does not seek