om the pen of M. Lally Tolendal.--When I was at
Paris, in the autumn of 1814, he was engaged on the Life of Charles I, of
England. After the return of Bonaparte, Louis XVIII appointed him one of
his ministers.

[12] See Letter IV.

[13] This, if well executed, would be a very interesting work, and it is
not impossible, that it may be attempted.

[14] See Letter III.

[15] Lord Clarendon, vol. i, page 73.

[16] Hume's History of England, vol. vi, page 297, &c.

[17] Hume's History of England, vol. vi, page 378.

[18] On the subject of the popish plots, see Dr. Milner's Letters to a
Prebendary.

[19] As to the judges of those times, see what a picture is drawn of a
chief justice by the most celebrated of our historians:--"To be a Jesuit,
or even a catholic, was of itself a sufficient proof of guilt. The chief
justice (sir William Scroggs), in particular, gave sanction to all the
narrow prejudices and bigoted fury of the populace. Instead of being
counsel for the prisoners, as his office required, he pleaded the cause
against them, browbeat their witnesses, and on every occasion represented
their guilt as certain and uncontroverted. He even went so far as publicly
to affirm, that the papists had not the same principles which protestants
have, and therefore were not entitled to that common _credence_, which the
principles and practices of the latter call for. And, when the jury brought
in their verdict against the prisoners, he said, 'You have done, gentlemen,
like very good subjects, and very good Christians, that is to say, like
very good protestants.'"--Hume's History of England, vol. viii, ch. 67, p.
91. See also what the same author says in his third appendix: "Timid
juries, and judges, who held their offices during pleasure, never failed to
second all the views of the crown. And, as the practice was anciently
common, of fining, imprisoning, or otherwise punishing the jurors, merely
at the discretion of the court, for finding a verdict contrary to the
direction of these dependent judges, it is obvious, that juries were then
no manner of security to the liberty of the subject."--Vol. v, p. 458. And,
if these be not enough, take conviction from the pen of one of the most
penetrating geniuses of the age: "The proceedings on the popish plot," says
Mr. Fox, in his History of James II, "must always be considered as an
indelible disgrace upon the English nation, in which king, parliament,
judges, juries, witnesses, p