[Footnote A:  Mr. Lodge, in his “Illustrations of British History,” praises and abuses James I. for the very same treatises.  Mr. Lodge, dropping the sober character of the antiquary for the smarter one of the critic, tells us, “James had the good fortune to gain the two points he principally aimed at in the publication of these dull treatises—­the reputation of an acute disputant, and the honour of having Cardinal Bellarmin for an antagonist.”  Did Mr. Lodge ever read these “dull treatises?” I declare I never have; but I believe these treatises are not dull, from the inference he draws from them:  for how any writer can gain the reputation of “an acute disputant” by writing “dull treatises,” Mr. Lodge only can explain.  It is in this manner, and by unphilosophical critics, that the literary reputation of James has been flourished down by modern pens.  It was sure game to attack James I.!]

* * * * *

HIS ELOQUENCE.

The eloquence of James is another feature in the literary character of this monarch.  Amid the sycophancy of the court of a learned sovereign some truths will manifest themselves.  Bishop Williams, in his funeral eulogy of James I., has praised with warmth the eloquence of the departed monarch, whom he intimately knew; and this was an acquisition of James’s, so manifest to all, that the bishop made eloquence essential to the dignity of a monarch; observing, that “it was the want of it that made Moses, in a manner, refuse all government, though offered by God."[A] He would not have hazarded so peculiar an eulogium, had not the monarch been distinguished by that talent.

[Footnote A:  This funeral sermon, by laying such a stress on the eloquence of James I., it is said, occasioned the disgrace of the zealous bishop; perhaps, also, by the arts of the new courtiers practising on the feelings of the young monarch.  It appears that Charles betrayed frequent symptoms of impatience.

This allusion to the stammering of Moses was most unlucky; for Charles had this defect in his delivery, which he laboured all his life to correct.  In the first speech from the throne, he alludes to it:  “Now, because I am unfit for much speaking, I mean to bring up the fashion of my predecessors, to have my lord-keeper speak for me in most things.”  And he closed a speech to the Scottish parliament by saying, that “he does not offer to endear himself by words, which, indeed is not my way.”  This, however, proved to be one of those little circumstances which produce a more important result than is suspected.  By this substitution of a lord-keeper instead of the sovereign, he failed in exciting the personal affections of his parliament.  Even the most gracious speech from the lips of a lord-keeper is but formally delivered, and coldly received; and Charles had not yet learned that there are no deputies for our feelings.]