JAMES THE SECOND.

peating to himself that none of the money which he extortedwould go into his own pocket; that if he refused to be the"agent of the ladies they would find agents less humane; thatby complying he should increase his influence at the court,and that his influence at the court had already enabled him,and might still enable him, to render great services to hisoppressed brethren. The maids of honour were at last forcedto content themselves with less than a third part of what theyhad demanded.*

No English sovereign has ever given stronger proofs of acruel nature than James the Second. Yet his cruelty was notmore odious than his mercy. Or perhaps it may be morecorrect to say that his mercy and his cruelty were such thateach reflects infamy on the other. Our horror at the fate ofthe simple clowns, the young lads, the delicate women, towhom he was inexorably severe, is increased when we find towhom and for what considerations he granted his pardon.

The rule by which a prince ought, after a rebellion, to beguided in selecting rebels for punishment is perfectly obvious.The ringleaders, the men of rank, fortune and education,whose power and whose artifices have led the multitude intoerror, are the proper objects of severity. The deluded po-pulace, when once the slaughter on the field of battle is over,can scarcely be treated too leniently. This rule, so evidentlyagreeable to justice and humanity, was not only not observed,it was inverted. While those who ought to have been sparedwere slaughtered by hundreds, the few who might with pro-priety have been left to the utmost rigour of the law werespared. This eccentric clemency has perplexed some writers,and has drawn forth ludicrous eulogies from others. It wasneither at all mysterious nor at all praiseworthy. It may be

* Locke’s Western ltebellion; Toulmin’s History of Taunton, editedby Savage; Letter of the Duke of Somerset to Sir F. Warre; Letter ofSunderland to Penn , Feb. 13. 168|, from the State Paper Office, in theMackintosh Collection.