[James Duke of Monmouth, was the son of Charles the ii., by one Lucy Walters.  He was born at Rotterdam, April 9, 1649, and bore the name of James Crofts until the restoration.  His education was chiefly at Paris, under the eye of the queen-mother, and the government of Thomas Ross, Esq., who was afterwards secretary to Mr. Coventry during his embassy in Sweden.  At the restoration, he was brought to England, and received with joy by his father, who heaped honours and riches upon him, which were not sufficient to satisfy his ambitious views.  To exclude his uncle, the Duke of York, from the throne, he was continually intriguing with the opposers of government, and was frequently in disgrace with his sovereign.  On the accession of James ii. he made an ineffectual attempt to raise a rebellion, was taken prisoner, and beheaded on Tower-hill, 15th July, 1685.  Mr. Macpherson has drawn his character in the following terms:  “Monmouth, highly beloved by the populace, was a fit instrument to carry forward his (i.e.  Shaftesbury’s) designs.  To a gracefulness which prejudiced mankind in his favour as soon as seen, he joined an affability which gained their love.  Constant in his friendships, and just to his word, by nature tender, and an utter enemy to severity and cruelty, active and vigorous in his constitution, he excelled in the manly exercises of the field.  He was personally brave.  He loved the pomp and the very dangers of war.  But with these splendid qualities, he was vain to a degree of folly, versatile in his measures, weak in his understanding.  He was ambitious without dignity, busy without consequence, attempting ever to be artful, but always a fool.  Thus, taking the applause of the multitude for a certain mark of merit, he was the dupe of his own vanity, and owed all his misfortunes to that weakness.”—­History of England, vol. i., chap. iii.]

His entrance upon the stage of the world was so brilliant, his ambition had occasioned so many considerable events, and the particulars of his tragical end are so recent, that it were needless to produce any other traits to give a sketch of his character.  By the whole tenor of his life, he appeared to be rash in his undertakings, irresolute in the execution, and dejected in his misfortunes, in which, at least, an undaunted resolution ought to equal the greatness of the attempt.

His figure and the exterior graces of his person were such, that nature perhaps never formed anything more complete:  His face was extremely handsome; and yet it was a manly face, neither inanimate nor effeminate; each feature having its beauty and peculiar delicacy:  He had a wonderful genius for every sort of exercise, an engaging aspect, and an air of grandeur:  in a word, he possessed every personal advantage; but then he was greatly deficient in mental accomplishments.  He had no sentiments but such as others inspired him with; and those who first insinuated themselves into