517
liege. We reafon therefore from the fame materials as Mr. Coxe, but decide in a dif-ferent manner. We are well perfuaded that the King was afl'affinated, and fhall detailthe conjectures upon which we decide, for where there is abfence of proofs we mult befatisfied with conje&ure.
In the firft place Mr. Coxe, if impartial, mult allow that it is farcical to efteem thenarrative of the old Norwegian alluded to as of any weight: will he attempt to perfuadeus, or does he himfelf believe that a cannoneer in a fortrefs any more than a foldier inthe ranks can know any thing of what paffes except immediately by him, particularlyat nine o’clock at night in the month of December. From his refponfes we gather forcertain that there was no firing that night from the fortrefs of Oberberg , this indeed theNorwegian muft furely be competent to fay, as he was in the fort; but this is all thathe could know, and this proves nothing more than that Lamotraye is in error, affumingthe (hot to have come from that place. Mr. Coxe adds that the old man was of a frankcharafter,,and that there was nothing to induce him to tell an untruth : certainly not,nor did he conceal ought he knew. He dates moreover that the Danes made ufe oftnufquetry, that the parapet where the King flood was perfectly within reach of theplace, that a number of (hells were fired, and that the King might have been killed bythe enemy. This was all known before ; and if Mr. Coxe reflects, he will fee that thisproves nothing againft the aflaffination: for it is impoflible to prefume that any onewould have chofen a time for making away with the King by a mufquet or piftol Ihotwhen out of the reach of the enemy’s batteries, or when the enemy made no ufe of ballsagainft the Swedifh trenches fimilar to that by which he was (truck, that is to fay, final!bullets. This would have demonftrated to all Europe that the Monarch died by aflaf-fination, and there is good reafon to imagine that fuch was not the intention of theguilty. We conclude therefore, that the converfation, noticed with fo much fatisfaCtionby Mr. Coxe, proves nothing againft our affumption, or in favour of his own. It ftiuft:further be remarked, that the old Norwegian told Mr. Coxe that a number of foldierswere killed by the fide of the King, fo many indeed that they were buried on the fpot.It is very extraordinary that this cannoneer mould have feen thus much from his fortrefsof Oberberg , (from which the Swedes were feparated by a hill,) or that after the armyhad decamped, he lhould divine that the foldiers killed in the trenches had been fokilled near the King, and at the fame time he was himfelf. To conclude, it is very An-gular that this man (hould have known that, of which no relation makes mention ; forin all thofe which fpeak of the greateft number of perfons about the King, fpeak but offour or five without enumerating any foldiers whatever. Mr. Coxe fays that the pre-fent King of Sweden (1791) had conjeftured that Cronjledt was the a (Tallin; but after-wards confefled that he was miftaken : this' may be, but if Mr. Coxe has ever had thehonour of fpeaking to the King on this fubjeCt, he would have found that if His Majeftyno longer believes that Cronftedt was the affaffin, it follows not that he does not believehe was affaffinated by fome other perfon. Thefe are what Mr. Coxe calls proofs, finifti-ing with thefe decifive words :
“ The queftion relative to the death of Charles XII . Is now rendered very Ample :unlikely anecdotes and vague conjedures cannot weigh againft a pofitive fad: the pre-tended affaflination is a mere chimera.” We fee nothing pofitive in all this, unlefs it bethe tone of aflurance which Mr. Coxe aflumes, nothing chimerical unlefs it be in hisaffertions. We fubjoin our refledions upon the fame data.
Firft reflection.. —According to the verbal procefs, the authenticity of which is incon-teftible, the ball went through the head in a horizontal direction, making a very fmallhole on entering, and tearing away the temple and (hattering the bones as it went out-
on •