« PreviousContinue »
Would it have been more than common decency required if Mr. Rose, who had been apprised of the existence of these authorities, had had recourse to them before he impugned the accuracy of Mr. Fox? Or is it possible to read without some portion of contempt this slovenly and indolent corrector of supposed inaccuracies in a man not only so much greater than himself in his general nature, but a man who, as it turns out, excels Mr. Rose in his own little arts of looking, searching, and comparing, and is as much his superior in the retail qualities which small people arrogate to themselves as he was in every commanding faculty to the rest of his fellowcreatures ?
Mr. Rose searches Thurloe's “ State Papers ;” but Serjeant Heywood searches them after Mr. Rose, and by a series of the plainest references proves the probability there is that Argyle did receive letters which might materially have affected his life.
To Monk's duplicity of conduct may be principally attributed the destruction of his friends, who were prevented by their confidence in him from taking measures to secure themselves. He selected those among them whom he thought fit for trial, sat as a commissioner upon their trial, and interfered not to save the lives even of those with whom he had lived in habits of the greatest kindness.
“I cannot,” says a witness of the most unquestionable authority, “I cannot forget one passage that I saw. Monk and his wife, before they were removed to the Tower, while they were yet prisoners at Lambeth House, came one evening to the garden, and caused them to be brought down, only to stare at them ; which was such a barbarism, for that man who had betrayed so many poor men to death and misery, that never hurt him, but had honoured him, and trusted their lives and interests with him, to glut his bloody eyes with beholding them in their bondage, as no story can parallel the inhumanity of.”—Hutchinson's Memoirs, 378 (P. 83.)
This, however, is the man whom Mr. Fox at the distance of a century and a half may not mark with infamy without incurring from the candour of Mr. Rose the imputation of republican principles, as if attachment to monarchy could have justified in Monk the coldness, cruelty, and treachery of his character, as if the historian became the advocate or the enemy of any form of government by praising the good or blaming the bad men which it might produce. Serjeant Heywood sums up the whole article, as follows :
“Having examined and commented upon the evidence produced by Mr. Rose, than which “it is hardly possible,' he says, to conceive that stronger could be formed in any case, to establish a negative,' we now safely assert that Mr. Fox had fully informed himself upon the subject before he wrote, and was amply justified in the condemnation of Monk, and the consequent severe censures upon him. It has been already demonstrated that the character of Monk had been truly given, when of him he said, “the army had fallen into the hands of one, than whom a baser could not be found in its lowest ranks.' The transactions between him and Argyle for a certain period of time were such as must naturally, if not necessarily, have led them into an epistolary correspondence ; and it was in exact conformity with Monk's character and conduct to the regi
cides, that he should betray the letters written to him, in order to destroy a man whom he had, in the latter part of his command in Scotland, both feared and hated. If the fact of the production of these letters had stood merely on the testimony of Bishop Burnet, we have seen that nothing has been produced by Mr. Rose and Dr. Campbell to impeach it; on the contrary, an inquiry into the authorities and documents they have cited strongly confirms it. But, as before observed, it is a surprising instance of Mr. Rose's indolence, that he should state the question to depend now, as it did in Dr. Campbell's time, on the bishop's authority solely. But that authority is, in itself, no light one.
Burnett was almost eighteen years of age at the time of Argyle's trial ; he was never an unobserving spectator of public events; he was probably at Edinburgh, and, for some years afterwards, remained in Scotland with ample means of information respecting events which had taken place so recently. Baillie seems also to have been upon the spot, and expressly confirms the testimony of Burnet. To these must be added Cunningham, who, writing as a person perfectly acquainted with the circumstances of the transaction, says it was owing to the interference of Monk, who had been his great friend in Oliver's time, that he was sent back to Scotland and brought to trial ; and that he was condemned chiefly by his discoveries. We may now ask where is the improbability of this story, when related of such a man? and what ground there is for not giving credit to a fact. attested by three witnesses of veracity each writing at a distance and separate from each other? In this instance Bishop Burnet is so confirmed, that no reasonable being, who will attend to the subject, can doubt of the fact he relates being true; and we shall hereafter prove that the general imputation against his accuracy made by Mr. Rose, is totally without foundation. If facts so proved are not to be credited, historians may lay aside their pens, and every man must content himself with the scanty pittance of knowledge he may be able to collect for himself, in the very limited sphere of his own immediate observation.”-Pp. 86-88.
This, we think, is conclusive enough : but we are happy to be enabled out of our own store to set this part of the question finally to rest by an authority which Mr. Rose himself will probably admit to be decisive.-Sir George Mackenzie, the great Tory lawyer of Scotland in that day, and Lord Advocate to Charles II. through the greater part of his reign, was the leading counsel for Argyle on the trial alluded to.In 1678 this learned person, who was then Lord Advocate to Charles, published an elaborate treatise on the criminal law of Scotland, in which, when treating of Probation or Evidence, he observes that missive letters, not written, but only signed by the party, should not be received in evidence, and immediately adds, And
The Marquess of Argyle was convict of treason UPON LETTERS WRITTEN BY HIM TO GENERAL MONK, these letters being only subscribed by him, and not holograph, and the subscription being proved per comparationem literarum; which were very hard in other cases," &c.-Mackenzie's Criminals, first edit., p. 524. PartII., tit. 25, sec. 3. Now this we conceive is nothing more nor less than a solemn professional report of the case, and leaves just as little room for doubt as to the fact as if the original record of the trial had been recovered.
Mr. Rose next objects to Mr. Fox's assertion that "the King kept from his Cabal ministry the real state of his connection with France
and from some of them the secret of what he was pleased to call his religion;" and Mr. Fox doubts whether to attribute this conduct to the habitual treachery of Charles, or to an apprehension that his ministers might demand for themselves some share of the French money, which he was unwilling to give them. In answer to this conjecture, Mr. Rose quotes Barillon's Letters to Louis XIV." to show that Charles's ministers were fully apprised of his money transactions with France. The letters so quoted were, however, written seven years after the Cabal ministry were in power, for Barillon did not come to England as ambassador till 1677, and these letters were not written till after that period. Poor Sir Patrick! It was for thee and thy defence this book was written !!!!
Mr. Fox has said that from some of the ministers of the Cabal the secret of Charles's religion was concealed. It was known to Arlington, admitted by Mr. Rose to be a concealed Catholic; it was known to Clifford, an avowed Catholic. Mr. Rose admits it not to have been known to Buckingham, though he explains the reserve with respect to him in a different way. He has not, however, attempted to prove that Lauderdale or Ashley were consulted. On the contrary, in Colbert's Letter of the 25th August, 1670, cited by Mr. Rose, it is stated that Charles had proposed the traité simulé, which should be a repetition of the former one in all things, except the article relative to the King's declaring himself a Catholic, and that the Protestant Ministers, Buckingham, Ashley, Cooper, and Lauderdale, should be brought tó be parties to it:-“Can there be a stronger proof (asks Serjeant Heywood) that they were ignorant of the same treaty made the year before, and remaining then in force ?" Historical research is certainly not the peculiar talent of Mr. Rose; and as for the official accuracy of which he is so apt to boast, we would have Mr. Rose to remember that the term of ial accuracy has of late days become one of very ambiguous import. Mr. Rose, we can see, would imply by it the highest possible accuracy—as we see office pens advertised in the window of a shop by way of excellence. The public reports of those, however, who have been appointed to look into the manner in which public offices are conducted, by no means justify this usage of the term ;-and we are not without apprehensions that Dutch politeness, Carthaginian faith, Baotian genius, and official accuracy, may be terms equally current in the world ; and that Mr. Rose may, without intending it, have contributed to make this valuable addition to the mass of our ironical phraseology.
Speaking of the early part of James's reign, Mr. Fox says it is by no means certain that he had yet thought of obtaining for his religion anything more than a complete toleration; and if Mr. Rose had understood the meaning of the French word établissement, one of his many incorrect corrections of Mr. Fox might have been spared. A system of religion is said to be established when it is enacted and endowed by Parliament; but a toleration (as Serjeant Heywood observes) is established when it is recognised and protected by the supreme power. And in the letters of Barillon, to which Mr. Rose
refers for the justification of his attack upon Mr. Fox, it is quite manifest that it is in this latter sense that the word établissement is used; and that the object in view was, not the substitution of the Catholic religion for the Established Church, but merely its toleration. In the first letter cited by Mr. Rose, James says that “he knew well he should never be in safety unless liberty of conscience for them should be fully established in England.” The letter of the 24th of April is quoted by Mr. Rose, as if the French King had written, the establishment of the Catholic Religion; whereas the real words are, the establishment of the free exercise of the Catholic religion. The world are so inveterately resolved to believe that a man who has no brilliant talents must be accurate, that Mr. Rose, in referring to authorities, has a great and decided advantage. He is, however, in point of fact as lax and incorrect as a poet ; and it is absolutely necessary, in spite of every parade of line, and page, and number, to follow him in the most minute particular. The serjeant, like a bloodhound of the old breed, is always upon his track; and always looks if there are any such passages in the page quoted, and if the passages are accurately quoted or accurately translated. Nor will he by any means be content with official accuracy, nor submit to be treated in historical questions as if he were hearing financial statements in the House of Commons.
Barillon writes, in another letter to Louis XIV.4" What your Majesty has most besides at heart, that is to say, for the establishment of a free exercise of the Catholic religion.” On the the 9th of May Louis writes to Barillon that he is persuaded Charles will employ all his authority to establish the free exercise of the Catholic religion : he mentions also in the same letter, the Parliament consenting to the free exercise of our religion. On the 15th of June he writes to Barillon-“There now remains only to obtain the repeal of the penal laws in favour of the Catholics, and the free exercise of our religion in all his states.” Immediately after Monmouth's execution, when his views of success must have been as lofty as they ever could have been, Louis writes—“ It will be easy to the King of England, and as useful for the security of his reign as for the repose of his conscience, to reestablish the exercise of the Catholic religion.” In a letter of Barillon, July 16th, Sunderland is made to say that the King would always be exposed to the indiscreet zeal of those who would inflame the people against the Catholic religion, so long as it should be more fully established. The French expression is tant qu'elle ne sera pas plus pleinement établie; and this Mr. Rose has had the modesty to translate, till it shall be completely established, and to mark the passage with italics, as of the greatest importance to his argument. These false quotations and translations being detected, and those passages of early writers from which Mr. Fox had made up his opinion, brought to light, it is not possible to doubt that the object of James, before Monmouth's defeat, was, not the destruction of the Protestant, but the toleration of the Catholic religion ; and after the execution of Monmouth Mr. Fox admits that he became more bold and sanguine upon the subject of religion.
We do not consider those observations of Serjeant Heywood to be the most fortunate in his book, where he attempts to show the republican tendency of Mr. Rose's principles. Of any disposition to principles of this nature, we most heartily acquit that right honourable gentleman. He has too much knowledge of mankind to believe their happiness can be promoted in the stormy and tempestuous regions of republicanism ; and, besides this, that system of slender pay and deficient perquisites, to which the subordinate agents of Government are confined in republics is much too painful to be thought of for a single instant.
We are afraid of becoming tedious by the enumeration of blunders into which Mr. Rose has fallen, and which Serjeant Heywood has detected. But the burthen of this sole executor's song is accuracyhis own official accuracy—and the little dependence which is to be placed on the accuracy of Mr. Fox. We will venture to assert that in the whole of his work he has not detected Mr. Fox in one single error. Whether Serjeant Heywood has been more fortunate with respect to Mr. Rose might be determined, perhaps, with sufficient certainty by our previous extracts from his remarks. But for some indulgent readers these may not seem enough : and we must proceed in the task till we have settled Mr. Rose's pretensions to accuracy on a still firmer foundation. And if we be thought minutely severe, let it be remembered that Mr. Rose is himself an accuser ; and if there be justice upon earth, every man has a right to pull stolen mods out of the pocket of him who cries, “ Stop thief !”
În the story which Mr. Rose states of the seat in Parliament sold for five pounds (“ Journal of the Commons," vol. v.) he is wrong, both in the sum and the volume. The sum is four pounds, and it is told not in the fifth volume, but the first. Mr. Rose states that a perpetual excise was granted to the Crown in lieu of the profits of the Court of Wards; and adds that the question in favour of the Crown was carried by a majority of two. The real fact is that the half only of an excise upon certain articles was granted to Government in lieu of these profits; and this grant was carried without a division. An attempt was made to grant the other half, and this was negatived by a majority of two. The Journals are open ; Mr. Rose reads them ; he is officially accurate. What can the meaning be of these most extraordinary mistakes?
Mr. Rosc says that in 1679 the writ de hæretico comburendo had been a dead letter for more than a century. It would have been extremely agreeable to Mr. Bartholomew Legate if this had been the case, for in 1612 he was burnt at Smithfield for being an Arian. Mr. Wightman would probably have participated in the satisfaction of Mr. Legate, as he was burnt also, the same year, at Lichfield, for the same offence. With the same correctness this scourge of historians makes the Duke of Lauderdale, who died in 1682, a confidential adviser of James II. after his accession in 1689. In page 13 he quotes, as written by Mr. Fox, that which was written by Lord Holland. This, however, is a familiar practice with him. Ten pages afterwards, in Mr. Fox's history, he makes the same mistake. “Mr. Fox added,"