« ПредишнаНапред »
originate with Mr. Fox, but is quoted by him from Mr. Justice Blackstone. But more of this hereafter
Rose, p. 14.
The character given of Monk in the historical work, Character of is certainly not a favourable one, and Mr. Rose says, Fox, p. 9, 10. that in it " is a severity, neither supported by popular " belief, nor by the authority of history.” He then insinvates, that Mr. Fox was a friend to a republican form of government, adding, " the general contributed “ to the overturning a government, which Mr. Fox, “ with all his seeming partiality for one partaking “ much of republican principles, would not have ven“ tured to recommend." He certainly would not have recommended it, nor would Mr. Rose have im: puted such a partiality, if he had not been living in that political atmosphere, which he says so power, fully affects the understanding of those within its influence. Mr. Rose is called
called upon to point out a single sentence in the historical work, from which it can be fairly inferred that Mr. Fox was not sincerely attached to a limited monarchy, and though none can be found, we will not rank this among the unjustifiable artifices of a political partizan, to calumniate and injure the character of the principal opponent of his party, but lament that Mr. Rose should, under an influence he might not be sensible of himself, inadvertently insinuate that, which upon reflection he must be sorry
he ever wrote. But this insinuation is repeated in the
Fox, p. 19.
bottom of the same page, aggravated by its being a direct perversion of the words of Mr. Fox to a sense, which he never intended they should bear. The words are,
“ It is impossible, in reviewing the whole of this “ transaction not to remark, that a general, who had
gained his rank, reputation, and station in the ser“ vice of a republic, and of what he, as well as “ others called, however falsely, the cause of liberty, “ made no scruple to lay the nation prostrate at the “ feet of a monarch, without a single provision in favour “ of that cause." Nothing can well be more guarded than the expression of Mr. Fox. He is arguing against the conduct of a professed republican, who had basely betrayed the cause he was engaged in, and
and contents himself with saying, that Monk called it, however falsely, the cause of liberty, but gives it no denomination himself. Yet Mr. Rose has laid hold of the expression, “ in favour of the cause of liberty,” and accompanied it with the words, “ as Mr. Fox
expresses it,” as if this was his description of the cause, in which Monk had been engaged, instead of the description of it by Monk himself, and others of his time.
Rose, p. 14.
Cromwell and Monk compared.
In the next page the same insinuation occurs, but in a rather different form. Some displeasure is manifested at a comparison made between the characters of Oliver Cromwell and Monk, in which the prefer
ence is given to that of the former, and then Mr. sec Rose adds, “ It will require a great partiality for a
republican form of government, to account for this Rose, p. 14. “ predilection in favour of the destroyer of monarchy, " and this prejudice against the restorer of it.” Mr. Rose here exhibits the same childish partiality for Kings, which had been reprobated by Mr. Fox in the writings of Mr. Hume; according to him, the meanest of mankind, if a restorer of monarchy, is to be preferred to the possessor of the greatest mind and talents, if a destroyer of it. Mr. Fox thought more philosophically, he felt neither predilection for the one, nor prejudice against the other, but, according to the best of his judgment, gave an impartial character of both. If Monk was base and worthless character, it was giving 'no opinion of the cause in which he was engaged, to say so; and if Cromwell was a man of a superior class, it was the duty of a historian not to withhold his proper meed of praise.
We shall now proceed to examine, whether Mr. Fox was justified in the characters which he has given to these
persons, who in their days acted such distinguished parts in the history of this country; but in doing this, it is necessary to premise that our remarks will be confined to such circumstances only, as have provoked the animadversions of Mr. Rose.
Fox, p. 17.
Against Mr. Fox's character of Cromwell is objected, that to him, 'no vice is imputed, but hypocrisy,”: (It might be presumed from this statement, that Mr. Fox had described Cromwell as one of the most perfect of human beings, unstained by any other vice. On the contrary, after describing the virtuous conduct of Washington, Mr. Fox says, “ but although in no
country or time would he have degraded himself “ into a Pisistratus, or a Cæsar, or a Cromwell," &c.; here it is most clear, that in the scale of perfectioni, according to Mr. Fox's opinion, Cromwell did not stand so high as. Washington, for if he did, it would have been no degradation to the latter to have assumed his character. The system of Cromwell is then said to be, “ condemned equally by reason and by preju, " dice.” His great talents, the splendour of his character and exploits, are then alluded to, and the glory of his reign contrasted with those of the four monarchs of the house of Stuart; and the concluding sentence which gives rise to Mr. Rose's objection is, “ upon " the whole the character of Cromwell must ever “ stand high in the list of those, who raised them“ selves to supreme power by the force of their ge“ nius; and among such, even in respect of moral “ virtue, it would be found to be one of the least “ exceptionable, if it had not been tainted with that " most odious and degrading of all human vices,
hypocrisy." To say, that his character is one of the
lb. p. 18.
least 'exceptionable, in point of moral virtue,'' among the persons above' described is not,' upon Mr. Fox's, or indeed any other principles, to pay him a very high compliment. The passage itself admits, that the character of those, who have raised themselves to supreme power by the force of their genius, are generally exceptionable in respect of moral virtue, and though Cromwell's might be one of the least exceptionable, if not tainted with hypocrisy, it does not follow, as Mr. Rose has incorrectly stated, that no other vice is imputed to him. The inordinate love of power certainly belonged to him, and Mr. Fox had before called him an usurper.
It may be observed farther, that Dr. Welwood, who cannot be suspected of leaning toward republicanism, does not differ from Mr. Fox, for he
“ for what was visible, free from Welw. Mein “ immoralities, especially after he came to make a figure " in the world.”
The reader will probably not be displeased to turn Mr. Fur's from the consideration of general insinuations, and Monk. charges of a nature so loose and indefinite, as to render it necessary, in order to answer them, to enter into previous discussions, both tedious and uninteresting. We shall now, in prosecution of our general plan, advert to the charges made by Mr. Fox against Monk, and examine in what manner' they have been attempted to be answered by Mr. Rose. They are