« ПредишнаНапред »
the Second, which was one of the papers intended to be communicated to Mr. Fox, and which contains so much new and interesting information, that under the circumstances which have occurred, it is much to be regretted any delicacy should have prevented him from having obtained the most early possession of it.
Mr. Rore in
motives to Sir
Rose, p. 169.
Mr. Rose in admitting that the different parties, who met in Holland, had probably “a mixed consideration for putes selfish " the public, and themselves,” accounts in some degree for Rullemme the extraordinary conduct of Sir Patrick Hume through the whole business. The selfish views of the parties concerned explain why the expedition was so'rashly undertaken, as Mr. Rose states it to have been, and how it came to be so unfortunately conducted afterwards. But after Mr. Rose has made this observation, it is not very Ibid. p. 169. consistent to say that,
" he must therefore be a severe judge of the actions of men, who would impute to “ i
him," i. e. Sir Patrick Hume “an unworthy motive “ for embarking in the undertaking.” Mr. Rose would save a world of trouble, if he would speak out plainly, for to what he alludes here it is impossible to form any conjecture. Argyle imputed to Sir Patrick ignorance, cowardice, and faction after he had embarked, and Mr. Fox has from himself made no accusation, except of deserting Argyle in his last extremity. Mr. Rose alone has hinted at an unworthy motive for his embarking, and told us that, probably, he acted from a mixed considera. tion for the public and himself.
Mr. Rose visits
Editor upon the Author.
Mr. Rose upon several occasions has, unconsciously, identified the historian and his editor, and remarked upon the observations of the latter, as if made by the former ; but we have now an instance of his selecting a passage for animadversion, which would have been protected by its insignificance, if the account of Argyle's expedition had not been pointed out by the editor as a proof of the industry of Mr. Fox in investigating facts. This is rather hard upon an author, who unfortunately left his work in an unfinished state ; his memory has been repeatedly charged with sins committed, if committed at all, by a living offender, but now he is to be chastised for a trifling offence, which would have been passed over unnoticed, if an affectionate relative had not ascribed to him a merit, to which he is most justly entitled. For whatever may be
come of the observation alluded to, Mr. Fox's character The Exclama. for general industry will remain unimpeached. It seems
that he discredits the story of the Earl exclaiming, when taken, “ unfortunate Argyle," and then discovering himself, saying, “ besides that there is no authority for it, it has not the air of a real fact, but rather resembles " a cluinsy contrivance in some play.” Mr. Rose, to prove there was authority for it, quotes a paper printed at the time at Edinburgh, which we may put out of the question, because he admits it might not be known to Mr. Fox, but he then tells us that in the Gazette it is found. That it might have occurred to Mr. Fox to look into the Gazettes of the time is very possible, but
tion of Ar-
whether he had the power of obtaining access to them, SECTION or whether he procured them, and was not satisfied, or whether he had intended to have examined them, or never thought at all about them, it is impossible for any man alive to say.
alive to say. The most uncharitable conjecture is that, which Mr. Rose has adopted, that he was not sufficiently industrious in investigating facts, and therefore never inquired after the Gazettes. Mr. Rose it seems relies upon one of them, and Mr. Fox might have thought that alone was not in those days an authority to be trusted, when the manly temper and firmness of Argyle is taken into consideration, and it is recollected that whether the exclamation was made or not could be known only to himself, and the militia men who took him, and that in his own account he makes no mention of it. Mr. Rose states that Mr. Fox gives some weight to the Earl's silence, but it is not, he observes, extraordinary that he should not think it worth while to mention such an exclamation. So far from agreeing with Mr. Rose, the reader may think that, as by means of that exclamation he was discovered, it made. one of the most important features of the transaction, and, if it had been uttered, would in all probability have found a place in his narrative drawn up subsequently, which Mr. Fox has cited and principally followed in the Historical Work.
Turning now from the venial offence of, Mr. Fox
of Montrose and Argyle only from their verses when under sentence of death.
Rose, p. 173.
in stating that there was no authority for a fact supposed
to have happened in Scotland, notwithstanding it was pares the spirit narrated in a London Gazette, we have next to notice an
instance of inaccuracy in Mr. Rose, which might surprize the reader, if he had not had so many instances of a similar kind presented to him before. Mr. Fox is stated to say, that the courage of the Marquis of Montrose “ was
more turbulent; that of Argyle more calm and sedate.” And then Mr. Rose observes, “ This is the only mention “ of that distinguished nobleman in the work before us,
although he lived in the period of Mr. For's introductory
Chapter.” By these last words an insinuation is intended to be conveyed that Mr. Fox had wilfully, and therefore culpably avoided to mention Montrose; but, without intending it, Mr. Rose in them offers a satisfactory reason for the omission, even though the observation had been well founded; for Mr. Fox professes to enter into no minute discussion of facts within the period, to which that chapter is confined, and for that reason had only incidentally mentioned the death of the Marquis of Argyle, the rival and prosecutor of Montrose. But Mr. Rose has altogether mistaken the passage, for Mr. Fox, mentioning some verses made by Argyle for his own epitaph the evening before his execution, is naturally led to compare these with the verses made by Montrose under similar circumstances. He says the poetical merit of the respective pieces is nearly equal, and in neither considerable, and adds “they are only in so far valuable, as
they may serve to convey to us some image of the
minds, by which they were produced. He, who reads “ them with this view will perhaps be of opinion, that the
spirit manifested in the two compositions is rather equal in
degree, than like in character; that the courage of “ Montrose was more turbulent, that of Argyle more " calın and sedate." He is not comparing the general characters of these noble personages, or declaring a preference of the one to the other, he does not even compare their
courage, but confines himself to the spirit, with which they bore their calamities, and by which their conduct was directed, when under sentence of death. Nor does he found the character he gives of that spirit from his own observation or information, but simply infers it from their respective poetical effusions, in situations extremely similar. Mr. Fox thinks that from these verses may be discovered that the courage, with which Montrose met the approach of death, was turbulent, that of Argyle more calm and sedate. The nature of their military talents and atchievements could not be drawn from their verses, and therefore was not in Mr. Fox's contemplation when he made this comparison.
It might not be necessary to notice the ensuing obser- Unjust charge vations upon the conduct and character of Montrose, if Fox for not his sufferings and character had not been compared with trose. those of Argyle. Mr. Rose is not content with making Montrose into a hero, he is nothing, unless he is greater