Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

suade the world of his own supereminent moral courage, if he can. For our part, after reading the above letter, we do not believe one malicious word of what Burnet has uttered, in the History of his own Time, against Charles I. and Montrose,—and he has therein said nothing about them that is not malicious. We do not believe that the apology for Hamilton, which he has given to the world in the Memoirs of that house, is by any means so truthful an exposition of the character of that mysterious Marquis, as the letters and papers entrusted to the Bishop, for the purpose of compiling the Memoirs, enabled him to give. We feel thoroughly persuaded that Bishop Burnet in that work, as well as in the History of his own Time, reversed the golden maxim of Cicero, ne quid falsi dicere audeat, ne quid veri non audeat. The marvellous of himself,* and the malicious of others, we henceforth altogether disbelieve when resting on the sole authority of the Bishop's historical record, and will never listen to when retailed traditionally and at se cond-hand from him. † Finally, we do believe the truth of that anecdote, that the Bishop, "after a debate

* Ex. gr. Burnet tells not a very credible story of his earliest interviews with Charles II. He says the King read in his presence part of the Memoirs of the Hamiltons in MS.-was much pleased with them, and more with the author; and, further, that, " in a long private audience, that lasted above an hour, I took all the freedom with him that I thought became my profession." Burnet goes on to tell very minutely what the King said to him, and what he said to the King, and describes a scene in which never King was bearded by a bolder subject. Then follows the description of another private scene with the Duke of York, whom he also lectures most severely.

Ex. gr. The cock-and-bull story (said to have been derived from Burnet's conversation at a dinner party) of Charles I. having ordered the secret execution of Loudon, when in the Tower for the letter to the

King of France, and how Hamilton saved him. See this story adopted by Mr Brodie, Vol. ii. p. 515—and well sifted and exposed by Mr D'Israeli in his Commentaries, Vol. iv. p. 359.

in the House of Lords, usually went home, and altered every body's character as they had pleased or displeased him that day,”—and that he kept weaving in secret, till he died, this chronicle of his times, not to enlighten posterity, or for the cause of truth, but as a means of indulging in safety his own interested or malicious feelings towards the individuals that pleased or offended him. So much for Bishop Burnet, whose authority must henceforth always be received cum nota.

It was a Scotch faction that, in the seventeenth century, when paving the way to such enormities as the murders of Charles I. and Montrose, had wielded the destinies and decided the fate of England. The savage contempt for royal authority, the arts of popular agitation, the spirit of persecution, that instantly sprung up to clear the path for democracy, these characteristics of the tumults and insurrection of Scotland in the years 1637, 1638, and 1639, all extended to England, where the puritanical faction were ready to adopt the lessons, and eager to profit by the active co-operation of instructors they otherwise despised. Clothed with the language of loyalty and patriotism, and advancing under cover of "Religion and Liberties," the determined besiegers of monarchical government, worked up from Scotland to the throne itself. "We declare before God and man," said the impious contrivers of the Covenant, we declare before God and man, that we have no intention nor desire to attempt any thing that may turn to the dishonour of God, or to the diminution of the King's greatness and authority" *—and forthwith the very fanatic who framed that sentence appears in England

66

*The Covenant of 1638.

as the prime minister of the Covenant, collecting round the devoted monarch the toils of the great Rebellionscenting, not afar off, his blood in the blood of Strafford, and howling like a savage, for the rewards that were to satiate the malice and the avarice of Scotland.* The blood of Strafford and of Laud, the Genevean banner planted in England, the murder of the King, the domination of a usurper, were the fruits of the COVE

NANT.

Yet how mean is the origin of that revolutionary faction in Scotland, and how fallacious those views of it that represent its leaders in bright relief, of holy and patriotic zeal, against the tyrannical enormities of the monarch! Let us examine the seeds from which the Scottish commotions sprung into that revolution which has been called "our second and glorious Reformation in 1638, when this church was again settled upon her own base, and the rights she claimed from the time of the Reformation were restored, so that she became fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners."† Was Charles I. really an oppressor amid religiously and patriotically disposed chiefs of Scotland? Must we indeed concede to the Historiographer for Scotland that the monarch was worthy of the death he died? And will we discover, in the impenetrable mists of faction that surrounded his throne

* Archibald Johnston, of whom anon.

+ Wodrow's Introduction, p. 2. This historian of the Church of Scotland adds, somewhat in the style of the Rev. Robert Baillie's contradictory eulogies,—“ it is hard to manage a full cup, and I shall not take upon me to defend every step in that happy period."— That task was reserved for Mr Brodie, who has fearlessly fulfilled it.

‡ "We differ from Mr Brodie (says the Edinburgh Review of March 1834,) as to many of the measures of the Parliament during the waras to the necessity of the King's death, and the merits of the commonwealth and the long Parliament."

from the first moment of his reign, and the abandoned treachery that dogged his person through life, no excuse for the worst steps of his policy in the government of Scotland ?

"King James being dead (says Lord Napier) and his son King Charles succeeding to him in his kingdom, and to his virtues too,-although with some want of experience, which is only got with time, all the turbulent and discontented humours of the former time were up, as is usual in these great transitions, and plied his Majesty incessantly with accusations, personal assertions, new projects, and informations of abuses. And truly there wanted not matter, and their endeavours had deserved praise, if spleen to the persons of men, and their own private interest, had not given life and motion to their proceedings, rather than the service of the King and the good of the state. Then was there nothing but factions, and factious consultations, of the one, to hold that place and power they possessed before, of the other, to wrest it out of their hands, and to invest themselves; and no dream or phantasy of innovation came in any body's head, but presently he durst vent it to the King; and still the most ignorant were boldest. Neither wanted there some honest and wise men who gave their advice out of mere affection to his Majesty and the public; but wanting that bold forwardness, and factious assistance, which the other had in prosecuting of their private ends, no great hold was taken of them."*

Charles, not yet crowned King of Scotland, received sundry mysterious hints, that, if he did not conduct

* Lord Napier's MS. Relation. See Note at the end of the volume, for an account of this nobleman's connexion with the court.

66

66

himself in a manner that seemed fully to recognize the Independency of his ancient kingdom, the crown might be bestowed somewhere else; and most anxious was Charles to avoid the imputation of intending to reduce Scotland to a province." Thus the affairs of that country became to him a separate burden of a difficult and irksome nature. For his privy-council of England were not suffered to be cognisant of the affairs of the other kingdom, which the King managed, through the reports of his privy-council there, with the aid (if aid it could be called) of his Scotch favourites, or such of the council as he summoned from Scotland for special consultation. Indeed at this time there appeared to be no connexion or sympathy betwixt the kingdoms. The English nation, we are informed by Clarendon, knew and cared less about Scotland than they did about Poland or Germany ;—“ no man ever inquired what was doing in Scotland, nor had that kingdom a place or mention in one page of any Gazette." But it was not the privilege of Charles to be able to forget his ancient independent kingdom; and certainly his attention to the affairs of Scotland was kept alive in a manner most disagreeable to himself, and most discreditable to his native country. Lord Napier, a Privycouncillor, and Treasurer-Depute, under the Earl of Mar, who held the white staff, mentions in his Relation, that Mar was not free from that storm of faction, the great object of which was to wrest place and power from each other, "but was charged home by his enemies with some abuses, in the King's presence, which they were not well able to make appear; therefore, there was a gentleman directed to me, desiring me to give them intelligence upon what points my Lord might be charged; with assurance from them that it should never

« ПредишнаНапред »