I. given to our Government stability and strength; and SECTION enabled this island to resist with success the utmost exertions of a gigantic power, straining every nerve to destroy its happiness. The people spontaneously, and cheerfully rally round the standard of a Government, under which, notwithstanding all its imperfections, its subjects are individually possessed of more happiness, and liberty, than ever fell to the lot of any other nation upon the face of the earth. The time of oppression and misery, which followed, not, as Mr. Rose states, "the æra selected by" Mr. Fox, but "the period of theoretical perfection," pointed out by Mr. Justice Blackstone, Mr. Rose thinks is to be attributed to two causes, the want of an effec- Rose, p. 36. tual provision "to guard against long intervals of Par"liament, and to secure the independence of the judges." He is not yet satisfied with the repeal of that "very "effectual" Act, as he terms it, passed by the Long Parliament, which Mr. Justice Blackstone and Mr. Fox conceived, with the legislature which repealed it, to be derogatory to the rights of the Crown. He is so zealous a friend to the frequent meeting of Parliaments, that to secure that blessing to the people, he would trench deep into the royal prerogative, and after a default on the part of the King, even allow the members to as SECTION 1. Rose, P. 36. semble without his summons. This, as has been observed before, Mr. Fox disapproved of. After he has set up his own hypothesis he combats Mr. Fox's, that the time of oppression and misery above alluded to, was owing to a corrupt and wicked administration, and says the question between them is answered by experience, referred to by Mr. Fox himself. Now in what manner this answer is to be inferred is left to the reader to discover, for certainly the passage does not seem immediately to apply to the subject. But Mr. Rose shall speak for himself, these are his words, "for in another part of his work "when he compares the culpable proceedings of Lord Godolphin and Lord Churchill in the reign of James "the Second with their meritorious conduct in the reign of Queen Anne, he asks, Is the difference "to be attributed to any superiority of genius in the prince whom they served in the latter period of their "lives? Queen Anne's capacity seems to have been "inferior, even to her father's. Did they enjoy in a greater degree her favour and confidence? The very 66 reverse is the fact. But in one case they were the "tools of a King plotting against his people, in the "other the minister of a free Government, acting upon enlarged principles, and with energies which no "state that is not in some degree republican, can supply.'" Upon this passage Mr. Rose most wisely 66 I. observes, "It must be admitted that since the judges SECTION "have held their offices during good behaviour, no "such oppression and misery as complained of have happened." Here Mr. Rose has abandoned his republican argument in favour of a more effectual provision for the frequent meeting of Parliament, and leaves his reader to account for the melioration of modern times, solely by the judges holding their offices quam diu se bene gesserint. But let us examine how the passage just cited, and the facts there alluded to, support this wild hypothesis. There is a little inaccuracy in the introduction to the quotation, and Mr. Fox's argument loses by the alteration; for he does not compare the culpable proceedings of Lord Godolphin, and Lord Churchill in the reign of James the Second,, with their meritorious conduct in the reign of Queen Anne; these expressions are too general, fully to express his meaning. He is contrasting the meanness of their conduct, and the measures they were engaged in, in the former reign, with their greatness in the latter. "How little," says he, "do they appear in one instance, how great in the "other! And the investigation of the cause to which "this is principally owing will produce a most use"ful lesson. Is the difference, &c." And the para- graph, after Mr. Roes's citation, goes on SECTION Mr. Fox not correctly stated monarchy. 66 opposite situations, teach persons engaged in a poli"tical life, that a free and popular government is "desirable not only for the public good, but for their own greatness and consideration, for every object "of generous ambition." Now in the name of wonder what can this observation have to do with judges enjoying their offices quam diu se bene gesserint ! Whether these noble Lords, in the characters of ministers of the Crown, appear little or great must depend upon other causes, besides the independence of the judges, and Mr. Fox traces the difference to the alteration, which had taken place in the form of government. As ministers before the Revolution, they were tools of a King, plotting against his people; but after that event, they were ministers of a free government, acting upon enlarged principles and with encreased energies. We have now to notice some more general remarks, as to abuses of in which Mr. Rose manifests the same misapprehension of the sentiments of Mr. Fox, which we have had occasion to notice, and lament so often before. He assumes, from the passages recently cited, that there existed in the bosom of Mr. Fox, "a disposition "to think, that the best laws cannot afford security "to the people, under a monarchical government. And concludes this section in full persuasion that one of the leading positions of Mr. Fox is, that " in a monarchy the force of the legislative provisions Rose p. 38. lb. p. 40. 66 against despotism is easily overpowered by the am"bition of the monarch, and the subserviency of his "ministers." To this charge, so repeatedly urged, the answer is easy, and conclusive, and Mr. Rose is not justified in making it; for the passages cited, contain no such sentiments as here stated. The time of oppression and misery, which followed Mr. Justice Blackstone's period of theoretical perfection, is imputed by Mr. Fox, "to a corrupt and wicked administration, "which all the so-much-admired checks of the con"stitution were not able to prevent," and then he draws this conclusion. "How vain then, how idle, "how presumptuous is the opinion, that laws can do every thing, and how weak and pernicious the "maxim founded upon it, that measures not men are 66 to be attended to." That laws alone cannot afford security is no where stated to arise from the government being monarchical. Mr. Fox's observation is a general one applicable to all forms of government; that the best laws cannot afford security, when the execution of them is placed in the hands of corrupt, and wicked men. A political truism, which few will be inclined to dispute. 66 Mr. Rose insinuates that Mr. Fox had not examined the respective periods, mentioned in this section, with proper attention, and with the impartiality, which it is the essence of historical discussions to preserve, but SECTION I. Charge of want of attention in Mr. Fox, not founded. |