« ПредишнаНапред »
SECTION THE SECOND.
In the portion of Mr. Fox's Work, noticed in this Section, SECTION
II. Mr. Rose has discovered little to blame, and much to approve; and we shall now proceed to examine, whether Mr. Rose dirthe few animadversions he has made, are well founded or Mr. Fox's Work
begins. not His first observation is, that “ The Historical Part Rose p.ar. “ of Mr. Fox's Work, though classed with the prefatory “ 'reflections under the title of Introduction, begins at the “ Restoration.” To this, it is only necessary to answer, that Mr. Fox himself must be supposed to know best, where he meant his work should begin, and in a private letter he writes, “the death of Charles the Second is the Fox, p. xvii. “ period, from which I commence my History, though " in my Introduction I take a pretty full view of his “ reign."
Mr. Rose is well satisfied with the historian, till they Treachery of are arrived at the year 1870, and approves of the monisters
Charles to his
Rose, p. 41.
Fox, P, 2).
SECTION character given of the ministry, known by the name
- of the Cabal. But he objects to Mr. Fox's assertion,
that “ the King kept from them the real state of his
Rose, p. 42
But to return, Mr. Rose says, first, that, for this charge of treachery, on the part of the King, there is no authority quoted, and there is no probability of its
being well founded. As to authorities, we learn from SECTION a Letter in the Preface, that Mr. Fox regarded his — Introduction, including the period down to the death of Charles the Second,“ rather as a discussion, alluding « to known facts, than a minute inquiry into disputed " points,” and he might think himself justified in assuming this concealment to be a known fact, after both Dalrymple, and Macpherson had produced abundant authorities to prove it.
That the charge is improbable, becomes next the task of Mr. Rose to prove, and to do this, he has recourse to that same inconsistent course of argument, which he adopts upon many other occasions. The clause in the treaty itself, stipulating that it should be kept secret until a fit time should occur to put it into execution, does not, as he observes, prove that it was to be concealed from any of Charles's confidential servants, for though all the ministers had been informed of its contents, that clause might properly have continued to make a part. Its object was to secure the concealment of the treaty from others, not from those, who were in the confidence of the King, or already acquainted with it.
Rose, p. 42.
That the King did not conceal the secret of his religion from some of his ministers at least, is attempted to be proved by Mr. Rose in this curious manner. He cites, but for the purpose only of combating it, the assertion of
SECTION Dalrymple, “ that the treaty was unknown to the pro
- testant ministers ;” this, he says, is not correct, because
Lord Arlington was one of the English commissioners, who negotiated and signed it, and he was a professed, Protestant, though a concealed Catholic. Dalrymple was well aware of the religious faith of Arlington, when he made the above assertion; and because he was a concealed Catholic, and as such trusted with the secret, classed. him with the avowed professors of his religion, and excluded him from the number of Protestant ministers.
Rose, p. 43.
Ib. p. 51.
“ To one of his ministers therefore,” adds Mr. Rose, triumphantly,“ the whole of this treaty was perfectly well “ known.” We will go further, and admit that it was known to two of them, Arlington a concealed, and Clifford an avowed Catholic, and their names, with those of Arundel, and Sir Robert Bellings, also Catholics, are signed as commissioners to the abstract of the treaty, wbich Mr. Rose himself has published. The reference he makes to the treaty, he says, “ establishes beyond all controversy, “ that Mr. Fox's charge against the King, and his “ ministers, of mutual treachery towards each other, is “ not founded.” Here Mr. Rose does not correctly state the before mentioned passage in Mr. Fox's book : for it does not contain a charge of mutual treachery, but of treachery, only on the part of the King, towards his ministers, in concealing, from some of them, the secret of his religion.
Mr. Rose, not very consistently, admits that the Duke SECTION of Buckingham was not in the secret ; but forgetful of his prudent engagement never to contend with Mr. Rose Int. xiv. Fox in argument, when he agreed with him in fact, will not allow that he was excluded for either of the reasons suggested, and informs us that, in a letter from Charles to the Duchess of Orleans, his timidity was assigned as a reason; and in one to Lewis, that he could not keep a secret. The first of these reasons the reader may have some difficulty to discover in the letter alluded to, and the validity of the second it is not material at present to discuss.
The reader may now, upon the abstract of the treaty produced by Mr. Rose, and the admissions made by him, judge for himself whether Mr. Fox's assertion is not substantially verified. It appears that to Clifford, and Arlington, the one an avowed, the other a concealed Catholic, the full extent of the Treaty was known, for they negotiated it; and that it was kept from the knowledge of Buckingham, a Protestant. But Mr. Rose has not attempted to prove, that either Lauderdale, or Ashley, who were also members of the Cabal, and both Protestants, were ever consulted. On the contrary, n. in Colbert's letter of the 25th of August, 1670, cited p. 83. 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
Rose, p. 43.