« ПредишнаНапред »
that the Protestant ministers, Buckingham, Ashley
Mr. Rose only
stract of the
Rose, p. 44.
Before the Treaty of 1670 is dismissed from notice, Treaty of 1670. it may be proper to mention, that Mr. Rose describes
it, as “ an object of high importance,” which has not been seen by any of our historians, nor its - whole contents hitherto published; he has, therefore, favoured the public with a very correct abstract of it, except the second article, concerning the change of the religion of Charles, which is copied, verbatim. A complete copy is, according to Mr. Rose, still a desideratum, and as he charges Mr. Fox with culpable negligence for not applying for information in various quarters,
it may be asked, why Mr. Rose should content himself SECTION with an abstract only of this precious paper? he had seen the original in 1781, and therefore knew of its existence; he was acquainted with the noble Lord, who not only possessed it, but condescended with his own hand to make the abstract; Why then did he not request a copy? He cannot be charged here, as he charges Mr. Fox, with not seeking out materials, but he appears not to have taken the trouble to possess himself of such, as he had discovered, and lay within his grasp.
Rose, p. 52
Mr. Rose then concurs with Mr. Fox, in the expedi- .. ency of the Bill of Exclusion, but should find it difficult to agree with him in his reasoning upon it. However, as no specific objections are stated, it is not necessary to enter into the argument.
Rose, p. 53
The following passage in Mr. Fox's book has been Clarendon noe - made the subject of animadversion, “ Clarendon is said ing money from “ to have been privy to the King's receiving money « from Lewis the Fourteenth, but what proofs exist of “ the charge, (for a very heavy charge it is,) I know not.” Mr. Rose speaking of Charles's obtaining money from lbid. France, states it to have arisen from the excess of his private expenses, and a desire to have a fund for corrupt purposes at home, and alluding to this passage in the Historical Work, says, " the practice began very
SÉCTION " soon after the Restoration, under the management of
- " the Earl of Clarendon, whom Mr. Fox considers as
" quite innocent of it.” And supposes if he had seen the reference in Sir John Dalrymple’s book to the Clarendon Papers, he could not have formed that opinion,
those papers being ready of access. And in a note, in Rose P.141,142 another place, he returns to the charge, and affects
again to doubt, whether Mr. Fox ever read the letters published by Sir John Dalrymple, for if he had he must have “ been aware of that author's reference to “ the Clarendon State Papers to support a fact, which “ Mr. Fox considers, as utterly unsupported.” The truth is, that Mr. Rose is guilty of an unintentional, but gross perversion of the words of Mr. Fox, as the reader will see by comparing the passages above cited. Mr. Fox says, he knows not what are the proofs; and this ignorance is tortured, first into a belief of the innocence of the party, and then into a declaration that there exists no evidence of the charge.
Why tontund? Then ingried informa is mi genrantuont.
The charge against Mr. Fox consists of two parts, Ist. That he has not examined proofs, to which he might easily have had access. 2dly. That he has formed an erroneous opinion of Clarendon's innocence. To the first the answer is easy and decisive. It has been observed before, that Mr. Fox's History does not begin till the reign of James the Second, and that his introductory chapter was intended to be, rather an allusion
to known facts, than a minute inquiry into disputed SECTION points. The guilt of Clarendon, he was aware, was -not a known fact, but to be considered as a point, which might be disputed. He therefore, according to the plan he had laid down for himself, only mentions the imputation, but avoids entering into a discussion of the evidence, by which it was supposed to be supported. In doing this he delivers no opinion whatever, and as Dalrymple had originally, if not solely, made the charge, it is scarcely to be supposed that he could, as Mr. Rose observes, have been ignorant of the reference alluded to.
To the second, the answer is not less conclusive, Rose, p.58. the Clarendon Papers, Mr. Rose says, “ clearly prove " that the Chancellor and his son were the active and “ sole agents in money transactions with the French “ minister here, at this early period.” At the time when Dalrymple wrote, these papers had not been published, and he might not have seen them himself, and probably cited them from the information of others. But Mr. Rose has no such excuse, the papers have been published many years, Mr. Rose has read them, and in his Observations not only quotes the particular letters, but copies the passages, which he conceives to prove the proposition he has laid down, as well as that of Dalrymple, who says, “ In an evil hour Dal. Mem. i. p. “ for Charles the Second, Clarendon had taught him in
SECTION “ the very first years of his reign to receive money
-" from France, unknown to his people.”
Pap. Supplem. poi.
Clar. iii. St. The substance of the State Papers may be stated in
* a few words. In March, 1061, Bastide, the French
minister, in an interview with Lord Clarendon, offered him by virtue of orders from his Court, as a present
for himself, the sum of 10,000l. On the 17th April, Bb. p. iv,
in a letter from Bastide was inclosed a slip of paper,
unseasonable he undertook to prevent its being made. b. P. vi.
After this, Clarendon endeavoured to procure from France some pecuniary assistance for the war of Portugal, which he says Charles was unable alone to defray. In answer, 9th August, 1001, Bastide says “ the King of England may