« ПредишнаНапред »
« induce us to attribute the violence of this reign to SECTION “ James's religion, which was peculiar to him,” Mr. -------Fox observes that “ if we consider it, as history will “ warrant us to do, as a part of that system, which “ had been pursued by all the Stuart Kings, as well “ prior as subsequent to the Restoration, the lesson " which it affords is very different, as well as far “ more instructive,” and then proceeds to point out the particulars in which the lesson is more instructive to Englishmen, if contests should unfortunately arise with their sovereign. The observation is confined entirely to the vices and conduct of Kings; and the lesson is supposed to be instructive, not to other Kings, but to persons, who may be governed by them, and stand solely in the relation of subjects. Mr. Rose however totally misconceives the course of the argument, and endeavours to prove Mr. Fox to be wrong by an observation, which has no immediate connection with the question in dispute. “ Now," says be, '“ the lust of arbitrary power is Rose, p. 131. “ a vice confined to Kings, which by persons in or6 dinary life can be but little felt, or understood: " whereas to bigotry and intolerance all ranks are “ subject, and their ill consequences are felt through “ all the stages of society.” Mr. Rose must know but little of mankind if he supposes the love of power and of arbitrary power too, is a vice confined to
SECTION Kings. All men are formed of the same materials,
and influenced by the same passions, and the lust, of
or low his situation may be.-But, granting that Mr. Rose's observation is well founded, and that a subject is debased by one vice fewer in number than his sovereign: yet this would be no answer to the passage quoted from Mr. Fox. A bigoted, and intolerant spirit may pervade all ranks, but it is rather the accidental weakness of the individual, than a vice incident to human nature : and at any rate is not one to which the situation of a King is in general more particularly exposed, nor against the prevalence of which, it is the interest and duty of his subjects to be continually on their guard. But the inordinate love of power, a vice so natural to man, is always fostered and encouraged in the sunshine of prosperity, and within the circle of a crown. It is a vice, in favour of which Kings are exposed to greater temptations than other 'men, and it is therefore that, which they should be
seriously warned to avoid, and their subjects instructed to observe with vigilance, and guard against with jealousy.
A lesson, which puts subjects upon their guard, against an inordinate love of power in their Sovereign, is likely to be much more beneficial and salutary, than one which
can direct their conduct only, when he brings their SECTION religion into danger, The lesson, alluded to, is not -pointed out, as Mr. Rose erroneously imagines, to persons in ordinary life, for the regulation of their transactions with each other, or to teach them individually humility in their temporal, or charity in their spiritual concerns.
In the concluding paragraph of this section, Mr. Rose The desire and does not differ in opinion from Mr. Fox, either as natural to kings to the love of power belonging to the three first Monarchs of the Stuart race, or to James, but it is the use only which the latter intended to make of it, which is disputed, and even that, we are told perhaps so much pains might not have been taken to establish, “ had Rose, pan. « it not been for the deduction which Mr. Fox seems “ desirous of making from it; namely, that the desire 6 of power, and indeed of its abuse, is so natural to 6. Kings, that it is needless to look for any motive? “ beyond that general one; to account for such tyran« nical attempts in the Monarch, against the freedom “ of the people.” Why Mr. Rose should be stimulated to so long, and laborious' an investigation to shew the fallacy of that deduction, he does not inform his readers; surely it cannot be, that' merely because Mr. Fox was desirous to make it, he was resolved to oppose it. He cannot dispute that the desire of power is natural
to all men, and among others to Kings; nor that power is liable to be abused wherever it is lodged, and more in the hands of those, who from their situation are exposed to stronger, and more numerous temptations than others; especially when they happen to be under fewer restraints to keep them within proper bounds. Whether, when tyrannical attempts are made against the freedom of the people, any other motive besides this general one ought to be sought for, must depend upon the circumstances, under which they are made ; Mr. Fox thinks it unnecessary, in the case of James, to make any further inquiry, but Mr. Rose, conceives the Tory writers have discovered another motive, and has entered with more zeal than success, into the lists to defend them.
Principles and in the introduction to this Work we ventured to Mr. Rose offen- predict that principles more exceptionable, and ex
pressions more offensive to royalty would be found in Mr. Rose's Observations, than in any part of Mr. Fox's Historical Work, and the concluding half sentence of
the section may be produced to prove the fulfilment of Rosc, p. 122.
the prediction. For there we find Mr. Rose boasting that it is the pride and happiness of the subjects of the British en pire to reflect, that the energy of the constitutional principles of our Government, and the natural love of liberty in the country occasioned tyrannical attempts, against the freedom of the people to terminate SECTION
III. “ in the ruin of the prince, and in the more firm estaso blishment of the rights of the subject." Where are the principles concerning monarchy developed in Mr. Fox's book, at which any person avowing these principles may be supposed to feel alarm? Let Mr. Fox express his disapprobation of the execution of Charles the First, though the manner of conducting his trial was less exceptionable, than the proceedings against Lord Strafford — Let him declare his admiration of the talents of Cromwell, and his contempt of the baseness of Monk-Let him state, that legislative provisions may be overpowered by the ambition of a Monarch, and the subserviency of his ministers-Let him charge Charles the Second with concealing a treaty from some of his ministers--and let him attribute to Kings in common with all other men a natural love of power, and to their situation unavoidable temptations to abuse it ; yet after all, he has manifested no disposition to exult over the ruin of a Prince, or make it his pride and happiness to contemplate the triumph of liberty, when attended by such a sacrifice.