Rose, P. I 2,

inspire foreigners with respect, yet he allows Mr. Fox's SECTION assertion, that the execution of Charles had that effect to – pass uncontradicted; contenting himself with saying, “as Rose, p. 12 “ it would be difficult to form a probable conjecture " as to the sentiments of foreigners, respecting the “ execution of Charles the First, it is not worth while to “oppose the opinion of any, expressed either in writing “ or conversation, to those stated by Mr. Fox.” It would be rather difficult to contradict this assertion, for no man had better opportunities, from his own reading and observation, of knowing the sentiments of foreigners upon the subject; but if it were not founded in truth, the reason given, namely, its difficulty, for not contradicting it, does not seem very satisfactory.

timents on the

Lewis the Six

We must now recal the attention of the reader to ano- Mr. Fox's sen. ther part of the passage quoted as above from the historical execution of work, which has been made the foundation of a most teenth. unfounded and unjust insinuation, against the memory of Mr. Fox. “ If such high praise,” says Mr. Rose, “ was in the judgment of Mr. Fox, due to Cromwell for Rose, p. II. “ the publicity of the proceedings against the King, how “ would he have found language sufficiently commenda“ tory to express his admiration of the magnanimity of “ those, who brought Lewis the Sixteenth to an open « trial!"

The reasoning of Mr. Rose in this sentence, is wel?

SECTION

worthy of notice. “If such high praise," says he,
“ was in Mr. Fox's judgment due to Cromwell,” &c.
What high praise? Simply this, that it is less base to
execute openly, than to assassinate privately. And what
Mr. Fox had said of the execution of Charles the First, he
might, alluding to its publicity, perhaps, have said, of that
of Lewis the Sixteenth, namely, that it was less atro-
cious than if he had been murdered in private; hut Mr.
Fox could have been at no loss to find language suffi-
ciently strong to convey the degree of praise, which, on
such a view of the subject, belonged to the judges who
condemned him. Mr. Rose seems to think, that because
Mr. Fox said something in extenuation of the execution
of Charles the First, if it amounts even to extenuation, he
must have said much in actual praise of that of Lewis the
Sixteenth. But many reasons may be given why he should
have condemned, as in fact he did condemn that act,
without offering any thing in extenuation of it; it could
be less excused by the plea of necessity, either from the
· character of the individual, or the circumstances of the

times ; it was less provoked by previous animosity and
warfare; and even less remarkable for that appearance of
splendour or magnanimity, which publicity can confer
even on an atrocious act, among other reasons, because it
was not the first instance of such an exhibition, and was
obviously an imitation of that of Charles the First.

But we will not detain the reader by the further dis

cussion of fallacious suppositions and hypothetical argu- SECTION ments, when the statement of a few plain facts will put an end to all speculation. For Mr. Fox has expressed and enforced his sentiments in the House of Commons, repeatedly, and upon the most public occasions. His declarations may, possibly, have escaped the memory of Mr. Rose, though at the time they were made he must have been present to hear them, and they were circulated, and made the topic of conversation and party dispute in every 'corner of the kingdom afterwards. At that period Mr. Rose was not only a member of the House of Commons, but in an official situation, which required his regular attendance upon its sittings. Mr. Fox had conceived, that bis speeches relative to France had been grossly misrepresented, and in consequence of his complaints, a more than ordinary attention was paid, both within the House and without, to his words and expressions, 'whenever any event, connected with the revolution in that country, was under discussion. An anxious wish to vindicate himself from these aspersions, induced him to take more than one opportunity of declaring, in the House, his opinion upon the event to which Mr. Rose alludes,

A register of Parliamentary debates may not be always kecurate in minute circumstances, or stating the precise expressions of a speaker, but it is not likely that the general substance of a speech should be mistaken, especially If the recollection of living witnesses confirms the written

p. 283

SECTION account. The Parliamentary Register states, that upon

- Thursday, 20th December, 1792, on the bringing up of Parl.Reg.xxxiv. the report of the Committee of Supply, granting 25,000

seamen, Mr. Fox said the proceedings with respect to
the royal family of France, “ are so far from being mag-
“ nanimity, justice or mercy, that they are directly the
“ reverse, that they are injustice, cruelty, and pusilla-
“ nimity," and afterwards declared his wish for an address
to his Majesty, to which he would add an expression,
“ of our abhorrence of the proceedings against the royal
“ family of France, in which, I have no doubt, we shall
s be supported by the whole country. If there can be
“ any means suggested that will be better adapted to
“ produce the unanimous concurrence of this House, and
“ of all the country, with respect to the measure now
“ under consideration in Paris, I should be obliged to any
“ person for his better suggestion upon the subject.”
Then, after stating that such address, especially if the
Lords joined in it, must have a decisive influence in
France, he added, “ I have said thus much, in order to
“ contradict one of the most cruel misrepresentations of
“ what I have before said in our late debates ; and that
“ my language may not be interpreted from the manner,
“ in which other gentlemen have chosen to answer it.
“ I have spoken the genuine sentiments of my heart, and
“ I anxiously wish the House to come to some resolution
“ upon the subject.” And on the following day, when
a copy of instructions sent to Earl Gower, signifying that

P. 193

he should leave Paris, was laid before the House of Com- SECTION mons, Mr. Fox said, “ He had heard it said, that the pro- — “ ceedings against the King of France are unnecessary. Parl. Regsxxiv. “He would go a great deal farther, and say he believed “ them to be highly unjust; and not only repugnant to “all the common feelings of mankind, but also contrary “ to all the fundamental principles of law,” &c.

The exccution of the King of France took place on the lb. p. 127. 21st day of January, 1793, and on Monday, 28th January, 1793, a message was presented to the House of Commons, laying before it the correspondence with Mr. Chauvelin, and the order to him, “in consequence of the atrocious " act recently perpetrated at Paris ;” and also communicating the necessity to make a further augmentation of his Majesty's forces, by sea and land. Upon this occasion, Mr. Fox said, “ With regard to that part of the “ communication from his Majesty, which related to the “ late detestable scene exhibited in a neighbouring coun“ try, he could not suppose there were two opinions in “ that House ; he knew they were all ready to declare “their abhorrence of that abominable proceeding."

.410.

Two days afterwards, 1st February, 1793, in the debate ib. p. 4 on the message, Mr. Fox pronounced the condemnation and execution of the King to be “an act as disgraceful “ as any that history recorded : and whatever opinions “ he might at any time have expressed in private con- '