« ПредишнаНапред »
Connection between Charles the Second and Lewis the Fourteenth,
that the former might reign independent of Parliaments.--Mr. Fox dissatisfied with Sir John Dalrymple.—Mr. Rose mistakes Lord Holland's preface for Mr. Fox's book.-His further mistakes.- True object of Mr. Rose's book.--Imposition of Macpherson.-Disrespectful language of Mr. Rose .concerning Monarchs.-How far Barillon's letters valuable.-Bill for Preservation of the Person of James the Second made material alterations in the Law concerning Treasons.-Burnet's description of the Bill defended. History of the Bill. Journals of Parliament not to be relied upon. -Ralph inaccurate in his History.—Burnet again correct. --Ralph again incorrect.— The Bill resembles a modern Statute.-Comparison of the Bill with the Statute of 36 Geo. 3. c. 7.
SECTION THE FOURTH.
with France, in
MR. Rose thus explains the object of the fourth section of his work. " In the former sections we have “ ventured some remarks on those general points of Mr. Connection “ Fox's narrative, and discussions, which appear rather orden debe con" to flow from a partial view of the subject, than to be Parliaments
Rose, p. 127. “ authorised by history, or by the documents from which history is drawn.
In this section is meant to be con“ sidered his representation of particular circumstances “ in detail, with which he endeavours to support the “ system he has laid down.” Here Mr. Rose has not kept faith with his readers, for in this section, so far from considering in detail particular circumstances, in which Mr. Fox endeavours to support his system, he enters into consideration of one assertion only of Mr. Fox, " that the object of the supplies, furnished by Lewis to “ the two brothers, was to prevent their calling Par“ liaments, and enabling them to govern altogether with
" out the controul, or intervention of these assemblies.” We have already observed that Mr. Fox asserted that the object of a connection with France was, that these two Kings might reign independent of Parliament; but he does not any where say, that the object was to prevent the calling of Parliaments altogether, or to avoid the intervention of them, but to enable the King to govern uncontrolled by them. Mr. Rose, wholly mistaking the meaning of the observation of Mr. Fox, enters into a laboured refutation of what had not been asserted, and quotes so many extracts from Barillon's Letters, as to raise an apprehension, that his readers may think him tedious in. his discussion whether the remittances from France were intended to enable the King to go vern without a Parliament, and whether they could have been sufficient for that purpose. It is unnecessary to examine separately each of these numerous extracts, or to enter into any further argument respecting them, for they have been answered already in the beginning of the third section ; but it may be observed in general, that they manifest on the part of Lewis a great desire, upon some' occasions, that a Parliament should not be assembled, and upon others, that it should not be allowed to continue its sittings, and that to obtain his wishes he did not' scruple to supply Charles occasionally with large sums of money. Charles, who found his plan of arbitrary power counteracted, and imagined his throne itsclf was endangered by the meeting of these assemblies,. was not less desirous
than Lewis could be, that his actions might be exempted from their controul, and his prerogatives secured from their interference. But he found, that the threat of calling a Parliament stimulated the French King to fresh supplies, or new subsidies, and therefore he did not chuse, in the early part of his reign at least, that it should be supposed he could by any possibility do entirely without them. On the other hand, Lewis did not wish that Charles should object of reign in tranquillity. From motives of policy he inclined to the re-establishment of a monarchical system of government in England, and that the exiled family should be restored, but his intention was that it should hold the sceptre in dependence upon him. The meeting of the Parliaments might occasionally derange his plans, and force its sovereign, reluctantly into measures hostile to his views. It is not surprising, therefore, that Lewis should consider it as an important object to do entirely without Parliaments, if possible, and look, with some degree of anxiety and apprehension, to the times of their assembling. The secret clue to these transactions be- Connection tween the two princes, may be discovered by a reference explained. to two letters in Barillon's correspondence, dated the 3d of August, 1679, and the 3d of February, 1681, both cited by Mr. Rose. But he has omitted the first part of the passage Dal. Mem. in the former one, which runs thus :
“ This prince “ answered me, that he did not doubt but your Majesty
was displeased to see monarchy attacked so violently, as it is in England, and that it was not for your interest
App. 2. p. 288.