SECTION THE FOURTH. IV. with France, in MR. ROSE thus explains the object of the fourth sec- SECTION tion 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 order to be in"to flow from a partial view of the subject, than to be Parliaments. "authorised by history, or by the documents from which 66 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 dependent of Rose, p. 127. SECTION Object of " 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: itself was endangered by the meeting of these assemblies,. was not less desirous Lewis. IV. than Lewis could be, that his actions might be exempted SECTION 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 66 66 was displeased to see monarchy attacked so violently, between them App. 2. p. 288. without effect, for the intended treaty was never compleated, owing to the requisition, on the part of France, of an additional clause, to which Charles would not submit. In the conversation just mentioned, Barillon leaves no doubt of the view, in which his master was accustomed to contemplate the meetings of Parliament; they were always dangerous to the interest of both these kings, and if he could have supplied Charles with money sufficient for his necessities, it is pretty clear, that it would have been accepted on the condition of his not summoning any. But the above mentioned letter of the 3d of February, 1681, is perfectly explicit, and destroys the baseless fabrick, which Mr. Rose has been attempting to erect; for Barillon says, "There remains only one difficulty, which is that of putting off for ever the sittings of the Parliament. "I know very well it is a security which your Majesty "has reason to demand * but you promised me, in 1679, "to consent that the Parliament should assemble when "the King of England should think it necessary for "his own interests, provided that then the subsidies "should cease." The embassador must be presumed to be informed of the wishes of his Majesty, who probably had written to him upon the subject. He had 66 SECTION IV. *“Il reste seulement une difficulté, c'est celle d'eloigner pour Rose, 138, "toujours la séance du Parlement. Je sçai bien que c'est une "sureté que vôtre Majesté a raison de demander, &c. D d |