« ПредишнаНапред »
section « versation, he had expressed none certainly in that
“ House on the justice of bringing Kings to trial: re“ venge being unjustifiable, and punishment useless, where it could not operate either by way of prevention
or example; he did not view with less detestation the “ injustice and inhumanity, that had been committed to“ wards that unhappy monarch. Not only were the “ rules of criminal justice, rules that, more than any “other, ought to be strictly observed, violated with re
spect to him; not only was he tried and condemned " without any existing law, to which he was personally 6 amenable, and even contrary to laws that did actually “exist; but the degrading circumstances of his imprison“ment, the unnecessary and insulting asperity, with
“ which he had been treated, the total want of repub..“ lican magnanimity in the whole transaction, (for ..“ even in that House it could be no offence to say that
, there might be such a thing as magnanimity in a repub.." lic) added every aggravation to the inhumanity and in“justice.” :
: Having by these extracts assisted the memory of Mr. Rose, will he say that he does not recollect the uttering of any of the expressions or sentiments contained in them? Will he now ask how Mr. Fox would have found language sufficiently complimentary to express his admiration of the magnanimity of those who brought Lewis the Sixteenth to an open trial, when, in Mr. Rose's presence, he
had repeatedly declared their conduct to be unjust, inhu- SECTION man, and detestable, and to be totally wanting in magnanimity ? Mr. Fox complained, that the most cruel' misrepresentations of the language he had used in debate, had been circulated, but for them might be urged the heat of the moment, and the cry of a party; Mr. Rose has no such excuse to make: he writes coolly seventeen year's after the event alluded to happened, when both his patron, and his political opponent are resting undisturbed in the silent grave; and all personal animosity between their former adherents might reasonably be expected to be laid aside and forgotten. It may be thought too severe to impute to Mr. Rose a wish to revive, against the memory of Mr. Fox, calumnies which he had satisfactorily answered at the time they were spread abroad, and which had for many years lost their currency. But if Mr. Rose should be brought to the remembrance that Mr. Fox did, with great anxiety and feeling, declare his abhorrence, more than once, of the proceedings against Lewis the Sixteenth, will he think it is a sufficient apology for having made such a groundless attack,' that he wrote his observations carelessly, and in haste, and that he did not recollect the circumstance ?' And what then becomes of his boasted claim to accuracy ? Such a charge should not have been insinuated, without previous consideration and inquiry, and a full persuasion founded thereon, of its truth.
Rose, p. II,
SECTION Mr. Fox having, in the passages before cited, re
- marked, that among the modes of destroying deposed Examples of destroying depo- monarchs, that adopted by Cromwell and his adhesed princes.
rents was the least dishonourable, and produced as examples of the more dishonourable, the deaths of the deposed princes, Edward the Second, Richard the Second, Henry the Sixth, and Edward the Fifth, Mr. Rose sagaciously remarks that, they “ are of a “ kind too savage to be quoted as precedents of any “ proceeding, which can pretend to be of a legal or “ judicial character.” Here the reader will observe, that Mr. Fox agrees with Mr. Rose, and accordingly classes all these cases among the more dishonourable ones ; and that Mr. Rose himself is pleased to describe the proceedings against Charles as pretending to be of a legal or judicial character.
Mr. Fox's se. Mr. Rose is not content with the second period English histo- marked out in the historical work, because, instead of
ending in 1040, it might have included the reign of Charles the Second, or been extended to the Restoration; because the measures in the reign of James the First, and the early part of Charles the First, led to the consequences which ensued in the latter part of Charles the First, and the reign of Charles the Second. Hence we learn that a period, to meet Mr. Rose's approbation, should include not only the SECTION
consequences, but the remotest cause of them ; in short, the history of the most ancient nation now existing should consist of only one period, or rather, every history must begin with the creation of the world, for that measure certainly produced the state of things existing at the present day. Mr. Fox's position at the outset of his work is, that in reading “ the history of every country, there are certain pe“ riods at which the mind naturally pauses to medi“ tate upon, and consider them with reference, not “ only to their immediate effects, but to their more “ remote circumstances ;” and Mr. Rose, who had previously declared his agreement with him, now raises an objection, which militates against any division at all. The only question is, whether from the alteration, which actually took place in the government of this country in 1640, that was not a proper time to pause and meditate. With all due deference to the opinion of Mr. Rose, it may be thought that a more proper moment for the purpose can hardly be pointed out in our history. And even upon Mr. Rose's principle, it may be defended, for the measures he alludes to occasioned the devolution of more than ordinary powers upon the Commons in 1040 ; and the consequence of their putting them into use was, the overthrowing of the monarchy, and after its restoration a reign disturbed by acts of turbulence and violence, little less mischievous and destructive than an open
2. Avida!! :21 :00 civil war would have been. The termination of this period (the third) with the reign of Charles the Sea cond, Mr. Rose also thinks was not well considered, because « the reign of his brother was surely not less “ 'remarkable for religious dispute and political contest * than his own." Mr. Fox probably fixed the end of the third period, from the consideration that - at 'that æra his regular history was to begin; moreover the reign of James the Second being more remarkable for the religious contesť he raised or inflamed, might have been a sufficient reason, in 'his, mind for separating it from his brother's. But the argument we have just used, will apply equally here, and the reader is desired to recollect for what purpose this division into 'periods was made at all, and then 'to consider whether the accession of the misguided monarch, whose whole reign was employed in hastening his own destruction by the folly and 'rashness of 'his conduct, was 'not a
fit time, from which to trace the immediate causes of , his ruin.: I
. .. ...
i It remains to be noticed, that Mr. Rose is not correct, when he says that “ Mr. Fox points out a -“ particular year within that period,” i, e. between
1840 and 1684,' “ when the constitution had attained “ its greatest perfection,” for he has left out the word “ theoretical," before the word "" perfection,” and also omitted to observe, that the opinion did not
Rosc, p. 13.