« ПредишнаНапред »
from the specific in
Monk restores In the first place, Mr. Fox reproaches Monk with the King withour conditions. having restored the monarch without a single provision
in favour of the cause which he and others had called
the cause of liberty. Mr. Rose at first endeavours to deRose, p. 14
fend this omission by a series of hypothetical arguments, which, by their extreme weakness, afford a convincing proof of the truth of the observation he is combating. He argues first, that though this conduct might be regretted, yet it must be recollected, that there could hardly have been time to settle the boundaries of the regal power; and secondly, that Monk might have been of opinion, that the restoration of the monarchy would have implied all the limitations of its ancient constitution, but what these limitations were, or where to be sought for, Mr. Rose has not informed us. Certainly not in the history of the reigns of the two preceding princes of the house of Stuart, and surely Monk cannot be supposed, like Mr. Rose, who has lived the greatest part of his life among records, to have formed any opinion of the limitations which existed during the time of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, ibirdly, that Monk might have thought any delay would have been dangerous ; fourthly, that he might have been less anxious in this respect, from his haying been witness of the abuse of liberty. And after- SECTION wards Mr. Rose gives, what he supposes to be, two additional reasons, but which are in fact included in the foregoing ones, viz. that Monk might have been so disgusted with the scenes he had been witness to, as to be willing to give his assistance to bring about any change likely to restore order; and that he might be alarmed lest the army should not have co-operated in his designs. .
That Monk might have defended himself by these arguments, is certainly within the sphere of possibi. lity, but that he would have had recourse to them is highly improbable. He had complete power over the army; it was governed by his creatures, and was subservient to his will. If he had proposed that the crown under certain restrictions, should be offered to the King, there was no existing power to oppose it.
“ But Mr. Rose says, that it should not be imputed Rose, p. 1%. exclusively to him, that such restrictions were not stipulated for; and in order to prove this position, enters into a most extraordinary argument, for he contends upon the principles of a true republican, if we do not misunderstand him, that independent of Monk, there existed in the Parliament a legal constitutional power, by virtue of which Charles was invited to the throne without any restrictions.' To this there are
two decisive answers, first, that the remnant of the long Parliament itself was allowed to assemble only upon conditions, and for purposes prescribed by Monk ; and next, that the new Parliament was illegally summoned afterwards.
Ludl. Mem. p. 357.
The excluded members were restored to their seats in the Rump Parliament, which met after the abdication of Richard Cromwell, but upon condition, as Ludlow informs us, and as their conduct afterwards justifies us in believing, that Monk should be voted general of all the forces by land and sea, a constant maintenance settled on the army, and a new Parliament ordered to be chosen, after which they should put an end to themselves in a day or two at the most.
Accordingly, the Rump Parliament, as Ludlow says, Ib. p. 363. after passing a vote, to delude the people, that no one
who had been in arms against the Parliament, should be eligible to the new one, dissolved itself. In consequence of this arrangement, writs were issued by
the keepers of the liberties of England, and to use Mr. Rose's de. Mr. Rose's words,“ a free convention met, in which
" the Lords assembled also. It was therefore, by an
“ assembly, elected by the unbiassed voice of the peo• “ ple, in pursuance of an act of the Commonwealth
“ Parliament, thať the King was called to his throne “ without conditions.” Mr. Rose can hardly have been aware of the concessions he is here making; but the
mocratic prin. ciples.
conduct of Monk was to be defended, or at least pal- SECTION liated at all events, and the principles of that defence, might never be inquired into.
If the acts of a Parliament, chosen under the sanction of an army, and existing only at its pleasure, can form a justification for the conduct of the general of that army, then it may be argued with greater appearance of reason, that the acts of a Parliament elected, certainly as freely, under Cromwell, and possessing more of independence, justified the usurpations of Cromwell. But in another point of view, Mr. Fox has not supported any principles in their nature so democratic, or as Mr. Rose would call them, republican, as he is here obliged to resort to. For he defends the Restoration of the King without any restrictions, not upon any ancient acknowledged principles of government, but the invitation of a free convention, elected by the unbiassed voice of the people. It is hardly worth noticing, that in order to prop this tottering argument, it is assumed that the convention was properly assembled, freely elected, and acted without restraint; yet in form, it was summoned as we have seen, by the keepers of the liberties of England, and in fact, a numerous description of persons was excluded, and it depended for its existence on the pleasure of Monk and his army.
Mr. Rose apologizes for the restoring of the King Rose, p. 18.
at the restora. tion and revolution,
SECTION without limitations from a supposed difference between
on the circumstances attending the Restoration and the Difference of Revolution; and in the latter period he tells us, that
Tô. “ there was full leisure for deliberation.” But upon a
minute examination of dates, it will be found that