« ПредишнаНапред »
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
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.
Difference of circumstances at the restora. tion and revo- ! lution.
without limitations from a supposed difference between the circumstances attending the Restoration and the Revolution ; and in the latter period he tells us, that
there was full leisure for deliberation.” But upon a minute examination of dates, it will be found that there was not, taking the calculation in the most favourable manner for Mr. Rose, any material difference between the times afforded for deliberation at these periods. At the Revolution, James fled on the lith day of December, and William and Mary accepted the crown on the 13th of February following, so that thirty-three days only could be employed in settling the constitution, and consulting the wishes of those, to whom the regał power was to be committed. At the Restoration, a much longer time elapsed, from the period when Monk is supposed, by some, to have first entertained sentiments favourable to monarchy, and the King was in fact restored ; but at all events twentyeight days elapsed between the open declaration of his sentiments made on the ist May, 1660,* and the King's return to the seat of government.
* On the 1st May, Monk directed Mr. Annesley, president of the council, to inform the House of Commons, that Sir John Granville, a servant of the King's, had been sent 'over by his Majesty, and was then at the door with a letter for the House. But from Thurloe's State Papers, as will be shewn presently, it appears that Monk's disposition was known to Lord Clarendon to be friendly to the King, so early as about the middle of March, and his design to restore monarchy suspected about the same time by Harry Martin, to whose quicktions,
But another assertion requires a more minute consideration, “ It is not improbable,” says the observer, " that if any man, at the Restoration, bad even sug- Monk prevents
gested a new check on the regal power, he would the crown. “ have been considered as an enemy to royalty, and Rose, p. 18. " would have been treated accordingly.” be admitted to be the case, after Monk had decided that the King should be recalled, without any restric
But if he had himself proposed any, or encouraged others to have done so, there were many persons, of note, who would most gladly have risked the consequences; but despairing of success, without Monk's approbation and assistance, they abandoned the design. Ludlow, whose authority as an independent in religion, and a republican in politics,
ness and penetration the republican party were frequently under considerable obligations. The following anecdote is preserved in the British Museum :-“ When Harry Martin was leaving England, to live * in Holland, March 1659, he went to take his leave of Monk, and * asked him, whether he would set up a kingly, or a commonwealth
government;---a commonwealth, said Monk. This was after the « militia was settling: Said Martin I'll tell you a story; I met a
man with a saw, a pick-axe, and a hatchet, and asked him what “ he meant to do with those tools ;-he said, I am going to take mea
sure of a gentleman to make him a suit of clothes. Apply it your“ self; it is as likely you will set up a commonwealth with your
ways, as he to make a suit with those tools. Sir R. W.” Probably these initials stand for Sir R. Willis, who might have related the story.-Symond's Anecdotes in Dr. Birch's Papers in the British Museum. MSS. No. 4164.
Ludl. Mem. p. 363.
SECTION Mr. Rose
Mr. Rose might not singly give credit to, expressly asserts, that when the secluded members were restored it was
debated whether they should agree upon a settlement, or whether it should be left for a Parliament to do; and some were for calling in the Lords, and entering into a treaty with the King for a future establishment, which should be grounded “ chiefly upon the concessions made by the last King “ in the Isle of Wight."* He then states that Monk, being earnestly desirous to bring in the King without any conditions, in hopes “ to procure a recom
pence equal to the greatness of his treachery, pre“ vented the success of that proposition, which part he “ acted so openly, that divers of the secluded and other “ members” resolved to imitate him. Welwood also in
his memoirs, as cited by Mr. Rose, says, that “ some Rose, p. 26. “ were for bringing him" (i. e. the King)
66 back The republican Ludlow's authority in this instance is corroborated by a letter to the King himself, dated 19th March, 1860; in which is said, a
great part of this council,” (i. e. the council of iii. p. 703
state)" by name Sir Gilbert Gerard and Mr. Crewe, “ and that gang are really upon the bringing in the
King upon the articles of the Isle of Wight;"
Clar. St. Pap.
* Those concessions were drawn up in the form of a bill for a new coronation oath, which see, Ludl. Mem. p. 531. And this bill, perhaps, was the object of Sir M. Hale's motion, mentioned hereafter at p. 40. of this work.
iii. p. 705
" where many
which seems to imply that the writer was surprised at there being an inclination in these persons to bring in the King at all. Four days afterwards, (23rd May, 1900) Mr. Samborne, in a letter to Lord Chancellor Hyde, informs, that “ the chief of the Presbyterian party of Clar. St. Pap. " the counsel of state, and others met in a junto," (of which the Lords Bedford and Manchester, and Mr. Pierpont are afterwards said to be members, and Popham, Waller and Sir John suspected) “ things were debated, and at last it was resolved
upon, that they should immediately send proposi“ tions to the King, which they had drawn up, and
were more insolent than ever they had demanded “ of the late King : *** and I have it from good hands " that Monk abhors the Presbyterian impudence in “ these proposals to the King.” Some who were most violent in this design are made to say, they cannot “ be secure if they permit so much as a kitchen-boy “ to be about the King of his old party ; and that “ he must be so fettered, as that he should not write
a letter but they must know the contents of it.”
Lord Clarendon's correspondent has assured us, in the last preceding letter, that Monk was acquainted with, and did not approve of the proceedings of the presbyterian junto ; and, from another letter in the same collection, it may be fairly inferred, that Ludlow's charge against Monk was well founded ; at least, that the emissaries of the King were zealously employed in endeavouring to