« ПредишнаНапред »
But another assertion requires a more minute con- SECTION sideration. “ 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.” This may be admitted to be the case, after Monk had decided that the King should be recalled, without any restrictions. 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 t" in Holland, March 1659, he went to take his leave of Monk, and *6 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.
SECTION Mr. Rose might not singly give credit to, expressly
- asserts, that when the secluded members were restored Ludl. Mem. p.
it was debated whether they should agree upon a
his memoirs, as cited by Mr. Rose, says, that “ some Rose, p. 26.
“ were for bringing him" (i. e. the King) " back “ upon terms." 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 Clar. St. Pap. “ 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;"
* 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.
which seems to imply that the writer was surprised at SECTION there being an inclination in these persons to bring in – the King at all. Four days afterwards, (23rd May, 1300) 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) “ where many “ 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
SECTION prevail on Monk to restore him without conditions; for
4th May, 1660, Lord Mordaunt writes, “ Last week I Clar.St.Pap. ii.
“ sent you word it then clearly lay in the general's “ power to restore the King without terms; but last " week is not this week, neither did he strike whilst
“ the iron was hot. My opinion is, his interest lesBurnet. i p. 88. " sens again,” &c. Afterwards when the convention
was assembled, one of the most upright and honourable of its members, Mr. (afterwards, Sir Matthew) Hale, moved for a committee to look into the propositions and concessions made during the life of the late King, particularly at the treaty of the Isle of Wight, and draw up such propositions as they should think fit to be sent over to the King; this motion being seconded, Monk got up, and answered it by urging the extreme danger of any delay, and that they might as well prepare them and offer them when the King should come over; and then moved that commissioners should be sent immediately to bring over the King. This was echoed with such a shout
over the House, that the motion was no more in· sisted upon.
These authorities prove that Monk did not argue, as Mr. Rose's fertile imagination fancied he might have
done. To him, as Mr. Fox justly observes,“ did the Rox, p. 13. " nation look up, ready to receive from his orders
“ the form of government he should choose to pre“ scribe;" but he and the King's emissaries were acting SECTION
in concert to bring in the King, without any limitation to the regal power: he prevented a party in the council of state, who would have run the risk of being considered and treated as enemies to royalty, from taking the steps necessary to impose some restrictions; and in the convention, he defeated Mr. Matthew Hale's salutary design, by proposing a resolution, that the King should be sent for without any. Thus, be it to his praise or not, to him, and to him alone, was the King indebted, that he mounted the throne with unlimited authority. For this service Monk was afterwards liberally rewarded ; but so shortsighted is the policy of men, that this circumstance of triumph in 1060, after proving a perpetual source of vexation to the King occasioned the ruin of the House of Stuart only 28 years afterwards. ' A wiser conduct was pursued at the Revolution; the Prince of Orange accepted the crown under such limitations as were well calculated to give security to the monarch, and liberty and happiness to his people.
Mr. Rose is always on the alert to detect republican A restoration
Cipupiican usually the principles in Mr. Fox's work, and always desirous to meet of revocommunicate to others the impression he has himself taken up. Thus, after he has in one place mentioned Rose p. 19. the restoration, he adds, “ according to Mr. Fox, the “ worst sort of revolution.” Mr. Fox having described what might have been the speculations of a