« ПредишнаНапред »
that a second became necessary to reform them, and the liberty of England was established on the expulsion of his brother, and his family, and accompanied with a change in the right of succession to the throne.
Mr. Rose is quite indignant at the character given of Monk by Mr. Fox, though he admits, that “ too Rose, p. 19. " much praise has been bestowed on Monk by those “ who approved of the measure, and too much cen“ sure by those who disapproved of it.” There is an insinuation conveyed in this last sentence, which must not be permitted to pass unnoticed. By connecting those, who praise and censure Monk with those, who approve or disapprove of the measure, on Mr. Fox is cast the opprobrium of disapproving of the Restoration, because he censures Monk. But is it not possible that a historian may censure a distinguished political character, and yet not be an enemy to his measures? And does not Mr. Rose give up all pretensions to candour, when he thus acknowledges that he praises Monk, not on account of any merits of his own, but of the cause in which he was engaged ? In his eyes the character of a restorer of monarchy, however base and immoral, must be entitled to admiration; and even that of Monk appears to him, only not so perfect as to justify unqualified praise being bestowed on his memory.
The people de
storation. Rose, p. 20.
Mr. Rose, however, detracts from the merit of Monk, when he says,
• It is true that he gave great fursirous of the Re- “ therance to it,” (i. e. the restoration of the King)
“ but in doing so, he only fell in with the eager and “ anxious wishes of almost all descriptions of men in “ the country; for we can now hardly trace a move“ ment to attempt to prevent it, except by individuals, “ who were under apprehensions for their personal
safety." The reasoning here is not logical, for though no movement at all can be traced, it would not be a proof of the existence of the eager and anxious wishes in almost all descriptions of men ; because a man does not attempt to prevent a thing, it does not follow that he eagerly wishes for it; especially when his personal safety may be endangered by the attempt. And in the present case, the fact, if it existed, is naturally accounted for, from Monk, by great hypocrisy and treachery, having acquired the most despotic power, and deprived the republicans of all prospect of success, from any opposition they could possibly have made,
Effect of seiz. ure of church
The remark, that the seizure of the crown lands, and crown lands and the sale of the bishops' lands, had hardly any effect during the usurpation. on checking the general wish for the restoration, al
though it was believed there were above 400,000 families in the kingdom engaged to the Parliament by those purchases, (i. e. of the bishops' lands, for no other sales
Rose, p. 20.
had been mentioned before) deserves to be noticed, SECTION only as it affords a striking instance of Mr. Rose's credulity and incorrectness. The only authority he cites for the number of families influenced by the purchase of bishops' lands, is an anonymous pamphlet, preserved in the collection of Lord Somers's Tracts, of which the title itself might lead to suspicion in any dispassionate mind of the authenticity of the statements contained in it. It is “a scandalous, libellous, and “ seditious pamphlet, entitled, The Valley of Baca, or “ the Army's Interest Pleaded, the Purchasers Seconded, “ the Danger of the Nation Demonstrated in Thirty“ four Queries, Answered, and the Present State of Af“ fairs Briefly Vindicated.” This, however, is the sole authority, on which an author, pluming himself on his official accuracy, ventures to make an assertion, which, if he had reflected for a single moment, he would at least have hesitated to give credit to. Four hundred thousand families are mentioned in that scandalous, libellous, and seditious pamphlet, to which the tract in Lord Somers's collection was the answer ; and they would contain, probably, at least 1,700,000 people ; at that time composing, we may calculate, one-fourth part of the whole population of England. Unfortunately, however, for Mr. Rose's argument, the pamphlet affords no authority for his assertion, for he is speaking of the purchasing of bishops' lands, the pamphlet of the purchasers of the crown lands. But that we may
not be supposed to cavil about words, let us admit Mr. Rose has inadvertently made a mistake, and that his intention was to include the purchasers of both crown and bishops' lands; then, the book relating to the crown lands only, there must have been more than 400,000 persons influenced by the purchases of both, and Willis's Survey of the Cathedrals will enable my
readers to make a loose calculation of the great number which must be added to a number already too large to be readily acknowledged to be correct. This would only make the argument more desperate. And it is clear, that Mr. Rose was not sufficiently acquainted with the facts, which he meant to press into the service, for at the conclusion of the paragraph, he mentions that great numbers of officers and soldiers had assignments for their arrears on the estates of persons forfeited for their adherence to the King; and therefore to the 400,000 families engaged by purchases of crown lands, and to those engaged by purchases of the bishops' lands, we must also add this third class of families, described by Mr. Rose as very numerous. According to this absurd calculation, there could be very few families left to support the King's cause, nor could there be any considerable, remnant of those, who had suffered for it. If Mr. Rose had only taken common pains to have ascertained the fact from authentic documents, instead of relying upon the loose statement of an anonymous. party pamphlet, he would have found that persons, best.
informed upon the subject, did not consider the in- SECTION fluence of the purchasers of crown or church lands, or the holders of the lands of delinquents, as forming so formidable a body. In a letter dated 20th February, 1059-60, Lord Chancellor Hyde says, “I am Clar.St. Pap. i. 5 not so much frighted with the fear of those per
sons, who being possessed of the church, crown, " and delinquent's lands, will be thereby withheld from “ returning to their duty, except they might be as“ sured to retain the same. First, I do not think the
number so very considerable of all those who are « entangled in that guilt, that their interest can conti“ nue or support the war, wben the nation shall dis
cern that there is nothing else keeps off the peace. “ Secondly, they who have the greatest share in *«* those spoils, are
spoils, are persons, otherwise too irrecon* cileable, either by their guilt as King's murderers, or their villainous resolutions, as Sir Arthur
and others, that no overtures of that "“ kind would work upon them, but would be turned “ into reproach; and as the number of those is not * greut, so the greatness of their possessions makes " them more enemies than friends, setting all other guilt aside,”
Nor was the value of the land, by which so many families were engaged to the parliament, so great as might be imagined, or Mr. Rose's assertion might erroneously give rise to suspect. another letter, 6th April, 1600, from Mr. Barwick to
In ib. p.723,