SECTION I. sagacious observer of the circumstances which preceded the year 1640, comparing them with the events which happened afterwards, asks, as proper subjects for these conjectures, how long the army may be before it would range itself under a single master? and what form of government he would establish? He then goes on to say, " or will he fail, and shall we have a restoration, usually the most dangerous and worst of all "revolutions?" This observation is of a general nature, alluding to no particular event, but to all restorations, in all countries, and in all times. Mr. Fox might lay down as a general principle, that any restoration must necessarily be dangerous to the liberties of the people, because the ancient system would resume its functions armed with more despotic power, and abuses of A every kind would be triumphantly re-established. revolution is a desperate remedy, and to be resorted to only in cases of the most urgent necessity; for when an ancient system is broken up and destroyed, no human foresight can fix the limits at which the rage for alteration shall stop, the period at which the horrors of civil war shall cease, or the number of victims which shall be sacrificed. In most cases, a restoration may be justly styled the worst of revolutions, because, notwithstanding the risks which have been run, and the privations which have been endured, it has usually happened, that it has afforded no present alleviation to the misery which had originally pro voked the preceding revolution, and has destroyed all prospect of grievances being redressed, and the situation of the people being meliorated. SECTION I. Mr. Fox's opinions concerning a restoration, are Gibbon's Rom. neither new nor peculiar. It would be easy to ac- Emp. c. 48. cumulate instances and authorities, let one suffice: Mr Gibbon observes, "The ancient proverh, That blood 66 thirsty is the man who returns from banishment to power, had been applied with too much truth to "Marius and Tiberius, and was now verified for the "third time in the life of Andronicus." Mr. Rose unwarrantably confines this general observation to the Restoration of Charles the Second, and it may therefore be worth while to examine shortly, whether even that great event might not be cited as an example of the truth of Mr. Fox's general observation. The Restoration was in one point of view a most fortunate incident for this country, for it brought back the form of government, to which the people had been accustomed, and which a majority of them preferred; and it laid the foundation of the happy political system, under which we now live. But we must not forget that it was also accompanied with the re-establishment of most of the abuses of the former monarchy, and that, according to Mr. Rose, so strong was the cry in favour of kingly go SECTION I. vernment, it would not have been safe for the restorer of it to have proposed the most salutary restrictions. Even Monk himself would have been considered as an enemy to royalty, and treated as such. A wild and enthusiastic spirit in favour of the ancient form of government, has generally preceded, and occasioned restorations; it is not peculiar to that just mentioned, but belongs indiscriminately to all, and may be one of the reasons operating upon Mr. Fox's mind, and inducing him to make the observation in question. The existence of such a spirit, at the moment of a restoration, must be highly dangerous to the liberty of the people, and prevent them from deriving the benefit, they might have expected from resistance. In this respect, therefore, it may be doubtful in what class of revolutions the Restoration of Charles the Second ought to be placed, for owing to his being seated on the throne, without limitation, almost the whole of his reign was one continued tumultuous struggle between him and his subjects, and, if the fear of Popery had not united and invigorated the friends of rational liberty, it might have been recorded in history among the worst of revolutions, and as one which had blasted the rising prosperity of a great people. By constant adherence to a system of unexampled duplicity and meanness, Charles contrived to retain a precarious throne, but, within less than four years after his death, the errors of the first revolution were so severely felt, that a second became necessary to reform them, and 66 SECTION I. 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 censure 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 me mory. SECTION 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 theRe- "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 during the usur pation. The remark, that the seizure of the crown lands, and crown lands and the sale of the bishops' lands, had hardly any effect on checking the general wish for the restoration, although 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. |