That is not enougte, •he amount it? no not a and of it. page of his book. Mr. Rose admits, in the text, without giving any dates, that there was such an order as Neale alludes to, and that, in consequence, the bodies of Cromwell, Ireton, &c. were dug up and ignominiously treated; but Blake's, which he does not mention to have been dug up, "was," he says, "with 66 great decency, re-interred in St. Margaret's churchyard." But, as it could not be re-interred, unless it had been taken up, we may conclude it was dug up in the same irreverent manner as the bodies of those, who were so ignominiously treated afterwards. And if it was dug up at all, in pursuance of the beforementioned order, Mr. Fox's observation is strictly true, that this illustrious corpse was meanly insulted. And Mr. Rose does not deny that, if that were the case, it was done with the acquiescence of Monk. But this passage of Mr. Rose's work is deserving of more minute investigation, and is another notable instance of the boasted accuracy which occasioned him to undertake the correcting of errors in Mr. Fox's work. He describes the bodies of Cromwell, Ireton, Blake and others, to have been taken up at the same time, by the order to remove the dead bodies of those who had acted against the King, and been buried in Westminster Abbey; but the fact is, that in pursuCom. Journ.vii. ance of a joint resolution of the House of Lords and Commons of the 8th of December, 1660, an order of both houses was made, for the carcases of Cromwell, 202. Ireton, Bradshaw, and Pride, whether buried in West, SECTION I. Those of Ireton and Cromwell were taken up on Dart. ii. p. 144. the 26th of January, Bradshaw's on the 29th, and all three were hanged upon the gallows at Tyburn on the 30th, where they continued till the next day at sun-set, when they were cut down, the trunks buried in a hole at the foot of the gallows, and their heads Hist.Reg.p.536, placed on Westminster Hall. More than six months afterwards, viz. 10th of September, Kennet states the warrant of the King (which Neale alludes to) to have issued; and that on the 12th, and 14th of that month, the bodies of several persons mentioned were taken up, that of Blake, being one dug up on the Com.Journ.viii. Ib. p. 209. * This order originated in the House of Commons on the 4th, December; and the Serjeant at Arms was ordered to take care, that "it was put in effectual execution." Mr. Titus was also ordered to carry it up to the Lords for their concurrence. But, probably, it occurred to some of the members that the performance of this duty did not belong to their office; and on the 6th of December he was directed to take care it should be done by the common executioner, and others, to whom it should respectively appertain; and Ib. p. 202. the sheriff of Middlesex was to give his assistance. In this form it was sent to the Lords on the 7th, December, and the Lords returned it on the 8th, with the further addition, that the dean of Westminster should give directions to his officers to assist. SECTION I. 12th. But the blunders of Mr. Rose do not end here; for he has favoured his readers, in a note, with an extract from a newspaper in his possession, published on the 26th January, 1661, which correctly announces that, in pursuance of an order of Parliament, the carcases of Cromwell and Ireton were digged up out of their graves (which, with those of Bradshaw and Pride) were to be hanged at Tyburn, and buried under the gallows. The next number of the paper stated the particulars, "but," adds Mr. Rose, "not a syllable concerning the corpse " of Blake." It would have been miraculous if there had been; for the corpse of Blake was then resting peaceably in the vault in which the gratitude of his country had deposited it. And there it remained for many months afterwards, until disturbed, in pursuance of the royal mandate. well; suppose this an error of Rose, the mein fact proved of an invult with Monks requescence? But Mr. Rose's accuracy has not even yet been fully appreciated, for his assertion, that the corpse was reinterred in St. Margaret's church-yard " with great de cency," is not supported by history. Neale alleges that it," along with the others, were thrown into one pit." Upon appealing to Kennett, cited as before observed, by both parties, nothing satisfactory is found, Dart, ii. p. 145. nor is Dart in his History of the Cathedral Church of Westminster, as referred to by Kennett, more explicit. Both of these authors, probably, wishing to conceal or palliate the disgraceful treatment of the corpse SECTION I. of a hero, to whom, perhaps, more than any other (with the exception of the immortal Nelson) this country is indebted for her present maritime glory and strength, have expressed themselves in cautious and ambiguous terms. But Anthony Wood, in his Fasti Wood's Fasti, L Oxonienses, enumerating Blake among the batchelors, mentions the order of the King before mentioned, and then adds, "His body, I say, was then (September, 12th) "taken up, and, with others, buried in a pit in St. 66 Margaret's church-yard adjoining, near to the back "door of one of the prebendaries of Westminster, in "which place it now remaineth, enjoying no other "monument but what it reared by its valour, which "time itself can hardly efface." The story then, does not rest on the authority of Neale only, as Mr. Rose states, but is supported by an author whose political sentiments cannot be suspected of being too favourable to liberty of any description, and from whom probably Neale had borrowed it. We will now leave to Mr. Rose the task of reconciling the refutation of Grey, and the clear evidence of Kennett, with the positive assertion of Wood. The next passage in Mr. Fox's work objected to, is that which charges Monk at the trial of Argyle with having "produced letters of friendship and confidence to take away the life of a nobleman, the zeal and cordiality "of whose co-operation with him, proved by such docu P. 205. Monk's base conduct to the Earl of Argyle Fox, p. 20. SECTION 1. Rose, p. 22. "ments, was the chief ground of his execution." The propriety of Mr. Fox's remarks upon this conduct are not disputed. Mr. Rose himself calls it, "an infamous act," provided the fact were true; and takes upon himself the proof of its falsehood with a confidence, which nothing, he has produced in argument, can warrant. He stumbles at the threshold, for in terms, which convey an imputation upon Mr. Fox for not having made proper inquiries before he wrote, he himself makes an assertion, which is not correct. He says, that, "On considering the evidence accessible to every "one when Mr. Fox wrote respecting the share Monk " is represented to have had in the death of the Marquis of Argyle, it will be found that the charge "against him for so infamous an act rested, as has been "observed, on the assertion of Bishop Burnet, which appears to have been satisfactorily refuted by Dr. "Campbell," and he refers to the Lives of the Admirals, and the Biographia Britannica. If Mr. Rose had consulted evidence accessible to every one, nay, if he had opened the very books he has mentioned in his note upon this page, he must have discovered, that though when Dr. Campbell wrote, this charge against Monk might rest on the assertion of Bishop Burnet, yet when Mr. Fox wrote, it did not. In the note before alluded to, we are told, that "Mr. Laing, in his History "of Scotland, also relies on the bishop's authority, "confirmed, as he says, by Baillie, vol. ii. p. 431. |