« ПредишнаНапред »
“ and by Cunningham in his History of Britain, vol. I. SECTION
hary hu rtion of Mr. Laing.It is + Am The c
m clear that he did not examine Baillie, for he has copied nine Baillie, for he has copied 'acces HocLeathi
Modulhas Turinamoto the misprint of the page from Mr. Laing's work, and cites from page 431, instead of 451. Mr. Rose is not the an indolent man, his industry is apparent in every refacer
dustry is apparent in every reputes Themafee section of his book; it may not be always well directed, bou want
be always well directed be wrong, but it is not but this is an instance, of which very few occur, of Trut
hich very few occur, of trus Hat The 'anys hat's his having made no exertion at all to verify a most char
botchango mesto onlpen important fact*, upon which all his future reasoning Rumut.
Instead of 451. aug's work, and botto
* That the reader may form a proper judgment of these references which if Mr. Rose had condescended to have examined, might, probably, have put this question to rest, the passages are copied at length here. Baillie says, “When his libelled crimes appeared not unpar. « donable, and his son Lord Neil went up to see his brother Lorne " at London, and spake somewhat liberally of his father's satisfactory “ answers, Monk was moved to send down four or five of his Letters “ to himself, and others proving his full compliance with them, that " the King should not reprieve him. The chancellor and Rothes « went to court to shew the hazard of his escape. The man was « very wise, and questionless the greatest subject the King had, some« time much known, and beloved in all the three kingdoms. It was “ not thought safe he should live.” Baillie mentions many circumstances concerning the proceedings against, and execution of Argyle, which show that he was minutely informed of every part of the trans
upon the subject was to depend. The reader is left to account for this conduct as he pleases, but it must not be forgotten, that his benumbed faculties are restored, when the attack is to be revived upon Bishop Burnet; he is then laborious in his inquiries, his mind resumes its usual activity, and neither dust nor cobwebs prove obstacles to his pursuit,
We shall not weary our readers with discussing all the arguments, adduced by Dr. Campbell upon the subject. In Mr. Laing he has met with not a contemptible opponent, and few will be of opinion that the latter had the worst of the argument. Mr. Rose has reprinted Dr. Campbell's attack upon Burnet SECTION in his Appendix, but we shall confine ourselves chiefly – to such of his arguments, as are retailed in the observations. It was not merely an attack upon the X that too is Samanet bishop, which was in the contemplation of Mr. Rose, it was aimed also at Mr. Fox, who, without taking proper pains to get information, is charged with having retailed the scandal. A Whig bishop, and a Whig statesman were to be levelled to the ground at one blow; and though Mr, Rose's intention to be correct and candid, cannot be disputed, the political atmosphere thickened round him, his best efforts were traversed and con
action : and that he was interested in it, and likely to observe what
· Cunningham lived after the execution of Argyle, but he was inti· mately connected with his son and his family ; was trusted by the
Whigs of Scotland, and in a situation to obtain the best information upon the subject. “At the restoration many letters were addressed 6 to the King," of which Cunningham says, “I myself have three
score," afterwards he adds, “ There is one from the Marquis of Ar“ gyle, in which after wishing his Majesty all health and prosperity 66 he gravely excuses his absence on account of his bad state of á health, and the length of the journey. As to other matters' says 66 he, I refer to my son Lorne. The King, on reading this letter, 56 spoke to the Lord Lorne in a very kind manner; upon which, Ar“ gyle, conceiving hopes of safety, set out for London, and came to 66 court to cast himself upon the King's clemency. But, through the in6 terference of Monk, with whom he had held a long and intimate friend66 ship in the time of Oliver, he was presently committed to custody, 66 and sent back for his trial to Scotland. He endeavoured to make 6 his defence, but, chiefly by the discoveries of Monk, was condemned 66 of high treason and lost his head.” Cunn. Hist. I. p. 13. It seems, by this extract, that the letter from Argyle to the King was in Cunningham's possession, among the threescore letters he mentions. And, it may be observed, that both Baillie's and Cunningham's testimony may now be added to the proofs adduced in the text, to shew the incorrectness of Dr. Campbell's assertion that Monk always considered Argyle as a secret friend of the King; for in the time of Oliver he “ held a long and intimate friendship with him ;” and it was on account of his compliance with the English that Baillie estranged himself from him.
SECTION founded : and this may be added to the numerous
- instances of the weakness of human resolutions.
He begins by observing that Woodrow is entirely silent upon the point. Then that a diligent search had been made among the records of the parliament, council, and justiciary in Scotland, but nothing was to be found ; and then in a collection of all the publications during the civil war, and some years after the restoration, supposed by Mr. Rose to be complete;
and lastly, in the Newspapers of the times, published at - Edinburgh*, but in none of them could be found any trace of the fact in question. With respect to the Newspapers, if any such exist, it is impossible to judge whether they are deserving of any credit in proving this negative without some further explanation. Perhaps upon examination they might turn out to be only
Ib. p. 26.
* What these Newspapers were, we should have been under obligations to Mr. Rose if he had condescended to describe with some degree of particularity; for we collect, from Chalmer's Life of Ruddiman, that no Newspaper was published at Edinburgh till 1654, when the English Mercurius Politicus was first reprinted there, and continued to be published afterwards till the 11th of April 1660, when it assumed the name of the Mercurius Politicus, and this was probably the only paper printed at Edinburgh at the time of the trial of Argyle. On the 31st December, 1660, was published at Edinburgh, the Mercurius Caledonius which was the first Newspaper “of Scot« tish manufacture," but the publication extended only to ten num
English Newspapers reprinted at Edinburgh ; but in all SECTION events there probably was not more than one Newspaper published there at that time, and in that case we shall be justified in presuming that it was under the controul of the court, and the adherents of Monk.
Rose, p. 24.
Besides these laborious investigations, we are informed that a collection of pamphlets, printed in the reign of Charles I. and Charles II. now in the British Museum, was inspected, and Thurloe's State Papers examined, with what success will appear presently, and in addition to this long list of references the reader is presented with an ib. p. 25. extract from Skinner's Life of Monk, which shall also be particularly attended to.
A pamphlet was discovered, as Mr. Rose informs us, in the collection in the British Museum, intitled “ The Last Proceedings” against the Marquis of Argyle, containing, inter alia, a Speech, in which "he expressly “ denies having any epistolary intercourse with Crom“ well, or any of that sectarious army.” In the speech of Argyle, given in the State Trials, supposed to be made on the scaffold (27th May, 1861), after declaring his loy- St. Tr. ii. p. 434. alty to the King while he was in Scotland, and denying having had any share in the death of Charles I. he says, “I shall not speak much of these things, for “ which I am condemned, lest I seem to condemn “ others. It is well known it is only for compliance,