Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

1.

SECTION " which was the epidemical fault of the nation. I - " wish the Lord to pardon them. I say no more.”

Here he seems to admit that he had been guilty of compliance, which was one part of the crime imputed to him, and excuses himself for it to a certain degree, but there is nothing in his speech bearing any resemblance to the passage cited from the pamphlet. A suspicion may arise that the words are not exactly quoted, but if they are, there will be no difficulty in proying that the statement made cannot be so correct, that

either the author of the pamphlet, or Mr. Rose must St.Tr. ii. p.420. have fallen into a mistake. For in the sixth charge made

against Argyle in parliament, it was alleged that he
kept “correspondence with the usurper Richard Crom-
“ well and Charles Fleetwood in the year 1658 and
“ 1659, by missive letters and other ways.” And in
the 19th clause of his answer to the particular articles
of the libel, he says, “I did never correspond with
“ Richard Cromwell, nor Fleetwood, except in order
to my own affairs.” The charge being confined
to the corresponding with Richard Cromwell, and the
answer going also to that point, it is not likely he
should deny his having had any epistolary correspon-
dence with Oliver, which was not a charge made
against him. Besides, if the words of the pamphlet
are to be taken as a positive denial of his ever having
written to Oliver, they are falsified by a letter from
Argyle, preserved in Thurloe's Collection of State Papers,

Ib. p. 431.

Thurl.ii.p.517.

dated August 24, 1654, addressed to the protector Oliver SECTION himself, desiring his servant Colin Campbel may com- municate some particulars concerning him. Mr. Rose having carefully examined this voluminous collection, it may occasion some surprise that this letter should have escaped his notice; but there are other discoveries, which he might have made there, if that examination had been conducted with common attention, and which would probably have occasioned considerable alteration

in his sentiments, if he had given them a full and · patient consideration,

The object of this very careful examination of Rose, p.24. Thurloe's Collection was to discover, “whether “ there had been any communication between the “ Marquis of Argyle and Monk, but nothing of the “ sort could be found ; on the contrary there is, besides the passages referred to in the Biographia, " the heads of a discourse between the exiled King, " and Don John of Austria on the state of Scot“ land in the end of 1656, which afford strong pre“ sumptive evidence, that no confidential letters, e“ specially of such high importance to the writer, so as those alluded to, were written by the Marquis.” Before we make any remarks on the passages cited by Dr. Campbell, it may be proper to examine the nature of the presumptive evidence now produced by Mr. Rose. In the conversation between Don John of Thurl. v.p. 604. SECTION Austria and the King, Don John was satisfied, in ge

- neral, with the accounts received from Scotland, and

would write to Spain ; but expressed some doubts on which he requested explanation ; one of them was, that Argyle and his son were then in special friendship with the English. The King said, as for his son “ he was as assured of him as his brother; and for “ the father, he knew always how to gain him; and “ for their friends, they were all his friends on his son's “ account. As for the report, that Argyle himself “ was getting great things from the English, he said “ how much he got, it was always the better for “ him: for the business would need it all, for Ar“ gyle was a wise man and would not stand in his " way alone. And, to tell truth, he said, I have more of “ him than any other; and, except for Cromwell him“ self, it is certain he carries immortal hatred at Lam

“ bert and Monk, and all the rest of their officers. Rose, App. p. ~ And of this evidence shall be given anon.” Dr.

Campbell states, “ that, under the usurpation, it was “ necessary for the Marquis to disclaim the conduct “ of Lord Lorne,” but that this never deceived the people in power; and that, from letters in Thurloe's Collection, it appears that Argyle was never considered in any other light but as a concealed royalist, and Lorne as a declared one. Here he seems to have drawn an inference, which his authorities do not entirely support. But, if this were so, what are we to think of the conduct of the King, who consented to the trial,

Xxxii.

and signed the warrant for the execution of one of Section
the oldest and best of his friends; his father's yield-
ing an unwilling consent to the death of Lord Straf-
ford hardly equalled this instance of meanness and

x
a LO

why so if the ingratitude. In the conversation with Don John, he ation with Don John. he

is now and a

notamme declared he was assured of him, and got more from starters him than any other; yet this attached and faithful supporter was sacrificed for acts done before he was admitted to the favour, and administered to the wants of his sovereign. But this proposition is so monstrous, and places Charles in a view so much more detestable and wicked than that, in which we have been accustomed to regard him, that we ought to be sure of the grounds we tread upon, and examine with a most scrutinizing eye every circumstance concerning it. Is it not possible that the reporter of this conference may have mistaken its effect; or may not the King have stated in the conversation with Don John his hopes of having the assistance of Argyle too strongly? The object he had in view was of the greatest importance to him; his restoration to the crown might, as he conceived, depend upon the result of that conversation, and if he was not perfectly correct in his statement, it is more charitable to impute the inaccuracy to the hasty and sanguine disposition of youth, which painted in his imagination Argyle exactly what he hoped to find him upon trial, rather than to wilful and deliberate falsehood. Possibly,

SECTION the passage in question may not have been accurately

- reported, for some parts of it certainly bear a very

different construction from that, which, in compliance with Dr. Campbell's hypothesis, we have just put upon it. Don John before he saw the King, for some reason not disclosed, entertained suspicions of the loyalty both of the Marquis and his son, the King evidently makes a distinction between them, he was “ perfectly assured” of the son; but as to the father, he seems to admit he was not then acting for him, for he “knew how to gain him," and he states their friends were his friends, not upon account of the father, but the son. He does not deny that Argyle was getting great things from the English, which was the better for him, “for Argyle was a “wise man, and would not stand in his way alone;" and though Argyle hated Monk, and Lambert, and the rest of their officers, the King acknowledges that he did not hate Cromwell. Either, then, the account of this conversation, · from its being so , very contradictory, is deserving of very little credit, or we must look upon the conduct of the King, as in the highest degree false and disingenuous, and presume that like most other persons, who wish to impose by false stories upon the credulity of others, he was not always consistent in what he said. If there is no mistake in the reporter, it is not easy to reconcile the consolatory declaration, that Argyle was too pru

« ПредишнаНапред »