« ПредишнаНапред »
dent to stand in his way alone, with the disclosure of SECTION the secret that the King had more (we must suppose the expression means) money of him, than of any other. Recollecting then the temptation which presented itself to the King's mind, to say as much as he possibly could in favour of Argyle, we have a right to take all those parts of the conversation, which imply a doubt of Argyle's attachment to the King, in the strongest sense against the Speaker, and so far from affording presumptive evidence that no confidential letters of the sort alluded to, could be written by the Marquis, it affords a strong presumption the other way, for it shews that he was acting under the English power, and therefore probably must have corresponded by letter occasionally with those, under whom he acted.
Rose, p. 22.
Thurloe's Collection of State Papers, was examined Thurloc's State throughout by Dr. Campbell; who “ notwithstanding ed. « his political principles,” Mr. Rose says, “ was “ most zealously attached to the family of Argyle." He probably was allied to it, and felt acutely for its honour, which he considered as stained by the conviction of its head of the crime of high treason; for Dr. Campbell was satisfied in his own mind, that Rose, App.. the utmost object of the Marquis of Argyle, in all his proceedings in Scotland, was “ to restrain the “ power of the crown within due bounds." With
SECTION the faculties of his mind, affected by the noblest -- feelings of his heart, he could not and he did not
examine Thurloe's State Papers, with the accuracy, and state the result with the correctness, which generally distinguish his writings. Mr. Rose having referred to the quotations, made in the Biographia, to shew the improbability of the existence of such a correspondence, it may be proper to examine them
(as they are neither long nor numerous,) briefly, but Rose App.
in detail. Dr. Campbell, in the Biographia, asserts that upon the usurpation, the disclaimer of the conduct of Lorne by Argyle, “never deceived the people in
" power;" and cites a letter in Thurloe's State Papers Thurl. i, P-314, of the 27th, 1053, before Cromwell was made ProtecRose, App. tor, which, therefore, can have no reference to the
points now in dispute, and “ We have,” he says in another place, “ of late years had great discove“ ries made of the correspondence under Cromwell's “ Government,” (alluding to Thurloe's Collection,) “ all “ which clearly prove that the Marquis of Argyle “ was never considered in any other light than that “ of a concealed royalist, as his son, the Lord Lorne, “ was a declared one." The Doctor is not very fortunate in the two Letters he cites to prove, that Monk was the mortal enemy of the Marquis, and represented him in
the blackest terms to both Protectors. The first is Thurl. vi. p. from Monk, dated the both of June, 1057, accusing
him, as Dr. Campbell has fairly stated, of not de
Rose, App. p. iur.
serving the 12,000l. paid him as a debt; and the other SECTION of the 30th of December, 1058, is supposed to shew that
Thurl. vü. p. Monk did not consider Argyle's going up to Richard's 584." Parliament as a compliance with that Government, but as an endeavour to overturn it. These Letters undoubtedly prove, that at the conclusion of Oliver's Protectorate, and the beginning of Richard's, Monk thought ill of Argyle; but the last letter does not charge Argyle with an intent to overturn the Government. The Letter states that Argyle was endeavouring to get Scotsmen chosen for the Parliament, and to procure himself to be elected, notwithstanding he was sheriff for Argyleshire, and adds,“ neither do I “ guess he will do his highness's interest any good.”. It was very natural, that Argyle should wish his own country not to be represented by strangers, but it is too strong a conclusion that because he endeavoured to exclude them, he wished to overturn the Government.
These are all the quotations, the Doctor has made, Very correct, we in his Biographia, to support his assertions, and all the stronger te argentina that Mr. Rose has borrowed in aid of his argu- Jau und by Camioneta ment. But in the Lives of the Admirals, the Doctor some one custa
king botone again renews the attack, and says, “ the thing is Rose App intornina “ now out of all doubt, for by the publication of Piano - which muss “ Thurloe's State Papers it appears, that Monk never was door hun “ considered the Marquis in this light, but always her hat di Suthern E “ considered him as a secret friend to the King, and monk Geet noe
SECTION “ an active enemy to the Protector's government.”
- And for this, he refers generally to the articles Argyle
and Monk, in the 3d, 4th, and 5th volumes. The reader may be relieved from the apprehensions of our entering into a minute examination of all the papers referred to, but perhaps he may not be displeased to have laid before him, a short sketch of the whole con- · duct of Argyle, as contained in that voluminous compilation, by which means the erroneous statements of Dr. Campbell and Mr. Rose may be explained and corrected; and it will appear, that it is so highly probable, as almost to amount to a certainty, that at one time at least, during Monk's command, there did exist an epistolary correspondence between him and Argyle.
The last struggle of the Scots in support of Charles Situation of was in 1653 under Glencairn, who was superseded Monk stated. by Middleton. Monk was sent by the Protector to
oppose them, and being ultimately successful, remained in Scotland as commander in chief, till he marched to London, and restored the King. Argyle and his son Lord Lorne took opposite sides, the former declaring for Cromwell, and the latter for Charles ;
though on the 21st of July, 1054, Lord Lorne is Thuth. ii. p.478. stated to be joined with his father for the English,
but that is evidently a mistake, as will appear in a subsequent page. An indemnity being offered by Cromwell, about December, 1654, Lord Lorne who
was an excepted person, at the persuasion of his fa- SECTION ther, came in, but not till Monk had written to them . Protector for his directions, whether he should be permitted so to do, and upon what conditions ; but in the 1b.v. p.18. May following Lord Broghill declares his opinion that if ever Charles Stuart makes any stir in Scotland, Lord Lorne will occasion it; and in August, he was de- lb. p. 319, 323. scribed to be ready to take up arms for the King, and foment any stirs. On the 28th February, 1656-7, Ib. vi. p. 81. he was in prison in Scotland, and his removal re- Ib. 436. quested ; and August the 3d, 1657, Lord Broghill requested he and Lord Glencairn might be sent to England, for there they would be safer kept, and if they two were kept safe, he thought they would hardly have a man fit to head a party in the nation. These passages afford no foundation for a suspicion that Argyle and his son were acting in concert with each other, or that the English government knew it; and that in truth there was no such understanding will be manifested by the following citations more immediately respecting the conduct of Argyle. But it may be necessary to premise that in the charge presented to the Parliament, many acts were alledged against him, as done in various years from 1839 to nearly the abdication of Richard the Protector. But the King having granted an act of indemnity in 1652, none relating to transactions before that time were pressed against him ; and, as Baillie tells us, the principal parts of the charges were, Baillie ii.p.ası.