« ПредишнаНапред »
passed between him and Monk? For instance, when under SECTION Monk's orders he was raising troops to oppose Montrose, would it not be his duty to communicate an account of his proceedings to his superior officer? or, how could they conveniently act at a distance from, yet in concert with each other, if they were not occasionally to have some written correspondence? The probability therefore is, that Monk would be in possession of letters written by Argyle, which would be most important to prove, at least two of the three charges already mentioned to have been made against him, viz. his compliance with the English, and his assisting Monk against Glencairn, and Middleton on the hills.
And if Argyle was trusted by Monk so late as either of the periods we have alluded to, what becomes of Dr. Campbell's assertion that Monk always considered the Marquis as a secret friend to the King's, and an active enemy to the Protector's Government? During a certain period, Monk must have manifested the mortal hatred to Argyle, which the Doctor mentions, in an extraordinary manner; for he confided in, and consulted him upon many occasions, and neither made complaint nor expressed suspicion of his want of attachment or zeal. It is surprising that Dr. Campbell, whose sagacity on other occasions cannot be disputed, should have examined Thurloe's State Papers, and that Mr. Rose, not content with the labours of his precursor, should
have made a second examination, and neither of them have remarked the difference in the style of the letters concerning the Marquis at the commencement, and conclusion of Monk's command in Scotland. Down to a certain date, he made no complaint of Argyle's conduct, but afterwards changed his opinion, and if Dr. Campbell had confined his assertion to the latter period, and contented himself with saying, that for some years before the restoration he could shew that Monk was the mortal enemy of Argyle, there would have been no ground for dispute.
Having proved that it is highly probable that Monk did receive letters from Argyle, which might very ma. terially affect his life, the next question is, did he produce them to the Parliament, which was sitting in judgment upon the Marquis. All the arguments produced by Mr. Rose have been answered already, except the extract from Skinner's Life of Monk, which he cites to shew that such a glaring crime did not agree with Monk's character, and that he was of no betraying spirit. Mr. Rose contents himself with barely copying the passage without telling us, how the facts contained in it are to be applied to the argument. He probably cites it in deference to Dr. Campbell, who had quoted it before, or perhaps as a mark of gratitude to his memory, as his widow, had presented him with all her husband's papers, for if any corroboration of the truth of the character given of Monk by Mr. Fox SECTION should be thought necessary, the situation in which Skinner describes him to have been placed, and to have displayed such moderation and generosity in the forgiying of injuries would afford it. This biographer had been chaplain to Monk, and Mr. Rose says, he “ would not Rose. p. 2.5. “ have ventured to make a false assertion at a time when “ the means of contradicting it were in the hands of “ every one.” To this, as a general proposition, we cannot accede, for folly and wickedness are often united, and impudence frequently their companion. The particular merit of Skinner we shall now discuss. The passage, is copied at length here. “ In the lbid. “ number of the commissioners, the Duke of Albemarle “ was one; wherein he gave the world one of the “ greatest instances of his moderation ; for though he “ knew more of the guilt and practices of these cri“ minals than most of those who sat on the bench, “ and some of them had been his greatest and most in“ veterate enemies, yet he aggravated nothing against “ them, but left them to a fair trial and the me-" thods of their own defence, when he could have “ offered matter against some of them that would “ have pressed them harder; and, by a generous way “ of forgiving injuries, he had a little before saved " the life of Sir Arthur Haslerigg, and afterwards pro“ cured his estate also, by owning a promise made “ to him, when there was no man among them all
" who had more maliciously exposed or traduced
principally attributed the destruction of his friends, SECTION who were prevented, by their confidence in him, from taking measures to secure themselves; for though he entered England with his army on the ad of January, 1050-60, yet he did not make even the confidential servants of the King acquainted with his in- Clar.St. Pap.iüi.
698.699 701. tentions to serve him, till about the middle of March, 1659-60;* and on 13th February, had written to Sir Arthur Haslerigg that a commonwealth was the desire of his soul. Misled by Monk's assurances, and relying upon his support, the commonwealth party, headed by Bradshaw, Haslerigg, Vane, and Scott, counted upon Ib. p. 423. 'the assistance of the army; but he secretly made his peace with the King, and became a lord commissioner to try some of them at least whom he had a few weeks before acted with, and promised to support. But his infamy does not end here; for before the 13th of May he was consulted upon the intended Bill for indemnity, and actually marked out the culprits he afterwards sat as a judge to try; for out of the number of delinquents, he “ was content that about “ six be excepted for that horrid murder of his ma“ jesty, and made remarkable in their execution."
* Sir John Greenvill reached the King on the 26th March, 1660, with Monk's proposals to restore him without conditions, before the proposers to bring him in upon the Articles of the Isle of Wight"
Ib. p. 748. arrived, and he shewed their letter to Sir John, and laughed at it. Kennett's Hist. Reg. p. 97. This letter must have been sent by the Junto mentioned, ante page 39.