Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

1.

p. 372.

SECTION And Mrs. Hutchinson has described his conduct in the

- House of Commons during the progress of the Bill, Hutch. Mem. in the following words : “ Monk after all his great

" professions now sat still, and had not one word to

“ interpose for any person, but was as forward to set the way tor hoh brained « vengeance on foot as any man.” The latter part of mehrabrican to be

the passage in Skinner proves that he had the attended to an en

power to save, for he preserved to Sir Arthur HaAnthority,

slerigg both his life and estates. In the trial of the regicides, Monk was not a' mere tranquil spectator; he was both prosecutor and judge. And his sitting upon the bench, under such circumstances, without a single instance of interfering for mercy to any of the culprits, even for those, as Scott

and Hacker, with whom he had lived in hahits of inMonk's betray- timacy and friendship, proves that his treachery was

in strict consistency with other parts of his character. Why then should it be improbable that he should betray Argyle, when he had betrayed so many others ? Ludlow records a remarkable instance of his possessing a betraying spirit ; Lieutenant Colonel Hacker had raised a regiment for the Parliament, in the command of which he continued till he was taken into custody, having indiscreetly trusted to Monk's promises of full indemnity. When he came to London, he visited Monk, and was received with all the appearances of friendship and affection. But the next day he was seized, examined, and sent to the Tower, He was one

ing spirit.

Lud. Mem.
p. 412.

[ocr errors]

of the prisoners brought before the commissioners to be tried; was convicted and executed.

P. 378.

Can any human mind contemplate Monk selecting this victim, and sitting on this trial, without feelings of indignation ? and yet because he did not aggravate the crime against him, his chaplain makes it a subject of applause, and holds him up to admiration, and Dr. Campbell and Mr. Rose refer to his conduct as presumptive proof that bis mind was too honourable to have betrayed the letters of Argyle. Mrs. Hutchinson has preserved another trait connected with these trials, characteristic of the heart of Monk, of which she was herself an eye witness; after describing the persecution to which the prisoners were subjected, she Hutch. Mem says “ I cannot forget one passage that I saw, « Monk and his wife, before they were moved to the • Tower, while they were yet prisoners at Lambeth « House, came one evening to the garden, and caused 6. them to be brought down, only, to stare at them. Xwhat is het beste was " Which was such a barbarism, for that man who had canto a woma cow “ betrayed so many poor men to death and misery, that arshafrimeri w etu “ never hurt him, but had honoured him, and stenwerdasheem to ... trusted their lives and interests with him, to glut hen caughtag .“ his bloody eyes with beholding them in their bondage, ariver

, ger er means

of mus as no story can parallel the inhumanity of. 'X But dui eroonde

Skinnare Monk's barbarism did not end here, for she declined to mention, that he afterwards sat as a judge to try them.

duct to Sir Ar.

thur

SECTION The last source of panegyric from the pen of Skinner,

- is Monk's generous way of forgiving injuries, by saving Monk's consthe life and estate of Sir Arthur Haslerigg by owning

a promise made to him, (which Dr. Campbell doubts was ever made) when no man among them had more maliciously exposed or traduced him. The topic selected for encomium may be added to the long list of proofs of Monk's infamy and baseness. He is praised for saving a man from the punishment due to crimes, to the commission of which he had himself contributed, and the advantage from which he had largely reaped ; and this praise is enhanced by the circumstance of the culprit having abused and traduced him, as foreseeing the treachery and inconsistency of his future conduct. In any other case it might be remarked that there was nothing remarkably generous in keeping a promise he had made; but perhaps it is mentioned as a solitary instance of fidelity in the performance of his engagements. In the case of Colonel Hacker we have seen, that be was not scrupulously exact upon all occasions. But there is a gross misrepresentation, or a paltry quibble in Skinner's statement, for that Sir Arthur Haslerigg who was a staunch republican, had opposed Monk's proceedings upon many occasions, before and after Richard's death, may be very true; but after the republican interest in the Parliament had extinguished the hopes of Lambert, Monk thought fit to conciliate it. Being a perfect master

Ludl. Mem, p.

in dissimulation, he first gained the confidence of Sir SECTION Arthur Haslerigg, and persuaded him that he was a republican, prevailed upon him to vouch for his principles to his friends, and continued to delude him, and them, till finding there was no chance of obtaining the reins of Government, nor even the command of the army, he threw off the mask and avowed himself the decided friend of royalty and the King. To Sir 365. Arthur's credulity and exertions, Monk owed the success of his enterprise, and as Sir Arthur had prudently made a stipulation for his safety, in case of a change, the condition of his continuing faithful to Monk, he would have been not only one of the most ungrateful, but one of the most wicked of men, if he had broken his promise under such Kirc Gen circumstances ;Xbut the performance of it had no resem- i warm e mm blance to a generous way of forgiving injuries. It was so. The whole is stated that Sir Arthur Haslerigg's interest was likely a gaimana de forma contin, itom to continue, Monk being his friend, in a letter from Clar. ii. P. 593. m enite ar mama Lord Mordaunt, dated 31st October, 1659; and on the ib. p.660. ne hot e ller 26th January, 1569-60 he writes, “ Had Monk stood “ right the House had shifted for themselves this day; " but Sir Arthur Haslerigg quitted Lambert, and closed “ with Monk.” On 3d February their connection is thus described : “ Haslerigg will submit to ruin, as ib. p. 666. “ Salway and Fleetwood have done, if the House pur“ sue this conspiracy. Monk being to him as Au“ gustus to Antony, of a mastering genius, nor will " he ever hate him less, or brook his presence better;

SECTION

“ but their parallels neither in good or ill will appear • Roman."

ir. p. 740.

It appears that Monk and Sir Arthur lived upon terms of the greatest intimacy and friendship, and when Sir Arthur began to be alarmed at the approaching storm, and feel apprehensions for his own safety,

Monk endeavoured to make him easy, by promising
Clar. St. Pap. him protection, for in a letter of the 7th of May, 1960,

we find this passage :-“ About two months since,
“ Sir Arthur Haslerigg discoursing with General Monk
" of the turn of the times, and the danger of his own
“ head, the General told him he would secure it for
“ two-pence; and about two days since, Haslerigg sent
“ him a letter with two-pence in it, to remember him
“ of his promise, which Monk saith he will make
“ good.” He did make it good, and we have no dis-
position to deprive him of the credit of the act, or ex-
amine his motives for it ; it is sufficient at present to
observe, that it is not of the same description with
that, for which Skinner applauds him. .

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Recapitulation. Having examined and commented upon the evidence of proofs.

· produced by Mr. Rose, than which " it is hardly posRose, p. 26. “sible," he says, “ to conceive that stronger could be

formed in any case, to establish a negative,” we now safely assert, that Mr. Fox had fully informed himself upon the subject before he wrote, and

« ПредишнаНапред »