was amply justified in the condemnation of Monk, and the consequent severe censures upon him. It has been already demonstrated, that the character of Monk, had been truly given, when of him, he said, "the army "had fallen into the hands of one, than whom a baser "could not be found in its lowest ranks." The transactions between him and Argyle for a certain period of time, was such as must, naturally if not necessarily, have led them into an epistolary correspondence, and it was in exact conformity with Monk's character and conduct to the regicides, that he should betray the letters written to him, in order to destroy a man, whom he had in the latter part of his command in

Scotland, both feared and hated. If the fact of the
production of these letters had stood merely on the
testimony of Bishop Burnet, we have seen that nothing Burn. i. p. 125.
has been produced by Mr. Rose and Dr. Campbell to
impeach it; on the contrary an inquiry into the au-
thorities and documents, they have cited, strongly con-
firm it. But as before observed it is a surprising
instance of Mr. Rose's indolence, that he should
state the question to depend now, as it did in Dr.
Campbell's time, on the Bishop's authority solely.
But that authority is, in itself, no light one. Burnet
was almost eighteen years of age at the time of Argyle's
trial, he was never an unobserving spectator of public
events; he was probably at Edinburgh, and for some
years afterwards remained in Scotland, with ample

SECTION
1.

Baillie, ii. p. 45%.

Cun.i. p 13.

Not Witnesses.

means of information, respecting events which had taken place so recently. Baillie seems also to have been upon the spot, and expressly confirms the testimony of Burnet. To these must be added Cunningham, who writing, as a person perfectly acquainted with the circumstances of the transaction, says, it was owing to the interference of Monk, who had been his great friend in Oliver's time, that he was sent back to Scotland, and brought to trial; and that he was condemned chiefly by his discoveries. We may now ask where is the improbability of this story, when related of such a man? and what ground there is for not giving credit to a fact attested by three witnesses of veracity, each writing at a distance, and separate from each other? In this instance, Bishop Burnet, is so confirmed that no reasonable being, who will attend to the subject, can doubt of the fact, he relates, being true; and we shall hereafter prove, that the general imputation against his accuracy, made by Mr. Rose, is totally without foundation. If facts so proved are not to be credited, historians may lay aside their pens, and every man must content himself with the scanty pittance of knowledge, he may be able to collect for himself, in the very limited sphere of his own immediate observation. Burnet has shewn some forbearance in his account of this trial, for he only charges upon Monk, the having searched for and sent the letters of Argyle, but Cunningham states that he was the instigator of the prosecution,

and Baillie that he sent the letters, when in the course of it, he apprehended that the life of Argyle was likely to be saved, that the King might not reprieve him. Burnet says, the letters were sent by an express and came to the Earl of Middleton, when probation was closed on both sides, and the Lords were engaged in the debate, notwithstanding which, contrary to the forms of justice, he ordered them to be read, and they silenced all further debate, for it could not then be pretended that his compliance was feigned, or extorted from him. Argyle's friends went away, and he was found guilty. The circumstances here mentioned, of the letters not arriving till after probation was closed, explain satisfactorily why they are not noticed in any

SECTION

I.

of the printed accounts of the trial, or proceedings. This not conclusive.

"the

tutional per

Fox p. 20.

The next passage in the Historical Work, which has Era of constiprovoked the displeasure of Mr. Rose, is that, in which fection, in 1679 the reign of Charles the Second is described, as "æra of good laws and bad government, and Mr. Fox says, "the abolition of the Court of Wards, "the repeal of the Writ de Heretico Comburendo, the "Triennial Parliament Bill, the establishment of the rights "of the House of Commons in regard to impeach"ment, the expiration of the Licence Act, and above all, the glorious statute of Habeas Corpus have, there"fore induced a writer of great eminence to fix the year 1679, as the period in which our constitution

66

N

SECTION

I.

"had arrived at its greatest theoretical perfection; but he "owns in a short note upon the passage alluded to, that "the times immediately following were times of great

practical oppression. What a field for meditation does "this short observation from such a man furnish! "What reflections does it not suggest to a thinking mind

upon the inefficacy of human laws, and the imperfec"tion of human constitutions! We are called from the contemplation of the progress of our constitution, and our attention fixed with the most minute accuracy to a particular point when it is said to have risen to its "utmost perfection. Here we are then at the best mo"ment of the best constitution that ever human wisdom "framed. What follows? a time of oppression and mis

ery, not arising from external or accidental causes, "such as war, pestilence or famine, nor even from any "such alterations of the laws as might be supposed to impair this boasted perfection, but from a corrupt and wicked administration which all the so much ad"mired checks of the constitution were not able to “prevent. How vain then, how idle, how presumptu*દ ous is the opinion that laws can do every thing! "and how weak and pernicious the maxim founded upon it, that measures, not men, are to be attended to!"

If an apology for so long a quotation be deemed necessary, the manner in which this passage has been tortured and misrepresented affords one. The reader

MR. FOX'S HISTORICAL WORK.

I.

has now the whole before him, and may judge for SECTION himself, as we advance in the argument, whether it has been treated with candour or not,

Mr. Fox might conceive himself to be fully justified in speaking thus highly of a particular æra, by the authority of so respectable a name as that of Mr. Justice Blackstone. Mr. Rose admits that in his Observations, he has taken advantage of the learning of that judge, but allowing for all the deference due to him, claims the right of examining and Rose, p. 27. canvassing " any dictum of his." It is ludicrous that, in justification of his taking this liberty, he should think it necessary to tell us in a note that Lord Coke, “one of the

66

very highest, legal and constitutional authorities," has lately been found inaccurate in two points, noticed in his report on the public records. No apology, surely, can be necessary for canvassing any opinion présented to the public. Sir Edward Coke no doubt has made many blunders, and this note gives us the interesting information that Mr. Rose claims the merit of having detected two of them. With regard to the first, if there is any error at all, it happens that Mr. Prynne anticipated the discovery 150 years ago, and it is probable Mr. Rose was not ignorant of it, for he had the book before him; and with regard to the second, he seems not to have understood Sir Edward Coke for the statute he quotes to prove the mistake, unfortunately, is irrelative to the point in dispute.

The substance of the second proposition of Sir Edward Coke, to which Mr. Rose has rashly given the epithet of inaccurate is, that

91