Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

from power. And Mr. Fox remarks “ there is something “ curious in discovering that, even at this early period, a

question relative to North American liberty, and even to “ North American taxation, was considered as the test of

principles friendly, or adverse to arbitrary power at 6. home*." Now, whether Mr. Rose's correction is made or not, this observation of Mr. Fox's and the one which follows, founded upon it, are not in the smallest degree affected. Both these observations are equally well applied, whether we read “ mother country,” or “a colony;" and Mr. Fox, if we stopped here, must, according to this system: of reasoning, have acted under an improper influence when he fell into the mistake, because it inakes no difference what ever in his argument. But if Mr. Fox can be supposed to have had a further view, which he did not choose to avow, in presenting this page to the notice of his reader, it must be an extraordinary sort of propensity, which blinded him so far as to induce him unintentionally to translate incorsi rectly that, which truly translated, would have been more to his purpose. For by adopting Mr. Rose's correction, this passage becomes to a certain extent a direct and strong authority for those principles, which Mr. Fox so strenuously, and at last successfully maintained in the House of Commons.

* Fox, p. 60.

We learn, adopting the amendment of Mr. Rose, that Halifax argued that the colonies ought not to be taxed at the pleasure of the government at home, even for their own benefit, and that the Ministers of Charles the Second did not venture to urge a right in the mother country to derive a reverrue to itself from its colonies, but contented themselves with asserting its right to tax them only for the promotion of their own internal prosperity. The claims of the mother country were not in Lord Halifax's time so extravagant as those : Mr. Fox had to contend with, for the folly of attempting to impose taxes upon colonies for the benefit of the mother country was reserved for later times. And, if the principles of the tory advisers of Charles the Second had not been departed from, we might not have had to lament in our own days the horrors of a civil war, or seen a large portion of British subjects forcibly separated: from the parent state!!. The Earl of Halifax and Mr. Fox'not only professed' principles nearly similari upon thel subject of American taxation, but they were both unjustly-calumniated for it by their opponents, as entertaining sentiments hostile to the monarchical form of government under which they lived,

Mr. Rose apologizes for entering into a free examination of the Historical Work, because the object of that work, “is to exainine severely and minutely the authorities,

on which former historians have asserted facts, or from “ which they have deduced opinions, and he must be,” says he, “ a very parti

a very partial reader, who can complain of a free “ examination of a work, in which such a man as Hume, “ is characterised in the following words.

* He was an “ excellent man, and of great power of mind, but his parti

ality to Kings and Princes is intolerable; nay, it is in my " opinion quite ridiculous, and is more like the foolish

admiration, which women and children sometimes have “ for Kings, than the opinion, right or wrong, of a philoso

pher*,”

Mr. Rose is somewhat unfortunate in this apology, for this character of Mr. Hume is found, not in Mr. Fox's Historical Work, but a private letter cited by his nephew in the Introduction: where then was the boasted official accuracy of Mr. Rose ? twice at least by his own statement, has he perused Mr. Fox's work, and once attentively; is it then uncharitable to suppose that he must have known that this passage was not where he states it to be, or been blinded by some

* Rose's Introduction, p. xi.

sort of propensity which deluded his imagination into à belief that it was there? The object of Mr. Fox's book, it

may be admitted, was to give an accurate history of the principal facts, which led to the revolution, and of the revolution itself. To do this, it was necessary for him to examine the authorities of former writers, and the turn of his mind led him to be very minute in his enquiries, but the word “ severely,” if meant to convey the idea of those'enquiries having been conducted with a view to find fault with others, is certainly misapplied. No friend of Mr. Fox would complain of, and no friend to literature or political liberty but must wish for a full and free examination of it. But such examination should be conducted with candour, and not taken advantage of to depreciate the political tenets of the author, under the mask of examining his errors in history.

The defence, which Mr. Rose goes out of his way to set up

for Mr. Hume, against the charge of partiality to Kings and Princes is curious. He admits the existence of this partiality, but excuses it by saying that his prejudices were " those of a system not of a party,” and that his theory, founded upon them, influenced his opinion and even coloured his narrative. He further says, that in giving the

[graphic]
« ПредишнаНапред »