Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

30

A VINDICATION OF

SECTION

Character of
Cromwell,

Foz, p. 17.

Against Mr. Fox's character of Cromwell is objected, that to him, “no vice is imputed but bypocrisy.” It might be presuined from this statement, that Mr. Fox had described Cromwell as one of the most perfect of human beings, unstained by any other vice. On the contrary, after describing the virtuous conduct of Washington, Mr. Fox says, but, although in no

country or time would he haye. degraded himself " into a Pisistratus, or a Cæsar, or a Cromwell,”* &c. here it is most clear, that in the scale of perfection, according to Mr. Fox's opinion, Cromwell did not stand so high as Washington, for if he did, it would Have been no degradation to the latter to have assumed his character. • The system of Cromwell'is then said to be," condemned equallý by reason and by prejuis dice." His great' talents, the splendour of his character and exploits, are then alluded to, and the glorý of his reign contrasted with those of the four monarchs of the house of Stuart; and the concluding sentence which gives rise to Mr. Rose's objection is,“ upon

the whole the character of Cromwell, must ever

stand high in the list of those, who raised themselves to supreme power by the force of their ge

nius; and among such, even in respect of moral virtue, it would be found to be one of the least exceptionable, if it had not been tainted with that “ most òdious and degrading of all human vices,

hypocrisy.” To say, that his character is one of the

1. p. 18.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

SECTION

1.

him a very

least exceptionable, in point of moral virtue, among the persons above described, is 'not, upon Mr. Fox's

, or indeed any other principles, to pay high compliment. The passage itself admits, that the character of those, who have raised themselves, to supreme power by the force of their genius, are generally exceptionable in respect of moral virtue, and though Cromwell's might be one of the least exceptionable, if not tainted with hypocrisy, it does not follow, as Mr. Rose has incorrectly stated, that no other vice is imputed to him, The inordinate love of power certainly belonged to him, and Mr. Fox had before called him an usurper. It may be observed farther, that Dr. Welwood, who cannot be suspected of leaning toward republicanism, does, not differ from Mr., Fox, for he says, Cromwell was, " for what was visible, free from Welw. Men. “ immoralities, especially after he came to make a figure *" in the world."

irri

p. 109.

charges against

The reader will probably not be displeased to turn Mr. Fox's from the consideration of general insinuations, and Monk. charges of a nature 'so loose and indefinite, as to render it necessary, in order to answer them, to enter into previous discussions, both tedious and uninteresting. We shall now, in prosecution of our general plan, advert to the charges made by Mr. Fox against Monk, and examine in what manner they have been attempted to be answered by Mr. Rose. They are

SECTION

1.

three in number, and we are relieved from the difficulties just mentioned, for they are specific in their nature.

Monk restores the King with

Rose, p. 14.

In the first place, Mr. Fox reproaches Monk with our conditions. having restored the monarch without a single provision

in favour of the cause which he and others had called the cause of liberty. Mr. Rose at first endeavours to defend this omission by a series of hypothetical arguments, which, by their extreme weakness, afford a convincing proof of the truth of the observation he is combating. He argues first, that though this conduct might be regretted, yet it must be recollected, that there could hardly have been time to settle the boundaries of the regal power; and secondly, that Monk might have been of opinion, that the restoration of the monarchy would have implied all the limitations of its ancient constitution, but what these limitations were, or where to be sought for, Mr. Rose has not informed us. Certainly not in the history of the reigns of the two preceding princes of the house of Stuart, and surely Monk cannot be supposed, like Mr. Rose, who has lived the greatest part of his life among records, to have formed any opinion of the limitations which existed during the time of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors ibirdly, that Monk might have thought any delay would have been dangerous ; fourthly, that he might have been less anxious in this respect, from his hav

SECTION

ing been witness of the abuse of liberty.

And afterwards Mr. Rose gives, what he supposes to be, two additional reasons, but which are in fact included in the foregoing ones, viz. that Monk might have been so disgusted with the scenes he had been witness to, as to be willing to give his assistance to bring about any change likely to restore order; and that he might be alarmed lest the army should not have co-operated in his designs.

That Monk might have defended himself by these arguments, is certainly within the sphere of possibility, but that he would have had recourse to them is highly improbable. He had complete power over the army; it was governed by his creatures, and was subservient to his will. If he had proposed that the crown under certain restrictions, should be offered to the King, there was no existing power to oppose it.

But Mr. Rose says, that it should not be imputed Rose, p. 14. exclusively to him, that such restrictions were not stipulated for; and in order to prove this position, enters into a most extraordinary argument, for he contends upon the principles of a true republican, if we do not misunderstand him, that independent of Monk, there existed in the Parliament a legal constitutional power, by virtue of which Charles was invited to the throne without any restrictions. To this there are

SECTION

1.

two decisive answers, first, that the remnant of the long Parliament itself was allowed to assemble only upon conditions, and for purposes prescribed by Monk ; and next, that the new Parliament was illegally summoned afterwards.

Ludl. Mem. p. 357

a

The excluded members were restored to their seats in the Rump Parliament, which met after the abdication of Richard Cromwell, but upon condition, as Ludlow informs us, and as their conduct afterwards justifies us in believing, that Monk should be voted general of all the forces by land and sea, a constant maintenance settled on the army, and new Parliament ordered to be chosen, after which they should put an end to themselves in a day or two at the most.

Accordingly, the Rump Parliament, as Ludlow says, Ib. p. 363. after passing a vote, to delude the people, that no one

who had been in arms against the Parliament, should
be eligible to the new one, dissolved itself.
sequence of this arrangement, writs were issued by

the keepers of the liberties of England, and to use Mr. Rose's de- Mr. Rose's words, “ a free convention met, in which ciples. “ the Lords assembled also. It was therefore, by an assembly, elected by the unbiassed voice of the peo.

. ple, in pursuance of an act of the Commonwealth “ Parliament, that the King was called to his throne “ without conditions.” Mr. Rose can hardly have been aware of the concessions he is here making; but the

In con

mocratic prino

« ПредишнаНапред »