publish; the manuscript of which | wise have entertained. It was thereHis Majesty at the time did me the fore no slight consolation to us to find honour to accept; and it probably is that the true principles of English still in His Majesty's library." -In-liberty had made so great a progress troduction, pp. xxiv. xxv.

in the opinions of all men in upper life, as to extort such an ample admission of them, even from a person of Mr. Rose's habits and connections. As we fear, however, that the same justness and liberality of thinking are by no means general among the more obscure retainers of party throughout the country, we think it may not be without its

which we have alluded, just to let the vulgar Tories in the provinces see how much of their favourite doctrines has

Truly all this is very interesting, and very much to the purpose :-but scarcely more so than eight or nine pages that follow, containing a long account of the conversations which Lord Marchmont had with Lord Bolingbroke, about the politics of Queen Anne's ministers, and which Mr. Rose now gives to the world from his recollec-use to quote a few of the passages to tion of various conversations between himself and Lord Marchmont. He tells us, moreover, that "accustomed as he has been to official accuracy in state-been abjured by their more enlightened ment," he had naturally a quick eye chief and leaders in the seat of governfor mistakes in fact or in deduction; ment. that "having long enjoyed the confi- In the first place, there are all the dence and affectionate friendship of passages (which it would be useless and Mr. Pitt," he has been more scrupulous tedious to recite) in which the patriotthan he would otherwise have been in ism and public virtue of Sir P. Hume ascertaining the grounds of his ani- are held up to the admiration of pos madversions on the work of his great terity. Now, Sir P. Hume, that true rival; — and that, notwithstanding all and sincere lover of his country, whose this anxiety, and the want of "disem-"talents and virtues his Sovereign barrassment of mind" and "leisure of acknowledged and rewarded," and time," he has compiled this volume in about as many weeks as Mr. Fox took years to the work on which it comments! For the Observations themselves, we must say that we have perused them with considerable pleasure-not certainly from any extraordinary gratification which we derived from the justness of the sentiments, or the elegance of the style, but from a certain agreeable surprise which we experienced on finding how few parts of Mr. Fox's doctrine were considered as vulnerable, even by Mr. Rose; and in how large a proportion of his freest and strongest observations that jealous observer has expressed his most cordial concurrence. The Right Honourable George Rose, we rather believe, is After this, we need not quote our commonly considered as one of the author's warm panegyrics on the Revoleast whiggish or democratical of all lution" that glorious event to which the public characters who have lived in the measures of James necessarily led,” our times; and he has himself acknow- --or on the character of Lord Somers, ledged, that a long habit of political "whose wisdom, talents, political couopposition to Mr. Fox had perhaps rage and virtue, would alone have been given him a stronger bias against his sufficient to insure the success of that favourite doctrines than he might other-measure." It may surprise some of his

"whose honours have been attended by the suffrage of his country, and the approbation of good men," was, even in the reign of Charles, concerned in designs analogous to those of Russell and Sydney; and, very soon after the accession of James, and (as Mr. Rose thinks) before that monarch had done anything in the least degree blameable, rose up openly in arms, and endeavoured to stir up the people to overthrow the existing government. Even Mr. Fox hesitates as to the wisdom and virtue of those engaged in such enterprises;

and yet Mr. Rose, professing to see danger in that writer's excessive zeal for liberty, writes a book to extol the patriotism of a premature insurgent.

political admirers a little more, how-made resistance a duty paramount to ever, to find him professing that he every consideration of personal or public concurs with Mr. Fox as to the expe- danger." diency of the Bill of Exclusion" (that It is scarcely possible, we conceive, boldest and most decided of all Whig to read these, and many other passages measures); and thinks "that the events which might be quoted from the work which took place in the next reign before us, without taking the author afford a strong justification of the con- for a Whig; and it certainly is not duct of the promoters of that measure.' easy to comprehend how the writer of When his Tory friends have digested them could quarrel with anything in that sentiment, they may look at his Mr. Fox's history, for want of deference patriotic invectives against the de- and veneration for the monarchical part grading connection of the two last of of our constitution. To say the truth, the Stuart Princes with the Court of we have not always been able to satisfy France; and the "scandalous profligacy ourselves of the worthy author's consiswhich Charles and his successor be-tency; and holding, as we are inclined trayed the best interests of their country to do, that his natural and genuine senfor miserable stipends." There is some-timents are liberal and manly, we can thing very edifying, indeed, though we only account for the narrowness and should fear a little alarming to courtly unfairness of some of his remarks by tempers, in the warmth with which our supposing them to originate from the author winds up his diatribe on this habits of his practical politics and of interesting subject. "Every one," he that long course of opposition, in which observes, "who carries on a clandestine he learned to consider it a duty to his correspondence with a foreign power, party to discredit everything that came in matters touching the interests of from the advocate of the people. We, Great Britain, is prima facie guilty of a shall now say a word or two on the reas moral, as well as political, crime. remarks themselves, which, as we have If a subject, he is a traitor to his King already noticed, will be found to be and his country; and if a Monarch, he infinitely fewer, and more insignificant, is a traitor to the Crown which he wears, than any one, looking merely to the There may, by possibility, be circum- conjectured. and to the empire which he governs. bulk of the volume, could possibly have

Stances to extenuate the former; there

The first of any sort of importance, can be none to lessen our detestation is made on those passages in which of the latter."-(pp. 149, 150.)

Mr. Fox calls the execution of the

Conformably with these sentiments, King "a far less violent measure than Mr. Rose expresses his concurrence that of Lord Strafford;" and says, with all that Mr. Fox says of the arbi-" that there was something in the trary and oppressive measures which splendour and magnanimity of the act, distinguished the latter part of Charles's which has served to raise the character rega;-declares that "he has mani- of the nation in the opinion of Europe fested great temperance and forbear-in general." Mr. Rose takes great ance in the character which he gives of offence at both these remarks; and says Jeffries;-and understated the enor-that the constitution itself was violated ty of the cruel and detestable pro-by the execution of the King, while the ceegs of the Scottish government, case of Lord Strafford was but a private the miseries and persecutions which it not perfectly understand Mr. Fox,in its unheard-of acts of power, and injury. We are afraid Mr. Rose does inflicted;"-admits that Mr. Fox's otherwise it would be difficult not to work treated of a period "in which the agree with him. The grossness of Lord

tyranny of the Sovereign

Tot redeemed by any glory or success a bill of attainder was brought in, after abroad;"-and speaks of the Revolu- a regular proceeding by impeachment tion as the era "when the full measure had been tried against him. He was of the Monarch's tyrannical usurpations substantially acquitted, by the most

at home was Strafford's case consisted in this, that

Hume, had used the same, or still loftier expressions, in relation to the same event. Some of the words of that loyal and unsuspected historian are as follow :-" the pomp, the dignity, the ceremony of this transaction, correspond to the greatest conceptions that are suggested in the annals of human kind;-the delegates of a great people sitting in judgment upon their supreme magistrate, and trying him for his mismanagement and breach of trust.' Cordially as we agree with Mr. Fox in the unprofitable severity of this example, it is impossible, we conceive, for any one to consider the great, grave, and solemn movement of the nation that led to it, or the stern and dis passionate temper in which it was conducted, without feeling that proud contrast between this execution and

history, which led Mr. Fox, in common with Mr. Hume, and every other writer on the subject, to make use of the expressions which have been alluded to.

unexceptionable process known in our law, before the bill of attainder came to declare him guilty, and to punish him. There was here, therefore, a most flagrant violation of all law and justice, and a precedent for endless abuses and oppressions. In the case of the King, on the other hand, there could be no violation of settled rules or practice; because the case itself was necessarily out of the purview of every rule, and could be drawn into no precedent. The constitution, no doubt, was necessarily destroyed or suspended by the trial; but Mr. Rose appears to forget that it had been destroyed or suspended before, by the war, or by the acts of the King which brought on the war. If it were lawful to fight against the King, it must have been lawful to take him prisoner after he was a prisoner, it was both lawful and necessary to con-that of all other deposed sovereigns in sider what should be done with him; and every deliberation of this sort had all the assumption, and none of the fairness, of a trial. Yet Mr. Rose has himself told us, that "there are cases in which resistance becomes a paramount duty; and probably is not prepared to say, that it was more violent and criminal to drive King James from the throne in 1688, than to wrest all law and justice to take the life of Lord Strafford in 1641. Yet the constitution was as much violated by the forfeiture of the one Sovereign, as by the trial and execution of the other. It was impossible that the trial of King Charles might have terminated in a sentence of mere deprivation; and if James had fought against his people, and been conquered, he might have been tried and executed. The constitution was gone for the time, in both cases, as soon as force was mutually appealed to; and the violence that followed thereafter, to the person of the Monarch, can receive no aggravation from any view of that nature.

With regard, again, to the loyal horror which Mr. Rose expresses, when Mr. Fox speaks of the splendour and magnanimity of the proceedings against the King, it is probable that this

zealous observer was not aware that his favourite "prerogative writer," Mr.

When Mr. Rose, in the close of his remarks upon this subject, permits himself to insinuate, that if Mr. Fox thought such high praise due to the publicity, &c., of King Charles's trial, he must have felt unbounded admiration at that of Lewis XVI., he has laid himself open to a charge of such vulgar and uncandid unfairness, as was not to have been at all expected from a person of his rank and description. If Lewis XVI. had been openly in arms against his people-if the Convention had required no other victim-and had settled into a regular government as soon as he was removed, there might have been more room for a parallel,-to which, as the fact actually stands, every Briton must listen with indignation. Lewis XVI. was wantonly sacrificed to the rage of an insane and bloodthirsty fac tion, and tossed to the executioner among the common supplies for the guillotine. The publicity and parade of his trial were assumed from no love of justice, or sense of dignity; but from a low principle of profligate and cla

Hume's History, vol. vii. p. 141.

morous defiance to everything that had become displeasing: and ridiculous and incredible as it would appear of any other nation, we have not the least doubt that a certain childish emulation of the avenging liberty of the English had its share in producing this paltry copy of our grand and original daring. The insane coxcombs who blew out their brains, after a piece of tawdry declamation, in some of the provincial assemblies, were about as like Cato or Hannibal, as the trial, and execution of Lewis was like the condemnation of King Charles. Our regicides were seFins and original at least, in the bold, bad deeds which they committed. The regicides of France were poor theatrical ators,-intoxicated with blood and With power, and incapable even of forming a sober estimate of the guilt or the consequences of their actions. Before leaving this subject, we must remind our readers that Mr. Fox unequivocally condemns the execution of the King; and spends some time in With regard again to Mr. Fox's showing that it was excusable neither charge of Monk's tamely acquiescing on the ground of present expediency nor in the insults so meanly put on the faire warning. After he had finished illustrious corpse of his old commander that statement, he proceeds to say, that Blake, it is perfectly evident, even to be doubted, whether that proceeding by the King's order, among others, and able part of mankind may think, it is Rose, that Blake's body was dug up has not served to raise the national removed out of the hallowed precincts character in the eyes of foreigners, &c.; of Westminster, to be reinterred with and then goes on to refer to the con- twenty more, in one pit at St. Marversations he had himself witnessed on garet's.

of his chaplain, who wrote a compli-
mentary life of his patron, to prove that,
on the trial of the regicides, he behaved
with great moderation. We certainly
do not rate this testimony very high,
and do think it far more than com-
pensated by that of Mrs. Hutchinson,
who, in the life of her husband, says,
that on the first proceedings against
the regicides in the House of Commons,

46 Monk sate still, and had not one
word to interpose for any man,
but was
us forward to set vengeance on foot as
any one." And a little afterwards she
adds, apparently from her own personal
knowledge and observation, that "be-
fore the prisoners were brought to the
Tower, Monk and his wife came one
evening to the garden, and caused them
to be brought down, only to stare at
them,-which was such a behaviour for
that man, who had betrayed so many
of those that had honoured and trusted
him, &c. as no story can parallel the
inhumanity of."†

the subject abroad. A man must be a

But the chief charge is, that on the

very zealous royalist, indeed, to dis- trial of Argyle, Monk spontaneously

believe or be offended with this.

Mr. Rose's next observation is in which turned the scale of evidence favour of General Monk; upon whom against that unfortunate nobleman. he is of opinion that Mr. Fox has been This statement, to which Mr. Fox is by far too severe,-at the same time most absurdly blamed for giving credit, that he fails utterly in obviating any of is made on the authority of the three the grounds upon which that severity historians who lived nearest to the is justified. Monk was not responsible date of the transaction, and who all alome indeed, for restoring the King, report it as quite certain and notorious. without taking any security for the These historians are Burnet, Baillie, power of the army, by which that re-tradicted by any one writer on the tely responsible for that most criminal period comparatively recent, and with. oration was effected, he is certainly subject, except Dr. Campbell, who, at a omission. As to his indifference to the out pretending to have discovered any fate of his companions in arms, Mr. Rose does indeed quote the testimony |

I sent down some confidential letters,

people; but, as

VOL. 1.

wielding the whole and Cunningham; nor are they con

Life of Colonel Hutchinson, p. 372. ↑ Ivid. p. 378.

M

The next charge against Mr. Fox is for saying, that if Charles II.'s ministers betrayed him, he betrayed them in return; keeping, from some of them at least, the secret of what he was pleased to call his religion, and the state of his connections with France. After the furious attack which Mr. Rose has made in another place upon this Prince and his French connections, it is rather surprising to see with what zeal he undertakes his defence against this very venial sort of treachery, of concealing his shame from some of his more respectable ministers. The attempt, however, is at least as unsuccessful as it is unaccountable. Mr. Fox says only,

new document on the subject, is pleased to disbelieve them upon certain hypothetical and argumentative reasons of his own. These reasons Mr. Laing has examined and most satisfactorily obviated in his history; and Mr. Rose has exerted incredible industry to defend. The Scottish records for that period have perished; and for this reason, and because a collection of pamphlets and newspapers, of that age, in Mr. Rose's possession, make no mention of the circumstance, he thinks fit to discredit it altogether. If this kind of scepticism were to be indulge, there would be an end of all reliance on history. In this particular case, both Burnet and Baillie speak quite positively, from the information of contemporaries, and state a circumstance that would very well account for the would have found that, in 1641, King silence of the formal accounts of the Charles agreed to make the commissions trial, if any such had been preserved, of those illegally removed in the following quamdiu se bene gesserint; and that some viz. that Monk's letters were not pro-reign, though not officiating in court, still duced till after the evidence was retained certain functions in consequence finished on both sides, and the debate of that appointment. The following is the passage, at p. 1265, vol. iii. of Rushworth: begun on the result; an irregularity, "After the passing of these votes (16th by the way, by much too gross to have December, 1640) against the judges, and been charged against a public pro-and their concurring with the House of transmitting them to the House of Peers, ceeding without any foundation.

that some of the ministers were not trusted with the secret; and both Dal

Commons therein, an address was made di-unto the King shortly after, that his Majesty, for the future, would not make that they may hold their places hereafter, any judge by patent during pleasure; but quamdiu se bene gesserint: and his Majesty And in his did really grant the same. the time of giving his royal assent to two speech to both Houses of Parliament, at bills, one to take away the High Commission Court, and the other the Court of the Council Table, he hath this passage: Star-Chamber, and regulating the power of If you consider what I have done this parliament, discontents will not sit in your hearts; for I hope you remember, that I have granted, that the judges hereafter shall hold their places quamdiu se bene gesserint.' And likewise, his gracious Majesty, King and method in granting patents to judges, Charles the Second, observed the same rule

Mr. Rose's next observation is rected rather against Judge Blackstone than against Mr. Fox; and is meant to show that this learned person was guilty of great inaccuracy in representing the year 1679 as the era of good laws and bad government. It is quite impossible to follow him through the dull details and feeble disputations by which he labours to make it appear that our laws were not very good in 1679, and that they, as well as the administration of them, were much mended after the revolution. Mr. Fox's, or rather Blackstone's remark is too obviously and strikingly true in sub-quamdiu se bene gesserint; as appears stance, to admit of any argument or illustration.*

Mr. Rose talks a great deal, and justly, about the advantages of the judges not being removable at pleasure; and, with a great air of erudition, informs us, that after 6 Charles, all the commissions were made quamdiu nobis placuerit. Mr. Rose's researches, we fear, do not often go beyond the records in his custody. If he had looked into Rushworth's Collection, he

upon record in the rolls: viz. to Sergeant Slide to be Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, Sir Orlando Bridgman to be Lord Chief Baron, and afterwards to be Lord Chief Justice of Common Pleas; to Sir Robert Forster, and others. Mr. Sergeant Archer, now living, notwithstanding his removal, still enjoys his patent, being quamdiu se bene gesserint; and receives a share in the profits of the court, as to fees and other proceedings, by virtue of his said patent: and his name is used in those fines, &c., as a judge of that court."