« AnteriorContinuar »
the value of whose patronage he must, from long experience, have been so thoroughly aware. We are almost inclined to think that we might at one time have worked ourselves up to suspect Mr. Rose of being actuated by some of these motives: — not because we have any reason to think worse of that gentleman than of most of his political associates, but merely because it seemed to us so wo probable that he should have been so influenced. Our suspicions, however, were entirely removed by the frequency and violence of his own protestations. He vows so solemnly that he has no bad motive in writing his critique, that we find it impossible to withhold our belief in his purity. But Mr. Rose does not trust to his protestations alone. He is not satisfied with assurances that he did not write his book from any bad motive, but he informs us that his motive was excellent, — and is even obliging enough to tell us what that motive was. The Earl of Marchmont, it seems, was Mr. Rose's friend. To Mr. Rose he left his manuscripts; and among these manuscripts was a narrative written by Sir Patrick Hume, an ancestor of the Earl of Marchmont, and one of the leaders in Argyle's rebellion. Of Sir Patrick Hume Mr. Rose conceives (a little erroneously to be sure, but he assures us he does conceive) Mr. Fox to have spoken disrespectfully; and the case comes out, therefore, as clearly as possible, as follows. Sir Patrick was the progenitor, and Mr. Rose was the friend and sole executor, of the Earl of Marchmont; and therefore, says Mr. Rose, I consider it as a sacred duty to vindicate the character of Sir Patrick, and, for that purpose, to publish a long and elaborate critique upon all the doctrines and statements contained in Mr. Fox's history ! This appears to us about as satisfactory an explanation of Mr. Rose's authorship, as the exclamation of the traveller was of the name of Stony Stratford. Before Mr. Rose gave way to this intense value for Sir Patrick, and resolved to write a book, he should have inquired what accurate men there were about in society; and if he had once received the slightest notice of the existence of Mr. Samuel Heywood, serjeantat-law, we are convinced he would have transfused into his own will and testament the feelings he derived from that of Lord Marchmont, and devolved upon another executor the sacred and dangerous duty of vindicating Sir Patrick Hume.
The life of Mr. Rose has been principally employed in the painful, yet perhaps necessary, duty of increasing the burdens of his fellow-creatures. It has been a life of detail, onerous to the subject — onerous and lucrative to himself. It would be unfair to expect from one thus occupied any great depth of thought, or any remarkable graces of composition; but we have a fair right to look for habits of patient research and scrupulous accuracy. We might naturally expect industry in collecting facts, and fidelity in quoting them; and hope, in the absence of commanding genius, to receive a compensation from the more humble and ordinary qualities of the mind. Ilow far this is the case, our subsequent remarks will enable the reader to judge. We shall not extend them to any great length, as we have before treated on the same subject in our review of Mr. Rose's work. Our great object at present is to abridge the observations of Serjeant Heywood. For Serjeant Heywood, though a most respectable, honest, and enlightened man, really does require an abridger. He has not the talent of saying what he has to say quickly; nor is he aware that brevity is in writing what charity is to all other virtues. IRighteousness is worth nothing without the one, nor authorship without the other. But whoever will forgive this little defect will find in all his productions great learning, immaculate honesty, and the most scrupulous accuracy. Whatever detections of Mr. Rose's inaccuracies are made in this Review are to be entirely given to him; and we confess ourselves quite astonished at their number and extent.
“Among the modes of destroying persons (says Mr. Fox, p. 14.) in such a situation (i. e. monarchs deposed), there can be little doubt but that adopted by Cromwell and his adherents is the least dishonourable. Edward II., Richard II., Henry VI., Edward W., had none of them long survived their deposal; but this was the first instance, in our history at least, when of such an act it could be truly said it was not done in a corner.”
What Mr. Rose can find in this sentiment to quarrel with, we are utterly at a loss to conceive. If a human being is to be put to death unjustly, is it no mitigation of such a lot that the death should be public 2 Is any thing better calculated to prevent secret torture and cruelty 2 And would Mr. Rose, in mercy to Charles, have preferred that red-hot iron should have been secretly thrust into his entrails 7–or that he should have disappeared as Pichegru and Toussaint have disappeared in our times? The periods of the Edwards and Henrys were, it is true, barbarous periods: but this is the very argument Mr. Fox uses. All these murders, he contends, were immoral and bad; but that where the manner was the least objectionable, was the murder of Charles the First—because it was public. And can any human being doubt, in the first place, that these crimes would be marked by less intense cruelty if they were public, and, secondly, that they would become less frequent, where the perpetrators incurred responsibility, than if they were committed by an uncertain hand in secrecy and concealment * There never was, in short, not only a more innocent, but a more obvious sentiment; and to object to it in the manner which Mr. Rose has done, is surely to love Sir Patrick Hume too much, – if there can be an excess in so very commendable a passion in the breast of a sole executor.
Mr. Fox proceeds to observe, that “he who has discussed this subject with foreigners, must have observed, that the act of the execution of Charles, even in the minds of those who condemn it, excites more admiration than disgust.' If the sentiment is bad, let those who feel it answer for it. Mr. Fox only asserts the fact, and explains, without justifying it. The only question (as concerns Mr. Fox) is, whether such is, or is not, the feeling of foreigners; and whether that feeling (if it exist) is rightly explained 2 We have no doubt either of the fact or of the explanation. The conduct of Cromwell, and his associates, was not to be excused in the main act; but, in the manner, it was magnanimous. And among the servile nations of the Continent, it must naturally excite a feeling of joy and wonder, that the power of the people had for once been felt, and so memorable a lesson read to those whom they must naturally consider as the great oppressors of mankind. The most unjustifiable point of Mr. Rose's accusation, however, is still to come. “If such high praise,’ says that gentleman, “was, in the judgment of Mr. Fox, due to Cromwell for the publicity of the proceedings against the King, how would he have found language sufficiently commendatory to express his admiration of the magnanimity of those who brought Lewis the Sixteenth to an open trial?' Mr. Rose accuses Mr. Fox, then, of approving the execution of Lewis the Sixteenth : but, on the 20th December, 1792, Mr. Fox said, in the House of Commons, in the presence of Mr. Rose,
‘The proceedings with respect to the royal family of France are so far from being magnanimity, justice, or mercy, that they are directly the reverse; they are injustice, cruelty, and pusillanimity.’ And afterwards declared his wish for an address to his Majesty, to which he would add an expression, of our abhorrence of the proceedings against the royal family of France, in which, I have no doubt, we shall be supported by the whole country. If there can be any means suggested that will be better adapted to produce the unanimous concurrence of this House, and of all the country, with respect to the measure now under consideration in Paris, I should be obliged to any person for his better suggestion upon the subject.’ Then, after stating that such address, especially if the Lords joined in it, must have a decisive influence in France, he added, “I have said thus much in order to contradict one of the most cruel misrepresentations of what I have before said in our late debates; and that my language may not be interpreted from the manner in which other gentlemen have chosen to answer it. I have spoken the genuine sentiments of my heart, and I anxiously wish the House to come to some resolution upon the subject.'
And on the following day, when a copy of instructions sent to Earl Gower, signifying that he should leave Paris, was laid before the House of Commons, Mr. Fox said, “he had heard it said, that the proceedings against the King of France are unnecessary. He would go a great deal further, and say, he believed them to be highly unjust ; and not only repugnant to all the common feelings of mankind, but also contrary to all the fundamental principles of law."—(pp. 20, 21.)
On Monday, the 28th January, he said,—
* With regard to that part of the communication from his Majesty, which related to the late detestable scene exhibited in a neighbouring country, he could not suppose there were two opinions in that house; he knew they were all ready to declare their abhorrence of that abominable proceeding.”—(p. 21.)
Two days afterwards, in the debate on the message, Mr. Fox pronounced the condemnation and execution of the King to be
—‘an act as disgraceful as any that history recorded : and whatever opinions he might at any time have expressed in private conversation, he had expressed none certainly in that House on the justice of bringing kings to trial: revenge being unjustifiable, and punishment useless, where it could not operate either by way of prevention or example; he did not view with less detestation the injustice and inhumanity that had been committed towards that unhappy monarch. Not only were the rules of criminal justice — rules that more than any other ought to be strictly observed—violated with respect to him ; not only was he tried and condemned without any existing law, to which he was personally amenable, and even contrary to laws that did actually exist, but the degrading circumstances of his imprisonment, the unnecessary and insulting asperity with which he had been treated, the total want of republican magnanimity in the whole transaction (for even in that House it could be no offence to say, that there might be such a thing as magnanimity in a republic,) added every aggravation to the inhumanity and injustice.'
That Mr. Fox had held this language in the House of Commons, Mr. Rose knew perfectly well, when he accused that gentleman of approving the murder of the King of