be little doubt but that adopted by Cromwell and his adherents is the least dishonourable. Edward II., Richard II., Henry VI., Edward V., 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? Is any thing better calculated to prevent secret torture and cruelty? And would Mr. Rose, in mercy to Charles, have preferred that red-hot iron should have been secretly thrust into his entrails?—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 any 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? 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

France. Whatever be the faults imputed to Mr. Fox, duplicity and hypocrisy were never among the number; and no human being ever doubted but that Mr. Fox, in this instance, spoke his real sentiments: but the love of Sir Patrick Hume is an overwhelming passion; and no man who gives way to it can ever say into what excesses he may be hurried.

Non simul cuiquam conceditur, amare et sapere.

The next point upon which Serjeant Heywood attacks Mr. Rose, is that of General Monk. Mr. Fox says of Monk, that he acquiesced in the insult so meanly put upon the illustrious corpse of Blake, under whose auspices and command he had performed the most creditable services of his life.' This story, Mr. Rose says, rests upon the authority of Neale, in his History of the Puritans. This is the first of many blunders made by Mr. Rose upon this particular topic: for Anthony Wood, in his Fasti Oxoniensis, enumerating Blake among the bachelors, says, His body was taken up, and, with others, buried in a pit in St. Margaret's churchyard adjoining, near to the back door of one of the prebendaries of Westminster, in which place it now remaineth, enjoying no other monument but what is reared by its valour, which time itself can hardly efface.' But the difficulty is to find how the denial of Mr. Rose affects Mr. Fox's assertion. Mr. Rose admits, that Blake's body was dug up by an order of the King, and does not deny that it was done with the acquiescence of Monk. But if this be the case, Mr. Fox's position, that Blake was insulted, and that Monk acquiesced in the insult, is clearly made out. Nor has Mr. Rose the shadow of an authority for saying that the corpse of Blake was reinterred with great decorum. Kennet is silent upon the subject. We have already given Serjeant Heywood's quotation from Anthony Wood; and this statement, for the present, rests entirely upon the assertion of Mr. Rose; and upon that basis will remain to all eternity.

Mr. Rose, who, we must say, on all occasions through

the whole of this book, makes the greatest parade of his accuracy, states, that the bodies of Cromwell, Ireton, and Blake, were taken up at the same time; whereas the fact is, that those of Cromwell and Ireton were taken up on the 26th of January, and that of Blake on the 10th of September, nearly nine months afterwards. It may appear frivolous to notice such errors as these; but they lead to very strong suspicions in a critic of history and of historians. They show that those habits of punctuality, on the faith of which he demands implicit confidence from his readers, really do not exist; they prove that such a writer will be exact only when he thinks the occasion of importance; and, as he himself is the only judge of that importance, it is necessary to examine his proofs in every instance, and impossible to trust him any where.

Mr. Rose remarks, that, in the weekly paper entitled Mercurius Rusticus, No. 4., where an account is given of the disinterment of Cromwell and Ireton, not a syllable is said respecting the corpse of Blake. of Blake. This is This is very true; but the reason (which does not seem to have occurred to Mr. Rose) is, that Blake's corpse was not touched till six months afterwards. This is really a little too much. That Mr. Rose should quit his usual pursuits, erect himself into an historical critic, perch upon the body of the dead lion, impugn the accuracy of one of the greatest, as well as most accurate men of his time, and himself be guilty of such gross and unpardonable negligence, looks so very much like an insensibility to shame, that we should be loth to characterise his conduct by the severe epithets which it appears to merit, and which, we are quite certain Sir Patrick, the defendee, would have been the first to bestow upon it.

The next passage in Mr. Fox's work, objected to, is that which charges Monk, at the trial of Argyle, with having produced letters of friendship and confidence to take away the life of a nobleman, the zeal and cordiality of whose co-operation with him, proved by such documents, was the chief ground of his execution.' This accusation, says Mr. Rose, rests upon the sole authority