« AnteriorContinuar »
to the action itself, it was the most unparalleled folly that ever was committed.
66 Mr. Echard with great probability,” &c.
A charge against the Papists has always great probability with this Historian. It is a known uncontroverted fact that the advice was Digby's; nay the Historian confirms it by observing, that on its ill success Digby immediately withdrew out of the Kingdom, Yet in the same breath he tells us, it is. more probable it was a project of the Queen and her cabal of Papists ; and this on the authority of that poor fcribler, Echard. They neither of them knew that at this time the Queen was almost frightened out of her wits, for fear of an impeachment; was actually projecting her escape; and was incapable of any vigorous counsel, intent only on her own safety ; to effect which, the gave up Strafford to the slaughter, by that poor and ungrateful postfcript she persuaded the King to add to his letter to the Lords.
66 To leave Whitehall." When a man runs away from his own house, it is a plain proof, I think, that he could stay no longer in it with safety. It is confessed the people were on the side of the Parliament. In such a situation we see how commodious it was for that body to pretend fears; it was the attaching the people more closely to them. But for the King, in this situation, to pretend fears, was acting the part of an idiot ; for as all love of Majesty was gone, and the people restrained only by the apprehensions of its power, for the King to shew by pretended fear that he had no power was removing the only barrier to their rage and insult. . We must needs conclude therefore that the King's were real, and not pretended.
- The hand of God was against #hein," & C.
The Puritans have a strange kind of logic. A seat in the civil Legislature for the Bishops the Puritans deemed an abuse. They are now deprived of their seat, which, in the sense of the Puritans, was bringing
them nearer to the primitive standard. Yet this blessing (for such an one it was, if it brought them nearer to the practice of the purest times) must be reckoned, by these very Puritans, the hand of God in judgment for their fins, A Puritan gossip met a Churchwoman, her neighbour, one morning in the streets of Exeter. Heark you, neighbour, says the first, do you hear the news ? Merchant such an one is a bankrupt, and Merchant such an one, the Churchman, loses ten thousand pounds by the break : there is God's judgment for You ; the Merchant was ever a great fcoffer at the Conventicle. And is this all you have heard ? said the other. Yes. Why then you have heard but half the news. Mercer such an one of your religion has loft fifteen hundred pounds by this break. I must confess, replied the first, a severe trial. Ch. xi. p. 544
" Resolutions of the Councils at Windsor, I leave with the Reader.”
The judicious reader will laugh at our Historian for referring this question to his 7
determination. The Parliament was not now acting on the principles of Grotius's book De Jure, but on those of Machiavel's, called the Prince, where every thing is just, that is profitable.
P. 550. “ The whole controversy." .
It is very evident, these suppositions (demonstrable, as they are) this impartial Historian is by no means willing we should make, by his illusory expression in the first of them, where he says, the King left his Par. liament, and would at no longer in concert with them. If by leaving he means deserting, as he would have the reader understand it, it is false : and if, by not afting in concert, he means that he refused doing his part in the Legislature, that is false likewise. If by leaving, he only meant removing from them to a distance, the King had reason; He was drove away by the tumults. If by not acting in concert, he meant not doing every thing the Parlia. ment commanded, the King had reason here, too; for they would have stripped him of his whole Prerogative.
P. 551. “ In the opinion of the Lords and Commons."
Here is some mistake. The Historian is here appealing to his reader's opinion (not the opinion of the Lords and Commons), and telling us what conclusions the reader should make from his own opinions. So, if the reader thinks the constitution was entire, that the laws were sufficient to secure us against Popery and Slavery, he was to conclude the King's arguments strong. But if the two Houses declared that the King had deserted them, &c. what then? Why then we are to conclude that the two Houses are in the right: not the more for their declaration, I promise you. But fuch à reasoner is this Historian. He does not know how to state the opposite parts of his propofition.
P. 567. “ His Majesly had bis ambiguie ties.”
Here was no ambiguity. The King understood by foreign aids what certainly the Parliament meant, foreign troops. Are