disposed to confide in him, even when he the laws and liberties of the kingdom, (all which were the effects of evil counsel, and abundantly declared in their remonstrance of the state of the kingdom) were actions of love and justice, suitable to such words as those? As gracious was his majesty's speech in the beginning of this parliament: That he was resolved to put himself freely and clearly upon the love and affection of his English subjects. They asked, whether his causeless complaints and jealousies, the unjust imputations so often cast upon his parliament, his denial of their necessary defence by the ordinance of the militia, his dangerous absenting himself from his great council, like to produce such a mischievous division in the kingdom, had not been more suitable to other men's evil counsels, than to his own words? Neither, they said, had his latter speeches been better used, and preserved by those evil and wicked counsellors: Could any words be fuller of love and justice, than those in his answer to the message sent to the house of commons, in the 31st of Decemb. 1641. We do engage unto you solemnly, by the word of a king, that the security of all, and every one of you from violence, is, and ever shall be, as much our care, as the preservation of us and our children? And could any actions be fuller of injustice and violence, than that of the attorney-general, in falsly accusing the six members of parliament, and the other proceedings thereupon, within three or four days after that message? For the full view whereof, they desired the declaration made of those proceedings might be perused.”—In another part of the same remonstrance we have the following words: "And whether there were cause of his majesty's great indignation, for being reproached to have intended force or threatning to the parliament, they desired them to consider who should read their declaration, in which seemed to be most sincere. This was of in there was no word tending to any such reproach; and certainly, they said, they had been more tender of his majesty's honour in that point, than he, whosoever he was, that did write that declaration; where, in his majesty's name, he did call God to witness, he never had any such thought, or knew of any such resolution of bringing up the army; which truly, they said, would seem strange to those who should read the deposition of Mr. Goring, the information of Mr. Piercy, and divers other examinations of Mr. Wilmot, Mr. Pollard, and others; the other examination of capt. Leg, Sir Jacob Ashley, and Sir John Conyers; and consider the condition and nature of the petition, which was sent unto Sir Jacob Ashley, under the approbation of C. R. which his majesty had now acknowledged to be his own hand; and being full of scandal to the parliament, might have proved dangerous to the whole kingdom, if the army should have interposed betwixt the king and them, as was desired "."-I produce not these passages to prove the truth of the facts referred to in this remonstrance; but merely to shew what opinion the authors of it, the lords and commons, had of his majesty's sincerity. Let me add, that the insincerity of Charles was one probable reason of the loss of his life. It appears, from a paper of Major Huntingdon's, that the king and army were at one time on very good terms, insomuch that his majesty "bid the major tell commissary-general Ireton, with whom he had formerly treated upon the proposals, that he would wholly throw himself upon us [the army], and trust us for a settlement of the kingdom, as we had promised; saying, if we proved honest men, we should without question make the kingdom happy, and save much shedding of a a Clarendon, vol. II. p. 547. finite prejudice to him, and was one great blood. This message, adds he, from his majesty I delivered to commissary-general Ireton at Colebrooke, who seemed to receive it with joy, saying, that we should be the veriest knaves that ever lived, if in every thing we made not good whatever we had promised, because the king, by not declaring against us, had given us great advantage against our adversaries [the presbyterians]." But the inclinations of the chief officers of the army soon changed, and they determined, in the place of the crown to which they had promised to restore him, to bring him to the scaffold, which they put in execution. This sudden change is said to have been owing to the interception of a letter by Cromwell and Ireton, whilst they were in treaty with his majesty. The letter was from the king to the queen, in which he told her, "that he was courted by both factions, the Scotch presbyterians, and the army; and that those which bade the fairest for him, should have him; but yet he thought he should close with the Scotch sooner than with the other. Upon this, finding they were not like to have good terms from the king, they from that time vowed his destruction"."-After what has been so largely said in this note, I will leave the reader to make his own remarks on the following passage in Mr. Hume. "Some historians have rashly questioned his [Charles's] good faith: but, for this reproach, the most malignant scrutiny of his conduct, which, in every circumstance, is now thoroughly known, affords not any reasonable foundation. On the contrary, if we consider the extreme difficulties to which he was so frequently reduced, and compare the sincerity of his professions and declarations, we shall avow, that pro 2 Thurloe's State-papers, vol. I. p. 96. fol. Lond. 1742. History of Great Britain, p. 444, in the note. ⚫ See Hume's cause of his ruin! In his early youth he was bity and honour ought justly to be placed among his most shining qualities. In every treaty, those concessions, which he thought in conscience he could not maintain, he never could, by any motive or persuasion, be induced to grant. And though some violations of the petition of Rights may be imputed to him, these are more to be ascribed to the lofty ideas of royal prerogative, which he had imbibed, than to any failure in the integrity of his principles a " In the beginning of the note I have quoted Machiavel; I will now add another passage from him. "It has appeared by experience in our times," says he, "that those princes who made light of their word, and artfully deceived mankind, have all along done great things, and have at length got the better of such as proceeded upon honourable principles." But however it was in his times, it was not so with regard to Charles. His making light of his word, and artfully deceiving his subjects, produced to him innumerable woes. His character, in this respect, being once established, his adversaries gave no heed to his words, protestations, oaths, or actions, as judging that he was not to be bound by them. Hence a civil war arose, which ended in his destruction. Princes therefore should at all times act with honour, and scorn to be worse than their words; for let them dissemble ever so dextrously, there are those who will find them out, and expose them, and then adieu to their reputation and influence. "The extreme curiosity of the public is well known; it is a being that sees every thing, hears every thing, and divulges whatsoever it has heard or seen. If its curiosity examines the conduct of particular men, 'tis only to fill up idle hours; but if it considers the cha * Hume's History of Great Britain, p. 469. observed to be very obstinate"; and stiff racters of princes, 'tis with an eye to its own interest. And, indeed, princes are more exposed than all other men to the conjectures, comments, and judgments of the world: they are a sort of stars, at which a whole people of astronomers are continually levelling their telescopes and cross-staves; courtiers, who are near them, are daily taking their observations; a single gesture, a single glance of the eye, discovers them ; and the people who observe them at a greater distance, magnify them by conjectures. In short, as well may the sun hide his spots, as great princes their vices, and their genuine character, from the eyes of so many curious observers. If the mask of dissimulation should cover, for a time, the natural deformity of a prince, yet he could never keep his mask always on: he would sometimes be obliged, was it only for a breathing, to throw it off; and one view of his naked features would be sufficient to content the curious. It will therefore be in vain for dissimulation to dwell in the mouths of princes: craftiness in their discourses, and actions will have no effect: to judge of men by their words and professions, would be the way to be always mistaken: we therefore compare their actions with one another, and then with their words; and against this repeated examination, falsity and deceit will find no refuge. No man can well act any part but his own; he must really have the same character which he would bear in the world: without this, the man who thinks to impose on the public, imposes upon none but himself"." 2 In his early youth he was observed to be very obstinate, &c.] Here are my proofs." His childhood,” says Perinchief, "was blemished with a supposed ob * Anti-Machiavel, p. 192. 8vo. Lond. 1741. See also Gordon's Dis courses on Tacitus, vol. IV. p. 331. 12mo. Lond. 1753. VOL. II. |