18

NECESSARY TO ACCOUNT FOR

ject by the shackles of an idle theory; because the period of which he treats affords the finest of all opportunities for prosecuting such an inquiry, and does not, indeed, admit of an intelligible or satisfactory history upon any other conditions. There are three great events, falling within that period, of which, it appears to us, that "the story" has not yet been intelligibly told, for want of some such analysis of the national feelings. One is, the universal joy and sincere confidence with which Charles II. was received back, without one stipulation for the liberties of the people, or one precaution against the abuses of power. This was done by the very people who had waged war against a more amiable Sovereign, and quarrelled with the Protector for depriving them of their freedom. It is saying nothing, to say that Monk did this by means of the army. It was not done either by Monk or the army, but by the nation; and even if it were not so, the question would still be,-by what change in the dispositions of the army and the nation Monk was able to make them do it. The second event, which must always appear unaccountable upon the mere narrative of the circumstances, is the base and abject submission of the people to the avowed tyranny of the restored Charles, when he was pleased at last to give up the use of Parliaments, and to tax and govern on his own single authority. This happened when most of those must have still been alive who had seen the nation rise up in arms against his father; and within five years of the time when it rose up still more unanimously against his successor, and not only changed the succession of the crown, but very strictly defined and limited its prerogatives. The third, is the Revolution itself; an event which was brought about by the very individuals who had submitted so quietly to the domination of Charles, and who, when assembled in the House of Commons under James himself, had, of their own. accord, sent one of their members to the Tower for having observed, upon a harsh and tyrannical expression of the King's, that "he hoped they were all Englishmen, and not to be frighted with a few hard words." It is

CHANGES OF NATIONAL OPINIONS.

19

not to give us the history of these events, merely to set down the time and circumstances of their occurrence. They evidently require some explanation, in order to be comprehended; and the narrative will be altogether unsatisfactory, as well as totally barren of instruction, unless it give some account of those changes in the general temper and opinion of the nation, by which such contradictory actions became possible. Mr. Fox's conception of the limits of legitimate history, restrained him, we are afraid, from entering into such considerations; and they will best estimate the amount of his error, who are most aware of the importance of the information of which it has deprived us. Nothing, in our apprehension, can be beyond the province of legitimate history, which tends to give us clear conceptions of the times and characters with which that history is conversant; nor can the story of any time be complete or valuable, unless it look before and after, to the causes and consequences of the events which it details, and mark out the period with which it is occupied, as part of a greater series, as well as an object of separate consideration.

In proceeding to the consideration of Mr. Fox's own part of this volume, it may be as well to complete that general estimate of its excellence and defects which we have been led incidentally to express in a good degree already. We shall then be able to pursue our analysis of the successive chapters with less distraction.

The sentiments, we think, are almost all just, and candid, and manly; but the narrative is too minute and diffusive, and does not in general flow with much spirit or facility. Inconsiderable incidents are detailed at far too great length; and an extreme and painful anxiety is shown to ascertain the exact truth of doubtful or contested passages, and the probable motives of insignificant and ambiguous actions. The labour which is thus visibly bestowed on the work, often appears, therefore, disproportioned to the importance of the result. The history becomes, in a certain degree, languid and heavy; and something like a feeling of disappointment and impatience

20 FOX'S HISTORY

GENERAL CHARACTER AND DEFECTS.

is generated, from the tardiness and excessive caution with which the story is carried forward. In those constant attempts, too, to verify the particulars which are narrated, a certain tone of debate is frequently assumed, which savours more of the orator than the historian; and though there is nothing florid or rhetorical in the general cast of the diction, yet those argumentative passages are evidently more akin to public speaking than to written composition. Frequent interrogations-short alternative propositions-and an occasional mixture of familiar images and illustrations,-all denote a certain habit of personal altercation, and of keen and animated contention. Instead, therefore, of a work emulating the full and flowing narrative of Livy or Herodotus, we find in Mr. Fox's book rather a series of critical remarks on the narratives of preceding writers, mingled up with occasional details somewhat more copious and careful than the magnitude of the subjects seemed to require. The history, in short, is planned upon too broad a scale, and the narrative too frequently interrupted by small controversies and petty indecisions. We are aware that these objections may be owing in a good degree to the smallness of the fragment upon which we are unfortunately obliged to hazard them; and that the proportions which appear gigantic in this little relic, might have been no more than majestic in the finished work; but even after making allowance for this consideration, we cannot help thinking that the details are too minute, and the verifications too elaborate.

The introductory chapter is full of admirable reasonings and just reflections. It begins with noticing, that there are certain periods in the history of every people, which are obviously big with important consequences, and exercise a visible and decisive influence on the times that come after. The reign of Henry VII. is one of these, with relation to England;-another is that comprised between 1588 and 1640;-and the most remarkable of all, is that which extends from the last of these dates, to the death of Charles II.-the era of constitutional principles and practical tyranny of the best

EXCELLENT INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

21

laws, and the most corrupt administration. It is to the review of this period, that the introductory chapter is dedicated.

Mr. Fox approves of the first proceedings of the Commons; but censures without reserve the unjustifiable form of the proceedings against Lord Strafford, whom he qualifies with the name of a great delinquent. With regard to the causes of the civil war, the most difficult question to determine is, whether the Parliament made sufficient efforts to avoid bringing affairs to such a decision. That they had justice on their side, he says, cannot be reasonably doubted, but seems to think that something more might have been done, to bring matters to an accommodation. With regard to the execution of the King, he makes the following striking observations, in that tone of fearless integrity and natural mildness, which we have already noticed as characteristic of this performance.

"The execution of the King, though a far less violent measure than that of Lord Strafford, is an event of so singular a nature, that we cannot wonder that it should have excited more sensation than any other in the annals of England. This exemplary act of substantial justice, as it has been called by some, of enormous wickedness by others, must be considered in two points of view. First, was it not in itself just and necessary? Secondly, was the example of it likely to be salutary or pernicious? In regard to the first of these questions, Mr. Hume, not perhaps intentionally, makes the best justification of it, by saying, that while Charles lived, the projected Republic could never be secure. But to justify taking away the life of an individual, upon the principle of self-defence, the danger must be, not problematical and remote, but evident and immediate. The danger in this instance was not of such a nature; and the imprisonment, or even banishment, of Charles, might have given to the republic such a degree of security as any government ought to be content with. It must be confessed, however, on the other side, that if the republican government had suffered the King to escape, it would have been an act of justice and generosity wholly unexampled; and to have granted him even his life, would have been one among the more rare efforts of virtue. The short interval between the deposal and death of princes is become proverbial; and though there may be some few examples on the other side, as far as life is concerned, I doubt whether a single instance can be found, where liberty has been granted to a deposed monarch. Among the modes of destroying persons in such a situation, there can be little doubt but that adopted by Cromwell and his adherents is the least dishonourable. Edward the Second, Richard the Second, Henry

22 FOX HIS VIEW OF THE KING'S EXECUTION

the Sixth, Edward the Fifth, had none of them long survived their deposal; but this was the first instance, in our history at least, where, of such an act, it could be truly said, that it was not done in a

corner.

"As to the second question, whether the advantage to be derived from the example was such as to justify an act of such violence, it appears to me to be a complete solution of it to observe, that with respect to England (and I know not upon what ground we are to set examples for other nations, or, in other words, to take the criminal justice of the world into our hands), it was wholly needless, and therefore unjustifiable, to set one for kings, at a time when it was intended the office of king should be abolished, and consequently that no person should be in the situation to make it the rule of his conduct. Besides, the miseries attendant upon a deposed monarch, seem to be sufficient to deter any prince, who thinks of consequences, from running the risk of being placed in such a situation; or if death be the only evil that can deter him, the fate of former tyrants deposed by their subjects, would by no means encourage him to hope he could avoid even that catastrophe. As far as we can judge from the event, the example was certainly not very effectual; since both the sons of Charles, though having their father's fate before their eyes, yet feared not to violate the liberties of the people even more than he had attempted to do.

"After all, however, notwithstanding what the more reasonable part of mankind may think upon this question, it is much to be doubted whether this singular proceeding has not, as much as any other circumstance, served to raise the character of the English nation in the opinion of Europe in general. He who has read, and still more he who has heard in conversation, discussions upon this subject, by foreigners, must have perceived, that, even in the minds of those who condemn the act, the impression made by it has been far more that of respect and admiration, than that of disgust and horror. The truth is, that the guilt of the action, that is to say, the taking away the life of the King, is what most men in the place of Cromwell and his associates would have incurred. What there is of splendour and of magnanimity in it, I mean the publicity and solemnity of the act, is what few would be capable of displaying. It is a degrading fact to human nature, that even the sending away of the Duke of Gloucester was an instance of generosity almost unexampled in the history of transactions of this nature."—p. 13–17.

Under the Protector, of whom he speaks with singular candour, the government was absolute-and, on his death, fell wholly into the hands of the army. He speaks with contempt and severe censure of Monk for the precipitate and unconditional submission into which he hurried the country at the Restoration; and makes the following candid reflection on the subsequent punishment of the regicides.