1769. I am undone Strictures on King Charles the Firft.. help! help! why, Oldfworth! oh, where are you all? is this a time to stop your noses? call up my chaplains: where's Caldicut pray, good Caldicut, pray, pray, plague confume you, why do you not pray. Concordat cum originali. SIR, NATHANIEL BRENT. To Mr. H. C. August 2, 1769. S you begin your remarks on my with telling As you the world you was highly entertained with it, I am encouraged, to addrefs this to you, which it is hoped will be no less entertaining, being intended to affift you in viewing things in the light of truth, which is ever agreeable to a good and generous mind; fuch I would fuppofe yours to be, notwithstanding what you fay of my regaling myfelf with calves bead on the 30th of January. As to the doctor, though you say I took pains to ridicule him, I affure you I am far from contradicting you, who reprefent him as an honour to the univerfity, and greatly esteemed, &c. But if he, or any one else, makes himself ridiculous, or fomething worse, by affirming that black is white, darkness is light, and, in direct contradiction to our Saviour, that the tree is very good which brings forth evil fruit in abundance, who can help it? You, indeed, will not believe that this is any diminution of the doctor's character. No.-And one reafon you give is, that it is not only the doctor's opinion, but the opinion of numberless perfons, that Charles I. was the beft of kings. This I very well knew, though I hope and believe the number is decreafing a-pace. But how does this vindicate him? Are not the believers of tranfubftantiation altogether as numerous ? You fay you believe the doctor meant offence to none. I do not fay the contrary, but may not the fame be faid of the defenders of the monftrous abfurdity mentioned? And may not I be allowed to fay, without offence, that 1 take the one to be as credible as the other, and can as easily believe all they mean by that bard word as I can, that Charles I. was the best of kings? And tho' the doctor meant offence to none, he might eafily know, though he might not confider, that what he afferted would give offence; fince it is evident 431 the lovers of truth cannot but be offended at the publication of a palpable falfehood; nor can the lovers of their country be pleafed to find such a tyrannical invader of its rights and liberties fo highly extolled and revered. Certainly, you fay, the king that lays. down his crown and life in defence of his religion may be properly called the best of kings. Now, Sir, permit me to afkwhat was his religion? Was it that of which we have this fummary account in facred writ; (without which every thing else bearing that name is nothing worth) He hath fhewed thee man what is good, and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Was any thing more visible than the want of juffice, mercy, and humility in his conduct? In early life he appeared to be much a ftranger to the tender fentiments of humanity. Hifto rians agree in giving him the character of fullen and morofe, obftinate and perverse: "Nor did he in his outward behaviour take any pains to oblige any perfons whatfoever." On the contrary, when he came to the throne, his pride pushed him on to repeated acts of iniquity and cruelty, in great variety. Nor was it in defence of his religion that he hazarded the lofs of his crown and his life. No :It was in defence of his unlimited prerogative, and of his undoubted right to opprefs and inflave, to plunder and plague his fubjects. It was not in defence of the church (as you fuggeft); for it is well known they were members of the church of England who firft drew the fword against him, which he forced them to do. The earl of Effex, the parliament's general, whofe very name raised an army, was epifcopal. Lord Clarendon fays he was as much devoted as any man to the book of common prayer, and obliged all his fervants to be prefent with him at it. The fame noble author names several other eminent men, on the fide of the parliament, who were friends to the ecclefiaftical establishment, (the limits of this letter will not admit of my being more particular) adding-" It is palt difpute with reafonable men, that if there was any fault in oppofing the king's measures, and taking up arms against him, it must be imputed to the Church of England, 432 Strictures on King Charles the Firft. Aug. a partizan of any faction against the catholick, apoftolick, Roman religion." And he was careful to give the moft convincing proofs of the truth of what he faid. "During the first 15 years of his reign (fays an eminent hiftorian) the Roman-catholicks were not only fcreened from the rigor of the law, but even encouraged and countenanced to fuch a degree, that he trufted them with the most important offices, as of privy-counfellors, fecretaries of ftate, &c." Much more might be mentioned to this purpose; but I have not room. You tell our readers, I affect to be arch in afking the doctor many questions ; and that to answer all my interrogatories is needlefs, and fo you dexterously get rid of this troublesome business, and take no manner of notice of any thing I had urged to prove that the doctor's affertion is falfe, and that Charles could not be the best of kings. Now should you not, my friend, as the doctor's vindicator, have undertaken to fhew, either that the black narrative of his conduct is not true, or, if true, is fufficiently confiftent with his me riting the character given him by the doctor? But this you prudently decline,-adding-let us fee what bef torians write of this great, good, and juft king. And then (because reports, you fay, are often true) you mention a certain report of a certain author about a certain propofal made by Oliver to the king, with which his confcience, it feems, would not permit him to comply; and you infer from thence, that the king was far from being guilty of those defigns, with which his enemies taxed him. As to the report, whether true or falfe, it is not at all material. To be acquainted with the king's true character, and to know whether he governed incomparably well, and was confequently the beft of kings, we are to attend to his conduct a great number of years before Oliver appeared on the ftage. Nor was he taxed with any defigns, but fuch as a series of notorious, indifputable facs, proved he had formed. That he figned to overthrow the ancient confi. tution and government of this kingdom, and to render himself abfolute and independent of parliaments, his whole hiftory puts beyond all rational doubt. As to bis political errors, you fay, who as to blame? Let Philanthropos anfwer is question. You then add-In his te, p. 93. he observes (by the way, e note is not mine, but the editor's) at all the Stuarts were ruined by the e-ferving adulations of the high church rgy, who fo infifted on paffive obedience non-refiftance, that even James the cond was lulled afleep.. Hereupon other question follows: Is not this, , an apology for an ill-advised, unhap. family?—A noble apology indeed! -This introduces what you fancy will rve the fame purpose; for thus you roceed: Let us now attend to what at amiable divine, the bishop of St. avid's, obferves in his excellent fermon efore the House of Lords, January last. Corrupt and interested inftructors npreffed his youthful mind with exalt d notions of kingly power. Court ycophants were not wanting to conirm him in fentiments that were flatering to his age and ftation. The eigns of the laft race of princes furithed precedents to authorize exerion of power unknown to the conftitution. And the opinions of those who prefided in the feats of judgment, gave a fanction to ideas that had been Carefully inculcated, and (his lordship adds) willingly embraced."I have not feen the fermon, but conclude, from this fpecimen, that it is really what you call it, an excellent one, and the preacher an amiable divine; but am far from thinking, that what his lordship here fays (which will well bear a repetition) was intended for a vindication of the king's conduct, and cannot but wonder how you came to cite it as fuch. His lordship doubt lefs gives a true account of the matter. The king's natural inclinations to arbitrary government were cherish ed and ftrengthened by corrupt and wicked tutors and minifters, who find ing what would pleafe him and fecure their intereft in him, did not fail to repeat it, till he refolved to venture his all, by exerting an unconftitutional power, and to rule defpotically, or not at all. That the Lauds, the Sibthorps, the Manwarings, &c. &c. had a hand in kindling the war, and destroying fo many thousands of their fellow-fubjects, is indifputable: but can be, who was influenced by them, and readily August, 1769. - 433 hearkened to them, be confidered as innocent? Or be, who willingly gave the preference to the worst of counsellors, be deemed the best of kings? I am fully perfuaded his lordship has not given, will not give him this character. To your question then, who was to blame? The answer is- -boththe prompters and prompted. He ran into errors which he might and fhould have avoided, and which they fhould have diffuaded him from, but encouraged and promoted; and fo beth were guilty. You, indeed, feem to be of opinion, that only his advisers were fo; or rather, that all of them were in a manner innocent, and very little harm was done by the king or his minifters. But if fome things were amifs, they must be placed wholly to the account of the corrupt instructors and court fycophants (I prefume you will except Laud, who, you know, was a martyr as well as his mafter) and' no part thereof charged on the king. Thus, fir, you have furnished the convicted criminal at the bar with a notable defence. When the judge afks him what he has to fay for himself; "My lord, fays he, I was unhappily born with a thievifh difpofition, which thofe who had the care of my education ufed no endeavours to check, but rather encouraged. When grown up, I fell into bad company, whofe advice and example corrupted me. My affociates made me believe there was no harm in taking a little money now and then from other people without their confent. This notion they inculcated, and I willingly embraced, and practifed accordingly. They put me upon what I did. This your lordship will please to confider, and regard them as the criminals. I affure you, my lord, if I had not been ill-advised, I should not have taken fuch liberties. I therefore humbly intreat, and hope your lordhip's pardon."- -What reply the judge may be fuppofed to make, it is needless to say. You fay the king made an atonement, &c. and talk of his repentance. But what atonement could he make for all the defolations he occafioned? And is repentance, think you, fufficient to entitle him to the character of the best of kings? It is hoped many of the robbers and murderers now-a-days are penitent be Iii fore 434 Reply to H. C. concerning the Afcenfion. I believe, fir, you think it is high time to conclude this long epiftle, and (though I am inclined to make fome additions) I think fo too. Near the clofe of yours, you exhort your readers to raft a veil over bis infirmities. This I have done, having faid little or nothing of his fuperftition, &c. and as to his enormities, his oppreffions, extortions, perfecutions, breach of faith, &c. (to which I do not give the foft name of infirmities) over which you caft a veil, I have made but a very brief mention of them. Nor fhould I have done fo much as that, if Dr. N. had not paid fo little regard to the truth of history, and to those words of the divine prophet, (Ifai. v. 20.) Woe unto them that call evil good. I hope he is forry for it, while he wishes that you (who have faid fo little to the purpofe) had faid no more than be. I with you both all happiness, and am, fir, his and your humble fervant, PHILANTHROPOS. To the AUTHOR of the LONDON SIR, I N reading the note in your lat Magazine, which gives the advice of H. C. to the writers on the afcenfion, I have confulted the text he refers them to, John iii. 2. and find thofe writers are not cenfured thereby, Lo far as they aim at a negative defcription of the fpiritual body; for al though it doth not yet appear what we all be, it may, nevertheless, appear what we fhall not be, at leaft it does appear that que shall not be fiefb and blood; being fo faid in facred fcripture. I own your correspondent T. G. comes under the cenfure, when he talks of diftinétion of fex; this I agree with H. C. to be a matter of his own" conceiving and prefuming," and better let alone. Not fo the country curate Ang. and city minifter, whole letters are wrote with too much candour and m defty to be troublesome to the public : not can I fuppofe you intend to fuppref what may remain of them; for the motive of inquiry in the one, and the benevolent defign of the other of the correfpondents, muft certainly fecura them a place in a work fo friendly to mankind as your Magazine. What though the fubject be not in itself of the first importance, it is made very fignificant by its connec tions; and in an age of abounding fcepticism, fhould we not be encouraged in every attempt of establishing our felves and one another in a rational expectance of future realities; and, of clearing away the obfcurity which prejudice has thrown on the facred wris tings? As to the fcribble I fent you in the courfe of the last month, I fhall be much obliged by its infertion ; not only as I think it may throw fome light on the fubject, but as I hope to receive much more than I give by the remarks of others on my manner of treating it. The propriety of my requeft is fub- July 21, 1769. The Trial of Mofes Alexander. HE trial of the late unhappy Mr. Aler THE "Mofes Alexander, merchant, was indicted for forging an indorsement, the name John Brown, on a bill of exchange, to this purport: Six weeks after date pay to Mr. John Browsy "Leeds, 19th of Jan. 1768. or order, 981. 6s. value received, as adrifed by Richard Aked." Directed to Mr. Nathaniel Aked, No, 3 Prince's-street, near the Royal Exchange, London, and publishing the fame, wellknowing it to have been forged, with intent to defraud Ralph and Robert Fryer. The witreffes were exarsized apart. Ralph Fryer. I received this bill (bolding one in bis band) the 23d of January, 178, of Mr. Ive; it is for 981. 6s. I faw the counting-houfe. He faid he was very fony prifoner about two or three days after in our he could not oblige me with an-hundred pounds, but he had fent me a very good bill 69. The Trial of Mofes Alexander. Mr. Aked (that is this bill in my hand). believe I had not difcounted it. 2. What day in January was this that you nd this converfation with him? Frger. It might be about the 26th. I nefaw Mr. Alexander to my knowledge bere. He told me he should not want it for me time. He applied to me the 29th of anuary, 1763, for 21. I let him have it. e applied to me the tft of February for 1. more. I told him then I thought he d it to ferve himself and not me, for it as of no service to me to come to me for e money fo foon after. I imagined he ould lend me the bill till it became due, e told me he had fome particular payments > make, and he had been difappointed, ut he should not come any more for fome ime. He came again on the 8th of Februry, then I let him have gol. more; that ras 701. in all. I believe then I told him retty much the fame as 1 did the fecond ime. He told me he wanted the money, nd he must have it. He applied the 26th f February for 101. then I lent him 101. his was money lent, because we had fome other bills between us. When the bill became due, it was prefented for payment, which was the 4th of March: it was noed, protefted, and brought to me, and I paid the money, He gave me a note of hand to be accountable for this bill of 98 1. 5a. I believe on the 12th of March 1 infifted upon him either to indorse the bill, or give me a memorandum to be accountable for the value of it. After that I never thought any thing about the writing. Then I thought there was a great deal of likeness between the writing of the memorandum, and the indorfement John Brown. I told him I thought John Brown and he learned at fchool by one mafter. He asked me why. I told him, because I thought there was a good deal of likeness in the writing. He faid, One man may write like another. I told him I thought the indorsement, John Brown, was his hand-writing. He anfwered, It was immaterial to me, but I fhould have my money in two or three days. I had alked him feveral times about John Brown, but he never would give me an answer where he lived; but faid I fhould have the money in a few days. He defired I would not trouble my head about it. Who was this bill presented to? Fryer. To Mr. Aked's houfe in Prince'sfreet. I discounted the bill with Fothering and Barber in Watling-ftreet. I gave them the cash for it. After 1 received the bill I went to Mr. Nathaniel Aked myfelf. I could not fee him, but he came to me and refufed and protefted it; fo I paid it. I wrote to Richard Aked two or three times, and I received for anfwer from him, That he never wrote fuch a bill in his life. I 435 Fryer. He propofed he would take up the 981. 6s. bill in a few days. I applied a great many times for the money. He told me I fhould have it in a few days; fome times the next day; fome.imes in two or three days. 2. Have you feen the prifoner write? Fryer. I have. 2. Look at the words John Brown on the back of this bill, and tell me whofe handwriting you take it to be. Fryer. I told the prifoner I believed it to be his own, and I believe it now. 2. Do you know fuch a man a John Brown? Fryer. No; I know no fuch man; nor could I ever learn from the prisoner where he was, 2. By what do you form your judgment, that this is the prifoner's hand-writing? Fryer. By having seen him write this memorandum, and by receiving several letters from him. Crofs-Examination. 2. Will you fwear you ever faw him write any thing befides this memorandum? Fryer. No; I will not fwear I have. 2. How came you not to profecute him fooner? Fryer. It was through his promises that we should have the money. Q. How came you to change your mind and prefer this bill? Fryer. Mr. Aked of Leeds infifted upon it that we fhould find out the forgery. The prifoner had promifed, from time to time, that we fhould have the money, and we be came bankrupts, which put it out of our power to prefer a bill against him or any one elfe. There were feveral people that gave me reason to believe it was a forgery. Tatlock and Parry did. William Parry. I have known the prifoner feveral years, and have feen him write often. 2. Look at the body of this bill and the indorsement, and tell whofe hand-writing you take it to be, Parry. I take both the body and indorfement to be the prifoner's hand-writing. The bill read. "Leeds, 19th of Jan, 1968. Six weeks after date pay to Mr. John Brown, or order, 981. 6s. value, received, as advised by Richard Aked." Directed to Mr. Nathaniel Aked, No. 23, Prince's-street, near the Royal Exchange, London. On the back, John Brown. 2. Look at the acceptance, N. A. Parry. That I can't fwear to; but the body of the bill, the direction, and indorfement, John Brown, I swear to. Croft |