The Visions of England Part 25

His fall may be traced to several causes: to the fact that the puritan party proper, who supported him, the 'sober men' mentioned by Baxter 'that called his father no better than a traitorous hypocrite,' had not power to resist the fanatic cabal of army chiefs: to the necessity he was under of protecting some justly-odious confederates of Oliver: his own want of ability or energy to govern,--a point fully recognized during Oliver's supremacy; and to his own honourable decision not to 'have a drop of blood shed on his poor account.' Yet there is ample evidence to show that Richard, had he chosen, might have made a struggle to retain the throne,--sufficient, at least, to have thus deluged the kingdom.

Richard's life was pa.s.sed in great quiet after 1660: Charles II, according to Clarendon, with a wise and humorous lenity, not thinking it 'necessary to inquire after a man so long forgotten.' His letters reveal a man of affectionate and honest disposition; he uses the Puritan phraseology of the day without leaving a sense of nausea in the reader's mind. At Hursley he was buried at a good old age in 1712.

F: p. 152

_A nation's craven rage_; The want of public spirit in England shown during the war of 1745-6 is astonis.h.i.+ng. 'England,' wrote Henry Fox, 'is for the first comer . . . Had 5,000 [French troops] landed in any part of this island a week ago, I verily believe the entire conquest of it would not have cost them a battle.' And other weighty testimonies might be added, in support of Lord Mahon's view as to the great probability of the Prince's success, had he been allowed by his followers to march upon London from Derby.

This apathy and the panic which followed found their natural issue in the sanguinary punishment of the followers of Prince Charles. 'The city and the generality,' wrote H. Walpole in August, 1746, 'are very angry that so many rebels have been pardoned.' The vindictive cruelty then shown makes, in truth (if we compare the magnitude and duration of the rebellion for which punishment was to be exacted), an unsatisfactory contrast to the leniency of 1660. But History supplies only too numerous proofs that a century's march in civilisation may be always undone at once by the demons of Panic or of Party in the hour of their respective triumphs.

G: p. 169

_Ripe to wed with Liberty_; Looking at the American War of Independence without party-pa.s.sion and distortion, as should now at least be possible to Englishmen, the main cause must be acknowledged to lie simply in the growth and geographical position of the Colonies, which had brought them to the age of natural liberty, and had begun to fit them for its exercise:--facts which it was equally in accordance with nature that the Fatherland should fail to perceive. For the causes which gradually determined American resistance we must look, (as regards us), not to the blundering English legislation after 1760,--to the formalism of Grenville, the subterfuges of Franklin,--but to the whole course of our commercial policy since the Revolution: As regards the Colonies, to the extinction of the power of France in America by the Treaty of Paris in 1763: (Lecky: ch. v; Mahon: ch. xliii).

The Stamp Act of 1765 brought home, indeed, to a rapidly-developing people the supremacy claimed across the Atlantic; but the obnoxious taxation which it imposed, (despite the splendid sophistry of Chatham), cannot be shown to differ essentially from the trade restrictions and monopolies enacted in long series after 1688, as the result of the predominance obtained at the Revolution by the commercial cla.s.ses in this country, and which so far as 1765 the colonies openly recognized as legal.

Going, however, beyond these minor motives, the true cause was unquestionably that the time for separate life, for America to be herself, had come. This was a crisis which home-legislation could do little to create or to avert: a natural law, which only worked itself out ostensibly by political manoeuvres and military operations, so ill-managed as to be rarely creditable to either side;--and, regarded simply as a 'struggle for existence,' is, in the eye of impartial history, hardly within the scope of praise or censure.

But it was a neutrally tinted background like this, which could most effectually bring into full relief the great qualities of the one great man who was prominent in the conflict.