A Character of King Charles the Second Part 2

After all this, when some rough Strokes of the Pencil have made several Parts of the Picture look a little hard, it is a Justice that would be due to every Man, much more to a Prince, to make same Amends, and to reconcile Men as much as may be to it by the last finishing.

He had as good a Claim to a kind Interpretation as most Men. First as a _Prince_: living and dead, generous and well-bred Men will be gentle to them; next as an _unfortunate Prince_ in the beginning of his Time, and a _gentle_ one in the rest.

A Prince neither sharpened by his Misfortunes whilst Abroad, nor by his Power when restored, is such a shining Character, that it is a Reproach not to be so dazzled with it, as not to be able to see a Fault in its full Light. It would be a Scandal in this Case to have an exact Memory. And if all who are akin to his Vices, should mourn for him, never Prince would be better attended to his Grave. He is under the Protection of common Frailty, that must engage Men for their own sakes not to be too severe, where they themselves have so much to answer.

What therefore an angry Philosopher would call _Lewdness_, let frailer Men call a Warmth and Sweetness of the Blood, that would not be confined in the communicating itself; an over-flowing of Good-nature, of which he had such a Stream, that it would not be restrained within the Banks of a crabbed and unsociable Virtue.

If he had sometimes less _Firmness_ than might have been wished; let the kindest Reason be given, and if that should be wanting, the best Excuse. I would a.s.sign the Cause of it to be his loving at any rate to be _easy_, and his deserving the more to be indulged in it, by his desiring that every body else should be so.

If he sometimes let a _Servant fall_, let it be examined whether he did not _weigh_ so much upon his Master, as to give him a fair Excuse. That _Yieldingness_, whatever Foundations it might lay to the Disadvantage of Posterity, was a Specifick to preserve us in Peace for his own Time. If he loved too much to lie upon his own Down-bed of Ease, his Subjects had the Pleasure, during his Reign, of lolling and stretching upon theirs. As a Sword is sooner broken upon a Feather-bed than upon a Table, so his Pliantness broke the blow of a present Mischief much better than a more immediate Resistance would perhaps have done.

Ruin saw this, and therefore removed him first to make way for further Overturnings.

If _he dissembled_; let us remember, first, that he was a King, and that Dissimulation is a Jewel of the Crown; next, that it is very hard for a Man not to do sometimes too much of that, which he concludeth necessary for him to practice. Men should consider, that as there would be no false Dice, is there were no true ones, so if Dissembling is grown universal, it ceaseth to be soul play, having an implied Allowance by the general Practice. He that was so often forced to dissemble in his own Defence, might the better have the privilege sometimes to be the Aggressor, and to deal with Men at their own Weapon.

Subjects are apt to be as arbitrary in their _Censure_, as the most a.s.suming Kings can be in their Power. If there might be matter for Objections, there is not less reason for Excuses; The Defects laid to his Charge, are such as may claim Indulgence from Mankind.

Should no body throw a Stone at his Faults but those who are free from them, there would be but a slender Shower.

What private Man will throw Stones at him because he _loved_? Or what Prince, because he _dissembled_?

If he either _trusted_, or _forgave_ his _Enemies_, or in some Cases _neglected_ his _Friends_, more than could in Strictness be allowed; let not those Errors be so arraigned as take away the Privilege that seemeth to be due to Princely Frailties. If Princes are under the Misfortune of being accused to govern ill, their Subjects have the less right to fall hard upon them, since they generally so little deserve to be governed well.

The truth is, the Calling of a King, with all its glittering, hath such an unreasonable weight upon it, that they may rather expect to be lamented, than to be envied; for being set upon a Pinacle, where they are exposed to Censure, if they do not do more to answer Mens Expectations, than corrupted Nature will allow.

It is but Justice therefore to this Prince, to give all due Softenings to the less shining Parts of his Life; to offer Flowers and Leaves to hide, instead of using Aggravations to expose them.

Let his Royal Allies than lie soft upon him, and cover him from harsh and unkind Censures; which though they should not be unjust, can never clear themselves from being indecent.

Political, Moral and Miscellaneous

Thoughts _and_ Reflections,

_By the Marquis of_ HALIFAX.

POLITICAL THOUGHTS AND REFLECTIONS.

_Of Fundamentals._

Every Party, when they find a Maxim for their turn, they presently call it a Fundamental, they think they nail it with a Peg of Iron, whereas in truth they only tie it with a wisp of Straw.

The word soundeth so well that the Impropriety of it hath been the less observed. But as weighty as the word appeareth, no Feather hath been more blown about in the World than this word, _Fundamental_.

It is one of those Mistakes that at sometimes may be of use, but it is a Mistake still.

Fundamental is used as Men use their Friends; commend them when they have need of them, and when they fall out, find a hundred Objections to them.

Fundamental is a Pedestal that Men set every thing upon that they would not have broken. It is a Nail every body would use to fix that which is good for them: for all Men would have that Principle to be immoveable, that serves their use at the time.

Every thing that is created is Mortal, _ergo_ all Fundamentals of human Creation will die.

A true Fundamental must be like the Foundation of a House; if it is undermined the whole House falleth.

The Fundamentals in Divinity have been changed in several Ages of the World.

They have made no difficulty in the several Councils, to destroy and excommunicate Men for a.s.serting Things that at other Times were called Fundamentals.

Philosophy, Astronomy, _&c._ have changed their Fundamentals as the Men of Art no doubt called them at the time. Motion of the Earth, _&c._

Even in Morality one may more properly say, There _should be_ Fundamentals allowed, than that there _are_ any which in Strictness can be maintained.

However this is the least uncertain Foundation: Fundamental is less improperly applied here than any where else.

Wise and good Men will in all Ages stick to some Fundamentals, look upon them as sacred, and preserve an inviolable Respect for them; but Mankind in general make Morality a more malleable thing than it ought to be.

There is then no certain Fundamental but in _Nature_, and yet _there_ are Objections too. It is a Fundamental in Nature that the Son should not kill the Father, and yet the Senate of _Venice_ gave a Reward to a Son who brought in his Father's Head, according to a Proclamation.

_Salus Populi_ is an unwritten Law, yet that doth not hinder but that it is sometimes very visible; and as often as it is so, it supersedeth all other Laws which are subordinate Things compared.

The great Punishments upon Self-murder, are Arguments that it was rather a tempting Sin to be discouraged than an unnatural Act.

It is a Fundamental that where a Man intendeth no hurt he should receive none, yet Manslaughter, _&c._ are Cases of Mercy.

That a Boy under Ten shall not suffer Death, yet where _Malitia supplet aetatem_, otherwise.

That there were Witches--much shaken of late.

That the King is not to be deceived in his Grant--The practical Fundamental the contrary.

That what is given to G.o.d cannot be alienated. Yet in practice it is, Treaties, _&c._ and even by the Church itself, when they get a better bargain by it.

I can make no other Definition of a true Fundamental than this: _viz._ That whatever a Man hath a desire to do or to hinder, if he hath uncontested and irresistable Power to effect it, that he will certainly do it.

If he thinketh he hath that Power, though he hath it not, he will certainly go about it.

Some would define a Fundamental to be the settling the Laws of Nature and common Equity in such a sort as that they may be well administered: even in this case there can be nothing _fixed_, but it must _vary_ for the Good of the whole.

A Const.i.tution cannot make itself; some body made it, not at once but at several times. It is alterable; and by that draweth nearer Perfection; and without suiting itself to differing Times and Circ.u.mstances, it could not live. Its Life is prolonged by changing seasonably the several Parts of it at several times.

The Reverence that is given to a Fundamental, in a general unintelligible Notion, would be much better applyed to that _Supremacy or Power_ which is set up in every Nation in differing Shapes, that altereth the Const.i.tution as often as the Good of the People requireth it.