popery and despotism, and the deliverance is inestimable. By the expression popery, I do not mean the religious opinions in which the Catholics differ from the Protestants; I mean papal power considered politically. It was to that power that James II. was bigotedly devoted. Had he succeeded in establishing it, despotism must have followed. But every Englishman must feel the advantage which his country would derive, from possessing the Brunswick family unconnected with German dominions. Those dominions are incapable of defence by their own internal strength. Hamelen, the only fortress in the country, was taken and dismantled by Buonaparte. The King of Prussia can at any time take possession of Hanover, if it is not protected either by Russia or by Austria. If Great Britain is interested in its defence, she becomes thereby to a certain degree subservient to the views of Russia or Austria; a subserviency which every Englishman must regret.

CHAP. XX.

Characters of George II. and Queen Caroline.

I HAVE said in a former place, that the death of George II. did not appear to have occasioned much regret in the nation. I believe, that I am correct in this assertion. He has been reproached with having burnt the will of his father; Mr. Walpole, in his Reminiscences, gives a detailed account of Archbishop Wake's having produced the will at the Council table; of the King's having taken it, and walked out of the room without saying a word; and that neither the Archbishop nor any member of the Council had the courage to demand, that the will should be registered. But the King is unjustly reproached for this conduct. The will was really waste paper: for by the

common law, a King of England can dispose of no property by will. All his property, whether real or personal, is vested in him in his corporate capacity, and devolves on his successor.

During the reign of Queen Anne a circumstance happened, which made it necessary that this question should be discussed. King William had furnished the palace of Hampton Court: he made a will and appointed executors. A question arose, to whom did this furniture belong, to the executors of King William, or to Queen Anne, his successor? Eight of the most eminent lawyers gave their opinion, that the property belonged to the Queen. As the matter is curious, and the opinion short, I will here state the words in which it was given, with the names of the several lawyers who concurred in it.

"We the undersigned declare, that we hold it for undoubted law, that jewels, and other personal property of that nature, have ever been by the law of England denominated catalla, Anglice

chattels. We also declare, that by the same law of England, jewels and other personal chattels of that nature, which have been purchased by the King or Queen of England, and not disposed of during his or her life, do not descend on the death of such King or Queen to that person whom such King or Queen may have appointed executor of his or her will; but that they belong solely to that person who is successor to the Crown; and this law has been established by the opinion of lawyers, and has been ever approved and observed; and this we well know to be the law, from our own experience, from the writings of men learned in the law of England, from the books of the annals of decisions during the reigns of the several Kings of England, and from the records in our courts of justice; and to this opinion we have subscribed our names.

named persons, on the 24th December, 1708, Old Style, before me,

Tho. Trevor.”

In the year 1800, I had further occasion to consider this subject. Towards the close of the session, Sir John. Mitford, at that time Attorney General, brought in a Bill to enable the King to make a will of his personal property. The House was very thin, as it usually is at that season of the year. Sir John Mitford moved, that the bill should be read a second time the next day. I was a little startled at this, as it had the appearance of the bill being a measure, which Sir John Mitford wished to have passed through the House without observation. I pressed, that the second reading might be deferred for two or three days; he yielded at last, though with much reluctance. When the subject was the next time mentioned in the House, I suggested two points for his consideration. First, "whether the King's personal property, which was the expression used in the bill, was not too large and too indefinite; and I wished him to consider,