mean and crouching spirit; that incessant homage to mere rank and birth; that constant confusion between power and right; that ignorant admiration for every thing which is old, and that still more ignorant contempt for every thing which is new;-all these features became gradually fainter; and authors, relying upon the patronage of the people, began to advocate the claims of their new allies with a boldness upon which they could not have ventured in any previous age. 238 From all these things there resulted consequences of vast importance. From this simplification, independence, and diffusion239 of knowledge, it necessarily happened, that the issue of those great disputes to which I have alluded, became, in the eighteenth century, more generally known than would have been possible in any preceding century. It was now known that theological and political questions were being constantly agitated, in which genius and learning were on one side, and orthodoxy and tradition on the other. It became known that the points which were mooted, were not only as to the credibility of particular facts, but also as to the truth of general principles, with which the interests and happiness of Man were intimately concerned. Disputes which had hitherto been confined to a very small part of society, began to spread far and 239 When Le Blanc visited England, in the middle of the reign of George II., the custom of authors relying upon the patronage of individuals was beginning to die away, and the plan of publishing by subscription had become general. See the interesting details in Le Blanc, Lettres d'un Français, vol. i. pp. 305-308; and, for the former state of things, see vol. ii. pp. 148-153. Burke, who came to London in 1750, observes, with surprise, that "writers of the first talents are left to the capricious patronage of the public. Notwithstanding discouragement, literature is cultivated to a high degree." Prior's Life of Burke, p. 21. This increasing independence also appears from the fact that, in 1762, we find the first instance of a popular writer attacking public men by name; authors having previously confined themselves "to the initials only of the great men whom they assailed." Mahon's Hist. of England, vol. v. p. 19. The feud between literature and rank may be further illustrated by an entry in Holcroft's diary for 1798, Mem. of Holcroft, vol. iii. p. 28. 239 In England, the marked increase in the number of books took place during the latter half of the eighteenth century, and particularly after 1756. See some valuable evidence in Journal of the Statistical Society, vol. iii. pp. 383, 384. To this I may add, that between 1753 and 1792, the circulation of newspapers was more than doubled. Hunt's Hist. of Newspapers, vol. i. p. 252. wide, and suggest doubts that served as materials for national thought. The consequence was, that the spirit of inquiry became every year more active, and more general; the desire for reform constantly increased; and if affairs had been allowed to run on in their natural course, the eighteenth century could not have passed away without decisive and salutary changes both in the church and the state. But soon after the middle of this period, there unfortunately arose a series of political combinations which disturbed the march of events, and eventually produced a crisis so full of danger, that, among any other people, it would certainly have ended either in a loss of liberty or in a dissolution of government. This disastrous reaction, from the effects of which England has, perhaps, barely recovered, has never been studied with any thing like the care its importance demands; indeed, it is so little understood, that no historian has traced the opposition between it and that great intellectual movement of which I have just sketched an outline. On this account, as also with the view of giving more completeness to the present chapter, I intend to examine its most important epochs, and point out, so far as I am able, the way in which they are connected with each other. According to the scheme of this Introduction, such an inquiry must, of course, be very cursory, as its sole object is to lay a foundation for those general principles, without which history is a mere assemblage of empirical observations, unconnected, and therefore unimportant. It must likewise be remembered, that as the circumstances about to be considered were not social, but political, we are the more liable to err in our conclusions respecting them; and this partly because the materials for the history of a people are more extensive, more indirect, and therefore less liable to be garbled, than are those for the history of a government; and partly because the conduct of small bodies of men, such as ministers and kings, is always more capricious, that is to say, less regulated by known laws, than is the conduct of those large bodies collectively called society, or a nation.240 With this 240 The apparent caprice and irregularity in small numbers arise from the precautionary remark, I will now endeavour to trace what, in a mere political point of view, is the reactionary and retrogressive period of English history. It must be considered as a most fortunate circumstance, that after the death of Anne,241 the throne should be occupied for nearly fifty years by two princes, aliens in manners and in country, of whom one spoke our language but indifferently, and the other knew it not at all.242 The immediate predecessors of George III. were, indeed, of so sluggish a disposition, and were so profoundly ignorant of the people they undertook to govern,243 that, notwithstanding their arbitrary temper, there was no danger of their organizing a party to extend the boundaries of the royal prerogative.244 And as they were foreigners, perturbations produced by the operation of minor and usually unknown laws. In large numbers, these perturbations have a tendency to balance each other; and this I take to be the sole foundation of the accuracy obtained by striking an average. If we could refer all phenomena to their laws, we should never use averages. Of course, the expression capricious is, strictly speaking, inaccurate, and is merely a measure of our ignorance. 211 The temporary political reaction under Anne is well related by Lord Cowper, in his Hist. of Parties, printed in appendix to Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vol. iv. pp. 411, 412. This able work of Lord Campbell's, though rather inaccurate for the earlier period, is particularly valuable for the history of the eighteenth century. 242 See Reminiscences of the Courts of George I. and George II. by Horace Walpole, pp. lv. xciv.; and Mahon's Hist. of England, vol. i. pp. 100, 235. The fault of George II. was in his bad pronunciation of English; but George I. was not even able to pronounce it badly, and could only converse with his minister, Sir Robert Walpole, in Latin. The French court saw this state of things with great pleasure; and in December 1714, Madame de Maintenon wrote to the Princess des Ursins (Lettres inédites de Maintenon, vol. iii. p. 157): "On dit que le nouveau roi d'Angleterre se dégoûte de ses sujets, et que ses sujets sont dégoûtés de lui. Dieu veuille remettre le tout en meilleur ordre!" On the effect this produced on the language spoken at the English court, compare Le Blanc, Lettres d'un François, vol. i. p. 159. 243 In 1715, Leslie writes respecting George I., that he is "a stranger to you, and altogether ignorant of your language, your laws, customs, and constitution." Somers Tracts, vol. xiii. p. 703. 244 Great light has been thrown upon the character of George II. by the recent publication of Lord Hervey's Memoirs; a curious work, which fully confirms what we know from other sources respecting the king's ignorance of English politics. Indeed, that prince cared for nothing but soldiers and women; and his highest ambition was, to combine the reputation of a great general with that of a successful libertine. Besides the testimony of Lord Hervey, it is certain, from other authorities, that George II. was despised as well as disliked, and was spoken of contemptuously by observers of his they never had sufficient sympathy with the English church to induce them to aid the clergy in their natural desire to recover their former power.245 Besides this, the fractious and disloyal conduct of many of the hierarchy must have tended to alienate the regard of the sovereign, as it had already cost them the affection of the people.246 These circumstances, though in themselves they may be considered trifling, were in reality of great importance, because they secured to the nation the progress of that spirit of inquiry, which, if there had been a coalition between the crown and the church, it would have been at character, and even by his own ministers. See the Marchmont Papers, vol. i. pp. 29, 181, 187. In reference to the decline of the royal authority, it is important to observe, that since the accession of George I. none of our sovereigns have been allowed to be present at state deliberations. See Bancroft's American Revolution, vol. ii. p. 47, and Campbell's Chancellors, vol. iii. p. 191. 245 See the remarks said to be written by Bishop Atterbury, in Somers Tracts, vol. xiii. p. 534, contrasting the affection Anne felt for the church with the coldness of George I. The whole of the pamphlet (pp. 521-541) ought to be read. It affords a curious picture of a baffled churchman. 246 The ill-feeling which the Church of England generally bore against the government of the two first Georges was openly displayed, and was so pertinacious as to form a leading fact in the history of England. In 1722, Bishop Atterbury was arrested, because he was known to be engaged in a treasonable conspiracy with the Pretender. As soon as he was seized, the church offered up prayers for him. "Under the pretence," says Lord Mahon, -"under the pretence of his being afflicted with the gout, he was publicly prayed for in most of the churches of London and Westminster." Mahon's Hist. of England, vol. ii. p. 38. See also Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 988, and vol. viii. p. 347. At Oxford, where the clergy have long been in the ascendant, they made such efforts to instil their principles, as to call down the indignation of the elder Pitt, who, in a speech in Parliament in 1754, denounced that university, which he said had for many years "been raising a succession of treason -there never was such a seminary!" Walpole's Mem. of George II. vol. i. p. 413. Compare the Bedford Correspondence, vol. i. pp. 594, 595, with Harris's Life of Hardwicke, vol. ii. p. 383; and on the temper of the clergy generally after the death of Anne, Parl. Hist. vol. vii. pp. 541, 542; Bowles's Life of Ken, vol. ii. pp. 188, 189; Monk's Life of Bentley, vol. i. pp. 370, 426. The immediate consequence of this was very remarkable. For the government and the dissenters, being both opposed by the church, naturally combined together: the dissenters using all their influence against the Pretender, and the government protecting them against ecclesiastical prosecutions. See evidence of this in Doddridge's Correspond. and Diary, vol. i. p. 30, vol. ii. p. 321, vol. iii. pp. 110, 125, vol. iv. pp. 428, 436, 437; Hutton's Life of Himself, pp. 159, 160; Parl. Hist. vol. xxviii. pp. 11, 393, vol. xxix. pp. 1434, 1463; Memoirs of Priestley, vol. ii. p. 506; Life of Wakefield, vol. i. p. 220. tempted to stifle. Even as it was, some attempts were occasionally made; but they were comparatively speaking rare, and they lacked the vigour which they would have possessed, if there had been an intimate alliance between the temporal and spiritual authorities. Indeed, the state of affairs was so favourable, that the old Tory faction, pressed by the people and abandoned by the crown, was unable for more than forty years to take any share in the government.247 At the same time, considerable progress, as we shall hereafter see, was made in legislation; and our statute-book, during that period, contains ample evidence of the decline of the powerful party by which England had once been entirely ruled. But by the death of George II. the political aspect was suddenly changed, and the wishes of the sovereign became once more antagonistic to the interests of the people. What made this the more dangerous was, that, to a superficial observer, the accession of George III. was one of the most fortunate events that could have occurred. The new king was born in England, spoke English as his mother tongue,248 and was said to look upon Hanover as a foreign country, whose interests were to be considered of subordinate importance.24 At the same time, the last hopes of the House of Stuart were now destroyed;250 the 247 The year 1762 forms an era in the history of the two factions, since it witnessed the destruction of that monopoly of honours and emoluments which the Whigs had held for forty-five years." Cooke's Hist. of Party, vol. ii. p. 406. Compare Albemarle's Memoirs of Rockingham, vol. ii. p. 92. Lord Bolingbroke clearly foresaw what would happen in consequence of the accession of George I. Immediately after the death of Anne, he wrote to the Bishop of Rochester: "But the grief of my soul is this, I see plainly that the Tory party is gone." Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. ii. p. 651. 249 Grosley, who visited England only five years after the accession of George III., mentions the great effect produced upon the English when they heard the king pronounce their language without "a foreign accent.' Grosley's Tour to London, vol. ii. p. 106. It is well known, that the king, in his first speech, boasted of being a Briton; but what is, perhaps, less generally known, is, that the honour was on the side of the country: lustre," said the House of Lords in their address to him," what a lustre does it cast upon the name of Briton, when you, sir, are pleased to esteem it amongst your glories!" Parl. Hist. vol. xv. p. 986. What a 249 Parl. Hist. vol. xxix. p. 955; Walpole's Mem. of George III. vol. i. pp. 4, 110. 250 The accession of George III. is generally fixed on as the period when |