by the way in which the dissenters were beginning to organize
themselves into societies and synods. See, in the _Vernon
Correspond._ vol. ii. pp. 128-130, 133, 156, some curious
evidence of this, in letters written by Vernon, who was then
secretary of state; and on the apprehensions caused by the
increase of their schools, and by their systematic interference
in elections, see _Life of Archbishop Sharp_, edited by Newcome,
vol. i. pp. 125, 358. The church was eager to put down all
dissenters' schools; and in 1705, the Archbishop of York told the
House of Lords that he 'apprehended danger from the increase of
dissenters, and particularly from the many academies set up by
them.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. vi. pp. 492, 493. See also, on the
increase of their schools, pp. 1351, 1352.
[741] In _Somers Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 684, it is stated, that in the
reign of Charles II. 'this hard usage had begotten in the
dissenters the utmost animosity against the persecuting
churchmen.' Their increasing discontent, in the reign of Anne,
was observed by Calamy. See _Calamy's Own Life_, vol. ii. pp.
244, 255, 274, 284, 285.
[742] If the power of moving the passions be the proper test by which to
judge an orator, we may certainly pronounce Whitefield to be the
greatest since the apostles. His first sermon was delivered in
1736 (_Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. ii. pp. 102, 122); his
field-preaching began in 1739 (_Southey's Life of Wesley_, vol.
i. pp. 196, 197); and the eighteen thousand sermons which he is
said to have poured forth during his career of thirty-four years
(_Southey's Wesley_, vol. ii. p. 531) produced the most
astonishing effects on all classes, educated and uneducated. For
evidence of the excitement caused by this marvellous man, and of
the eagerness with which his discourses were read as well as
heard, see _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. ii. pp. 546, 547, and his
_Illustrations_, vol. iv. pp. 302-304; _Mem. of Franklin, by
Himself_, vol. i. pp. 161-167; _Doddridge's Correspond._ vol. iv.
p. 55; _Stewart's Philos. of the Mind_, vol. iii. pp. 291, 292;
_Lady Mary Montagu's Letters_, in her Works, 1803, vol. iv. p.
162; _Correspond. between Ladies Pomfret and Hartford_, 2nd edit.
1806, vol. i. pp. 138, 160-162; _Marchmont Papers_, vol. ii. p.
377.
[743] Of whom Mr. Macaulay has said (_Essays_, vol. i. p. 221, 3rd
edit.), that his 'genius for government was not inferior to that
of Richelieu;' and strongly as this is expressed, it will hardly
appear an exaggeration to those who have compared the success of
Wesley with his difficulties.
[744] It was in 1739 that Wesley first openly rebelled against the
church, and refused to obey the Bishop of Bristol, who ordered
him to quit his diocese. _Southey's Life of Wesley_, vol. i. pp.
226, 243. In the same year he began to preach in the fields. See
the remarkable entry in his _Journals_, p. 78, 29th March, 1739.
[745] They frankly confess that 'indifference has been another enemy to
the increase of the dissenting cause.' _Bogue and Bennett's Hist.
of the Dissenters_, vol. iv. p. 320. In _Newman's Development of
Christian Doctrine_, pp. 39-43, there are some remarks on the
diminished energy of Wesleyanism, which Mr. Newman seems to
ascribe to the fact that the Wesleyans have reached that point in
which 'order takes the place of enthusiasm.' p. 43. This is
probably true; but I still think that the larger cause has been
the more active one.
[746] Walpole, in his sneering way, mentions the spread of Methodism in
the middle of the eighteenth century (_Walpole's Letters_, vol.
ii. pp. 266, 272); and Lord Carlisle, in 1775, told the House of
Lords (_Parl. Hist._ vol. xviii. p. 634) 'that Methodism was
daily gaining ground, particularly in the manufacturing towns;'
while, to come down still later, it appears from a letter by the
Duke of Wellington to Lord Eldon(_Twiss's Life of Eldon_, vol.
ii. p. 35) that about 1808 it was making proselytes in the army.
These statements, though accurate, are somewhat vague; but we
have other and more precise evidence respecting the rapid growth
of religious dissent. According to a paper found in one of the
chests of William III., and printed by Dalrymple (_Memoirs_, vol.
ii. part ii., appendix to chapter i. p. 40), the proportion in
England of conformists to nonconformists was as 22-4/5 to 1.
Eighty-four years after the death of William, the dissenters,
instead of comprising only a twenty-third, were estimated at 'a
fourth part of the whole community.' Letter from Watson to the
Duke of Rutland, written in 1786, in _Life of Watson, Bishop of
Llandaff_, vol. i. p. 246. Since then, the movement has been
uninterrupted; and the returns recently published by government
disclose the startling fact, that on Sunday, 31st March 1851, the
members of the Church of England who attended morning service
only exceeded by one-half the Independents, Baptists, and
Methodists who attended at their own places of worship. See the
Census Table, in _Journal of Statist. Soc._ vol. xviii. p. 151.
If this rate of decline continues, it will be impossible for the
Church of England to survive another century the attacks of her
enemies.
[747] The treatment which the Wesleyans received from the clergy, many
of whom were magistrates, shows what would have taken place if
such violence had not been discouraged by the government. See
_Southey's Life of Wesley_, vol. i. pp. 395-406. Wesley has
himself given many details, which Southey did not think proper to
relate, of the calumnies and insults to which he and his
followers were subjected by the clergy. See _Wesley's Journals_,
pp. 114, 145, 178, 181, 198, 235, 256, 275, 375, 562, 619, 637,
646. Compare _Watson's Observations on Southey's Wesley_, pp.
173, 174; and for other evidence of the treatment of those who
differed from the church, see _Correspondence and Diary of
Doddridge_, vol. ii. p. 17, vol. iii. pp. 108, 131, 132, 144,
145, 156. Grosley, who visited England in 1765, says of
Whitefield, 'The ministers of the established religion did their
utmost to baffle the new preacher; they preached against him,
representing him to the people as a fanatic, a visionary, &c.
&c.; in fine, they opposed him with so much success, that they
caused him to be pelted with stones in every place where he
opened his mouth to the public.' _Grosley's Tour to London_,
Lond. 1772, vol. i. p. 356.
[748] That Wesleyanism encouraged dissent by imparting to it an orderly
character, which in some degree approximated to
church-discipline, is judiciously observed in _Bogue and
Bennett's History of the Dissenters_, vol. iii. pp. 165, 166. But
these writers deal rather too harshly with Wesley; though there
is no doubt that he was a very ambitious man, and over-fond of
power. At an early period of his career he began to aim at
objects higher than those attempted by the Puritans, whose
efforts, particularly in the sixteenth century, he looked at
somewhat contemptuously. Thus, for instance, in 1747, only eight
years after he had revolted against the church, he expresses in
his Journal his wonder 'at the weakness of those holy confessors'
(the Elizabethan Puritans), 'many of whom spent so much of their
time and strength in disputing about surplice and hoods, or
kneeling at the Lord's Supper!' _Journals_, p. 249, March 13th,
1747. Such warfare as this would have ill satisfied the soaring
mind of Wesley; and from the spirit which pervades his voluminous
Journals, as well as from the careful and far-seeing provisions
which he made for managing his sect, it is evident that this
great schismatic had larger views than any of his predecessors,
and that he wished to organize a system capable of rivalling the
established church.
But these things, interesting as they are, only formed a single step of
that vast process by which the ecclesiastical power was weakened, and
our countrymen thus enabled to secure a religious liberty, imperfect
indeed, but far superior to that possessed by any other people. Among
the innumerable symptoms of this great movement, there were two of
peculiar importance. These were, the separation of theology, first from
morals, and then from politics. The separation from morals was effected
late in the seventeenth century; the separation from politics before the
middle of the eighteenth century. And it is a striking instance of the
decline of the old ecclesiastical spirit, that both of these great
changes were begun by the clergy themselves. Cumberland, bishop of
Peterborough, was the first who endeavoured to construct a system of
morals without the aid of theology.[749] Warburton, bishop of
Gloucester, was the first who laid down that the state must consider
religion in reference, not to revelation, but to expediency; and that it
should favour any particular creed, not in proportion to its truth, but
solely with a view to its general utility.[750] Nor were these mere
barren principles, which subsequent inquirers were unable to apply. The
opinions of Cumberland, pushed to their furthest extent by Hume,[751]
were shortly afterwards applied to practical conduct by Paley,[752] and
to speculative jurisprudence by Bentham and Mill;[753] while the
opinions of Warburton, spreading with still greater rapidity, have
influenced our legislative policy, and are now professed, not only by
advanced thinkers, but even by those ordinary men, who, if they had
lived fifty years earlier, would have shrunk from them with unassembled
fear.[754]
[749] Mr. Hallam (_Lit. of Europe_, vol. iii. p. 390) says, that
Cumberland 'seems to have been the first Christian writer who
sought to establish systematically the principles of moral right
independently of revelation.' See also, on this important change,
_Whewell's Hist. of Moral Philosophy in England_, pp. 12, 54. The
dangers always incurred by making theology the basis of morals
are now pretty well understood; but by no writer have they been
pointed out more clearly than by M. Charles Comte: see the able
exposition in his _Traité de Législation_, vol. i. pp. 223-247.
There is a short and unsatisfactory account of Cumberland's book
in _Mackintosh's Ethical Philosophy_, pp. 134-137. He was a man
of considerable learning, and is noticed by M. Quatremère as one
of the earliest students of Coptic. _Quatremère sur la Langue et
la Littérature de l'Egypte_, p. 89. He was made a bishop in 1691,
having published the _De Legibus_ in 1672. _Chalmers's Biog.
Dict._ vol. xi. pp. 133, 135.
[750] This was in his work entitled _The Alliance between Church and
State_, which first appeared, according to Hurd (_Life of
Warburton_, 1794, 4to, p. 13), in 1736, and, as may be supposed,
caused great scandal. The history of its influence I shall trace
on another occasion; in the mean time, the reader should compare,
respecting its tendency, _Palmer on the Church_, vol. ii. pp.
313, 322, 323; _Parr's Works_, vol. i. pp. 657, 665, vol. vii. p.
128; _Whately's Dangers to Christian Faith_, p. 190; and
_Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iii. p. 18. In January 1739-40,
Warburton writes to Stukeley (_Nichols's Illustrations_, vol. ii.
p. 53): 'But you know how dangerous new roads in theology are, by
the clamour of the bigots against me.' See also some letters
which passed between him and the elder Pitt in 1762, on the
subject of expediency, printed in _Chatham Correspond._ vol. ii.
pp. 184 seq. Warburton writes, p. 190, 'My opinion is, and ever
was, that the state has nothing at all to do with errors in
religion, nor the least right so much as to attempt to repress
them.' To make such a man a bishop was a great feat for the
eighteenth century, and would have been an impossible one for the
seventeenth.
[751] The relation between Cumberland and Hume consists in the entirely
secular plan according to which both investigated ethics; in
other respects, there is great difference between their
conclusions; but if the anti-theological method is admitted to be
sound, it is certain that the treatment of the subject by Hume is
more consequential from the premisses, than is that by his
predecessor. It is this which makes Hume a continuator of
Cumberland; though with the advantage, not only of coming half a
century after him, but of possessing a more comprehensive mind.
The ethical speculations of Hume are in the third book of his
_Treatise of Human Nature_ (_Hume's Philosophical Works_, Edin.
1826, vol. ii. pp. 219 seq.), and in his _Inquiry concerning the
Principles of Morals_, ibid. vol. iv. pp. 237-365.
[752] The moral system of Paley, being essentially utilitarian,
completed the revolution in that field of inquiry; and as his
work was drawn up with great ability, it exercised immense
influence in an age already prepared for its reception. His
_Moral and Political Philosophy_ was published in 1785; in 1786
it became a standard book at Cambridge; and by 1805 it had
'passed through fifteen editions.' _Meadley's Memoirs of Paley_,
pp. 127, 145. Compare _Whewell's Hist. of Moral Philosophy_,
p. 176.
[753] That the writings of these two eminent men form part of the same
scheme, is well known to those who have studied the history of
the school to which they belong; and on the intellectual relation
they bore to each other, I cannot do better than refer to a very
striking letter by James Mill himself, in _Bentham's Works_,
edit. Bowring, vol. x. pp. 481, 482.
[754] The repeal of the Test Act, the admission of Catholics into
Parliament, and the steadily increasing feeling in favour of the
admission of the Jews, are the leading symptoms of this great
movement. On the gradual diffusion among us of the doctrine of
expediency, which, on all subjects not yet raised to sciences,
ought to be the sole regulator of human actions, see a
remarkable, but a mournful letter, written in 1812, in the _Life
of Wilberforce_, vol. iv. p. 28. See also the speech of Lord
Eldon in 1828, in _Twiss's Life of Eldon_, vol. ii. p. 203.
Thus it was that, in England, theology was finally severed from the two
great departments of ethics and of government. As, however, this
important change was at first not of a practical, but solely of an
intellectual character, its operation was, for many years, confined to a
small class, and has not yet produced the whole of those results which
we have every reason to anticipate. But there were other circumstances
which tended in the same direction, and which, being known to all men of
tolerable education, produced effects more immediate, though perhaps
less permanent. To trace their details, and point out the connexion
between them, will be the business of part of the future volumes of this
work: at present, I can only glance at the leading features. Of these,
the most prominent were: The great Arian controversy, which, rashly
instigated by Whiston, Clarke, and Waterland, disseminated doubts among
nearly all classes;[755] the Bangorian controversy, which, involving
matters of ecclesiastical discipline hitherto untouched, led to
discussions dangerous to the power of the church;[756] the great work
of Blackburne on the Confessional, which at one moment almost caused a
schism in the Establishment itself;[757] the celebrated dispute
respecting miracles between Middleton, Church, and Dodwell, continued,
with still larger views, by Hume, Campbell, and Douglas; [758] the
exposure of the gross absurdities of the Fathers, which, already begun
by Daillé and Barbeyrac, was followed up by Cave, Middleton, and Jortin;
the important and unrefuted statements of Gibbon, in his fifteenth and
sixteenth chapters; the additional strength conferred on those chapters
by the lame attacks of Davis, Chelsum, Whitaker, and Watson;[759] while,
not to mention inferior matters, the century was closed amid the
confusion caused by that decisive controversy between Porson and Travis,
respecting the text of the Heavenly Witnesses, which excited immense
attention,[760] and was immediately accompanied by the discoveries of
geologists, in which, not only was the fidelity of the Mosaic cosmogony
impugned, but its accuracy was shown to be impossible.[761] These
things, following each other in rapid and startling succession,
perplexed the faith of men, disturbed their easy credulity, and produced
effects on the public mind, which can only be estimated by those who
have studied the history of that time in its original sources. Indeed,
they cannot be understood, even in their general bearings, except by
taking into consideration some other circumstances with which the great
progress was intimately connected.
[755] From a curious passage in _Hutton's Life of Himself_, p. 27, we
learn that, in 1739, the scepticism of the Anti-Trinitarians had
penetrated among the tradesmen at Nottingham. Compare, respecting
the spread of this heresy, _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. viii. p.
375; _Priestley's Memoirs_, vol. i. pp. 25, 26, 53; _Doddridge's
Correspond. and Diary_, vol. ii. p. 477, note; and on Peirce, who
took an active part, and whom Whiston boasts of having corrupted,
see _Whiston's Memoirs_, pp. 143, 144. Sharp, who was Archbishop
of York when the controversy began, foresaw its dangerous
consequences. _Life of Sharp_, edited by Newcome, vol. ii. pp. 7,
8, 135, 136. See further _Maclaine's note_ in _Mosheim's
Ecclesiast. Hist._ vol. ii. pp. 293, 294; _Lathbury's Hist. of
Convocation_, pp. 338, 342, 351; and a note in _Butler's
Reminisc._ vol. i. pp. 206, 207.
[756] Mr. Butler (_Mem. of the Catholics_, vol. iii. pp. 182-184,
347-350) notices with evident pleasure the effect of this famous
controversy in weakening the Anglican Church. Compare _Bogue and
Bennett's Hist. of the Dissenters_, vol. iii. pp. 135-141.
Whiston (_Memoirs_, p. 244) says: 'And, indeed, this Bangorian
controversy seemed for a great while to engross the attention of
the public.' See more about it in _Lathbury's Hist. of
Convocation_, pp. 372-383; _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. i. p. 152,
vol. ix. pp. 433, 434, 516; _Nichols's Illustrations_, vol. i. p.
840; _Bishop Newton's Life of Himself_, pp. 177, 178.
[757] _The Confessional_, a most able attack on the subscription of
creeds and articles, was published in 1766; and, according to a
contemporary observer, 'it excited a general spirit of inquiry.'
_Cappe's Memoirs_, pp. 147, 148. The consequence was, that in
1772 a society was instituted by Blackburne and other clergy of
the Church of England, with the avowed object of doing away with
all subscriptions in religion. _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. i. p.
570; _Illustrations_, vol. vi. p. 854. A petition against the
Articles was at once drawn up, signed by 200 clergy (_Adolphus's
George III._ vol. i. p. 506), and brought before the House of
Commons. In the animated debate which followed, Sir William
Meredith said that 'the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of
England were framed when the spirit of free inquiry, when liberal
and enlarged notions, were yet in their infancy.' _Parl. Hist._
vol. xvii. p. 246. He added, p. 247: 'Several of the Articles are
absolutely unintelligible, and, indeed, contradictory and
absurd.' Lord George Germain said: 'In my apprehension, some of
the Articles are incomprehensible, and some self-contradictory;'
p. 265. Mr. Sawbridge declared that the Articles are 'strikingly
absurd;' Mr. Salter that they are 'too absurd to be defended;'
and Mr. Dunning that they are 'palpably ridiculous,' p. 294. For
further information on this attempt at reform, see _Disney's Life
of Jebb_, pp. 31-36; _Meadley's Mem. of Paley_, pp. 88-94;
_Hodgson's Life of Porteus_, pp. 38-40; _Memoirs of Priestley_,
vol. ii. p. 582; and a characteristic notice in _Palmer's
Treatise on the Church_, vol. i. pp. 270, 271.
[758] Hume says, that on his return from Italy in 1749, he found 'all
England in a ferment on account of Dr. Middleton's _Free
Inquiry_.' _Hume's Life of Himself_, in his _Works_, vol. i. p.
7. See also, on the excitement caused by this masterly attack,
_Nichols's Illustrations of the Eighteenth Century_, vol. ii. p.
176; which should be compared with _Doddridge's Correspond._ vol.
iv. pp. 536, 537: and on the 'miraculous controversy' in general,
see _Porteus's Life of Secker_, 1797, p. 38; _Phillimore's Mem.
of Lyttleton_, vol. i. p. 161; _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. ii.
pp. 440, 527, vol. iii. pp. 535, 750, vol. v. pp. 417, 418, 600;
_Hull's Letters_, 1778, vol. i. p. 109; _Warburton's Letters to
Hurd_, pp. 49, 50.
[759] _Gibbon's Decline and Fall_ has now been jealously scrutinized by
two generations of eager and unscrupulous opponents; and I am
only expressing the general opinion of competent judges when I
say, that by each successive scrutiny it has gained fresh
reputation. Against his celebrated fifteenth and sixteenth
chapters, all the devices of controversy have been exhausted; but
the only result has been, that while the fame of the historian is
untarnished, the attacks of his enemies are falling into complete
oblivion. The work of Gibbon remains; but who is there who feels
any interest in what was written against him?
[760] On the effect produced by these matchless letters of Porson, see
_Harford's Life of Bishop Burgess_, p. 374; and as to the
previous agitation of the question in England, see _Calamy's Own
Life_, vol. ii. pp. 442, 443; _Monk's Life of Bentley_, vol. ii.
pp. 16-19, 146, 286-289; _Butler's Reminiscences_, vol. i. p.
211. Compare _Somers Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 137, vol. xiii.
p. 458.
[761] The sceptical character of geology was first clearly exhibited
during the last thirty years of the eighteenth century.
Previously, the geologists had, for the most part, allied
themselves with the theologians; but the increasing boldness of
public opinion now enabled them to institute independent
investigations, without regard to doctrines hitherto received. In
this point of view, much was effected by the researches of
Hutton, whose work, says Sir Charles Lyell, contains the first
attempt 'to explain the former changes of the earth's crust by
reference exclusively to natural agents.' _Lyell's Principles of
Geology_, p. 50. To establish this method was, of course, to
dissolve the alliance with the theologians; but an earlier
symptom of the change was seen in 1773, that is, fifteen years
before Hutton wrote: see a letter in _Watson's Life of Himself_,
vol. i. p. 402, where it is stated that the 'freethinkers'
attacked the 'Mosaic account of the world's age, especially since
the publication of Mr. Brydone's _Travels Through Sicily and
Malta_.' According to Lowndes (_Bibliographer's Manual_, vol. i.
p. 279), Brydone's book was published in 1773; and in 1784 Sir
William Jones notices the tendency of these inquiries: see his
_Discourse on the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India_, in which he
observes (_Works_, vol. i. p. 233) with regret, that he lived in
'an age when some intelligent and virtuous persons are inclined
to doubt the authenticity of the accounts delivered by Moses
concerning the primitive world.' Since then, the progress of
geology has been so rapid, that the historical value of the
writings of Moses is abandoned by all enlightened men, even among
the clergy themselves. I need only refer to what has been said by
two of the most eminent of that profession, Dr. Arnold and Mr.
Baden Powell. See the observations of Arnold in _Newman's Phases
of Faith_, p. 111 (compare pp. 122, 123); and the still more
decisive remarks in _Powell's Sermons on Christianity without
Judaism_, 1856, pp. 38, 39. For other instances, see _Lyell's
Second Visit to the United States_, 1849, vol. i. pp. 219, 220.
For, in the mean time, an immense change had begun, not only among
speculative minds, but also among the people themselves. The increase of
scepticism stimulated their curiosity; and the diffusion of education
supplied the means of gratifying it. Hence, we find that one of the
leading characteristics of the eighteenth century, and one which
pre-eminently distinguished it from all that preceded, was a craving
after knowledge on the part of those classes from whom knowledge had
hitherto been shut out. It was in that great age, that there were first
established schools for the lower orders on the only day they had time
to attend them,[762] and newspapers on the only day they had time to
read them.[763] It was then that there were first seen, in our country,
circulating libraries;[764] and it was then, too, that the art of
printing, instead of being almost confined to London, began to be
generally practised in country-towns.[765] It was also in the eighteenth
century, that the earliest systematic efforts were made to popularize
the sciences, and facilitate the acquisition of their general
principles, by writing treatises on them in an easy and untechnical
style:[766] while, at the same time, the invention of Encyclopædias
enabled their results to be brought together, and digested in a form
more accessible than any hitherto employed.[767] Then, too, we first
meet with literary periodical reviews; by means of which large bodies
of practical men acquired information, scanty indeed, but every way
superior to their former ignorance.[768] The formation of societies for
purchasing books now became general;[769] and, before the close of the
century, we hear of clubs instituted by reading men among the
industrious classes.[770] In every department, the same eager curiosity
was shown. In the middle of the eighteenth century, debating societies
sprung up among tradesmen;[771] and this was followed by a still bolder
innovation, for, in 1769, there was held the first public meeting ever
assembled in England, the first in which it was attempted to enlighten
Englishmen respecting their political rights.[772] About the same time,
the proceedings in our courts of law began to be studied by the people,
and communicated to them through the medium of the daily press.[773]
Shortly before this, political newspapers arose,[774] and a sharp
struggle broke out between them and the two Houses of Parliament
touching the right of publishing the debates; the end of which was, that
both houses, though aided by the crown, were totally defeated; and, for
the first time, the people were able to study the proceedings of the
national legislature, and thus gain some acquaintance with the national
affairs.[775] Scarcely was this triumph completed, when fresh stimulus
was given by the promulgation of that great political doctrine of
personal representation,[776] which must eventually carry all before it;
and the germ of which may be traced late in the seventeenth century,
when the true idea of personal independence began to take root and
flourish.[777] Finally, it was reserved for the eighteenth century to
set the first example of calling on the people to adjudicate upon those
solemn questions of religion in which hitherto they had never been
consulted, although it is now universally admitted that to their growing
intelligence these, and all other matters, must ultimately be
referred.[778]
[762] It is usually supposed that Sunday-schools were began by Raikes,
in 1781; but, though he appears to have been the first to
organize them on a suitable scale, there is no doubt that they
were established by Lindsey, in or immediately after 1765. See
_Cappe's Memoir's_, pp. 118, 122; _Harford's Life of Burgess_, p.
92; _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iii. pp. 430, 431, vol. ix. p.
540; _Chalmers's Biog. Dict._ vol. xxv. p. 485; _Journ. of Stat.
Soc._ vol. x. p. 196, v. xiii. p. 265; _Hodgson's Life of
Porteus_, p. 92. It is said, in _Spencer's Social Statics_, p.
343, that the clergy of the Church of England were, as a body,
opposed to the establishment of Sunday-schools. (Compare
_Watson's Observations on Southey's Wesley_, p. 149.) At all
events, they increased rapidly, and by the end of the century had
become common. See _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. v. pp. 678, 679;
_Nichols's Illustrations_, vol. i. p. 460; _Life of Wilberforce_,
vol. i. p. 180, vol. ii. p. 296; _Wesley's Journals_, pp. 806,
897.
[763] Mr. Hunt (_Hist. of Newspapers_, vol. i. p. 273) makes no mention
of Sunday newspapers earlier than a notice by Crabbe in 1785; but
in 1799, Lord Belgrave said, in the House of Commons, that they
first appeared 'about the year 1780.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxiv.
p. 1006. In 1799, Wilberforce tried to have a law enacted to
suppress them. _Life of Wilberforce_, vol. ii. pp. 338, 424.
[764] When Franklin came to London, in 1725, there was not a single
circulating library in the metropolis. See _Franklin's Life of
Himself_, vol. i. p. 64; and, in 1697, 'the only library in
London which approached the nature of a public library was that
of Sion College, belonging to the London clergy.' _Ellis's
Letters of Literary Men_, p. 245. The exact date of the earliest
circulating library I have not yet ascertained; but, according to
Southey (_The Doctor_, edit. Warter, 1848, p. 271), the first set
up in London was about the middle of the eighteenth century, by
Samuel Fancourt. Hutton (_Life of Himself_, p. 279) says, 'I was
the first who opened a circulating library in Birmingham, in
1751.' Other notices of them, during the latter half of the
century, will be found in _Coleridge's Biographia Literaria_,
vol. ii. p. 329, edit. 1847; _Leigh Hunt's Autobiography_, vol.
i. p. 260; _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iii. pp. 648, 682;
_Nichols's Illustrations_, vol. i. p. 424; _Whewell's Hist. of
Moral Philosophy_, p. 190; _Sinclair's Correspond._ vol. i. p.
143. Indeed, they increased so rapidly, that some wise men
proposed to tax them, 'by a licence, at the rate of 2_s._ 6_d._
per 100 volumes per annum.' _Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue_,
vol. iii. p. 268.
[765] In 1746, Gent, the well-known printer, wrote his own life. In this
curious work, he states, that in 1714 there were 'few printers in
England, except London, at that time; none then, I am sure, at
Chester, Liverpool, Whitehaven, Preston, Manchester, Kendal, and
Leeds, as for the most part now abound.' _Life of Thomas Gent_,
pp. 20, 21. (Compare a list of country printing-houses, in 1724,
in _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. i. p. 289.) How this state of
things was remedied, is a most important inquiry for the
historian; but in this note I can only give a few illustrations
of the condition of different districts. The first
printing-office in Rochester was established by Fisher, who died
in 1786 (_Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iii. p. 675); the first in
Whitby, was in 1770 (_Illustrations_, vol. iii. p. 787); and
Richard Greene, who died in 1793, 'was the first who brought a
printing-press to Lichfield' (_Ibid._ vol. vi. p. 320). In the
reign of Anne, there was not a single bookseller in Birmingham
(_Southey's Commonplace Book_, 1st series, 1849, p. 568); but, in
1749, we find a printer established there (_Hull's Letters_,
Lond. 1778, vol. i. p. 92); and, in 1774, there was a printer
even in Falkirk (_Parl. Hist._ vol. xvii. p. 1099). In other
parts the movement was slower; and we are told that, about 1780,
'there was scarcely a bookseller in Cornwall.' _Life of Samuel
Drew, by his Son_, 1834, pp. 40, 41.
[766] Desaguliers and Hill were the two first writers who gave
themselves up to popularizing physical truths. At the beginning
of the reign of George I. Desaguliers was 'the first who read
lectures in London on experimental philosophy.' _Southey's
Commonplace Book_, 3d series, 1850, p. 77. See also _Penny
Cyclopædia_, vol. viii. p. 430; and, on his elementary works,
compare _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. vi. p. 81. As to Hill, he is
said to have set the example of publishing popular scientific
works in numbers; a plan so well suited to that inquisitive age,
that, if we believe Horace Walpole, he 'earned fifteen guineas a
week.' _Letter to Henry Zouch_, January 3rd, 1761, in _Walpole's
Letters_, vol. iv. p. 117, edit. 1840.
In the latter half of the eighteenth century, the demand for
books on the natural sciences rapidly increased (see, among many
other instances which might be quoted, a note in _Pulteney's
Hist. of Botany_, vol. ii. p. 180); and, early in the reign of
George III., Priestley began to write popularly on physical
subjects. (_Memoirs of Priestley_, vol. i. pp. 288, 289.)
Goldsmith did something in the same direction (_Prior's Life of
Goldsmith_, vol. i. pp. 414, 469, vol. ii. p. 198); and Pennant,
whose earliest work appeared in 1766, was 'the first who treated
the natural history of Britain in a popular and interesting
style.' _Swainson on the Study of Natural History_, p. 50. In the
reign of George II., publishers began to encourage elementary
works on chemistry. _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. ix. p. 763.
[767] In 1704, 1708, and 1710, Harris published his _Dictionary of Arts
and Sciences_; and from this, according to _Nichols's Lit. Anec._
vol. ix. pp. 770, 771, has 'originated all the other dictionaries
and cyclopædias that have since appeared.' Compare vol. v. p.
659; and _Bogue and Bennett's Hist. of the Dissenters_, vol. iv.
p. 500.
[768] Late in the seventeenth century, an attempt was first made in
England to establish literary journals. _Hallam's Lit. of
Europe_, vol. iii. p. 539; and _Dibdin's Bibliomania_, 1842, p.
16. But reviews, as we now understand the word, meaning a
critical publication, were unknown before the accession of George
II.; but, about the middle of his reign, they began to increase.
Compare _Wright's England under the House of Hanover_, 1848, vol.
i. p. 304, with _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iii. pp. 507, 508. At
an earlier period, the functions of reviews were performed, as
Monk says, by pamphlets. _Monk's Life of Bentley_, vol. i. p.
112.
[769] As we find from many casual notices of book clubs and book
societies. See, for example, _Doddridge's Correspond._ vol. ii.
pp. 57, 119; _Jesse's Life of Selwyn_, vol. ii. p. 23; _Nichols's
Illustrations of the Eighteenth Century_, vol. v. pp. 184, 824,
825; _Wakefield's Life of Himself_, vol. i. p. 528; _Memoirs of
Sir J. E. Smith_, vol. i. p. 8; _Life of Roscoe, by his Son_,
vol. i. p. 228 (though this last was perhaps a circulating
library).
[770] 'Numerous associations or clubs, composed principally of reading
men of the lower ranks.' _Life of Dr. Currie, by his Son_, vol.
i. p. 175.
[771] Of which the most remarkable was that called the Robin-Hood
Society; respecting which the reader should compare _Campbell's
Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. vi. p. 373; _Grosley's London_,
vol. i. p. 150; _Parl. Hist._ vol. xvii. p. 301; _Southey's
Commonplace Book_, 4th series, p. 339; _Forster's Life of
Goldsmith_, vol. i. p. 310; _Prior's Life of Goldsmith_, vol. i.
pp. 419, 420; _Prior's Life of Burke_, p. 75; _Nichols's Lit.
Anec._ vol. iii. p. 154.
[772] 'From the summer of 1769 is to be dated the first establishment of
public meetings in England.' _Albemarle's Mem. of Rockingham_,
vol. ii. p. 93. 'Public meetings, ... through which the people
might declare their newly-acquired consciousness of power, ...
cannot be distinctly traced higher than the year 1769; but they
were now (_i.e._ in 1770) of daily occurrence.' _Cooke's Hist. of
Party_, vol. iii. p. 187. See also _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol.
ii. p. 420.
[773] The most interesting trials were first noticed in newspapers
towards the end of the reign of George II. _Campbell's
Chancellors_, vol. v. p. 52, vol. vi. p. 54.
[774] In 1696, the only newspapers were weekly; and the first daily
paper appeared in the reign of Anne. Compare _Simmonds's Essay on
Newspapers_, in _Journal of Statist. Society_, vol. iv. p. 113,
with _Hunt's Hist. of Newspapers_, vol. i. pp. 167, 175, vol. ii.
p. 90; and _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iv. p. 80. In 1710, they,
instead of merely communicating news, as heretofore, began to
take part in 'the discussion of political topics' (_Hallam's
Const. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 443); and, as this change had been
preceded a very few years by the introduction of cheap political
pamphlets (see a curious passage in _Wilson's Life of De Foe_,
vol. ii. p. 29), it became evident that a great movement was at
hand in regard to the diffusion of such inquiries. Within twenty
years after the death of Anne, the revolution was completed; and
the press, for the first time in the history of the world, was
made an exponent of public opinion. The earliest notice of this
new power which I have met in parliament, is in a speech
delivered by Danvers, in 1738; which is worth quoting, both
because it marks an epoch, and because it is characteristic of
that troublesome class to which the man belonged. 'But I
believe,' says this distinguished legislator,--'but I believe the
people of Great Britain are governed by a power that never was
heard of, as a supreme authority, in any age or country before.
This power, sir, does not consist in the absolute will of the
prince, in the direction of parliament, in the strength of an
army, in the influence of the clergy, neither, sir, is it a
petticoat government: but, sir, it is the government of the
press. The stuff which our weekly newspapers are filled with, is
received with greater reverence than acts of parliament; and the
sentiments of one of these scribblers have more weight with the
multitude than the opinion of the best politician in the
kingdom.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. x. p. 448.
[775] This great contest was brought to a close in 1771 and 1772; when,
as Lord Campbell says, 'the right of publishing parliamentary
debates was substantially established.' _Campbell's Chancellors_,
vol. v. p. 511, vol. vi. p. 90. For further information
respecting this important victory, see _Cooke's Hist. of Party_,
vol. iii. pp. 179-184; _Almon's Correspond. of Wilkes_, 1805,
vol. v. p. 63; _Stephens's Mem. of Tooke_, vol. i. pp. 329-351;
_Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. v. p. 290; and, on its connexion
with _Junius's Letters_, see _Forster's Life of Goldsmith_, vol.
ii. pp. 183, 184.
George III., always consistent and always wrong, strenuously
opposed this extension of the popular rights. In 1771, he wrote
to Lord North: 'It is highly necessary that this strange and
lawless method of publishing debates in the papers should be put
a stop to. But is not the House of Lords the best court to bring
such miscreants before; as it can fine, as well as imprison, and
has broader shoulders to support the odium of so salutary a
measure?' _App. to Mahon_, vol. v. p. xlviii.; and _note_ in
_Walpole's George III._ vol. iv. p. 280, where the words, 'in the
papers,' are omitted; but I copy the letter, as printed by Lord
Mahon. In other respects, both versions are the same; so that we
now know the idea George III. had of what constituted a
miscreant.
[776] Lord John Russell, in his work on the _History of the English
Constitution_, says: 'Dr. Jebb, and after him Mr. Cartwright,
broached the theory of personal representation;' but this appears
to be a mistake, since the theory is said to have been first put
forward by Cartwright, in 1776. Compare _Russell on the
Constitution_, 1821, pp. 240, 241, with _Life and Corresp. of
Cartwright_, 1826, vol. i. pp. 91, 92. A letter in the _Life of
Dr. Currie_, vol. ii. pp. 307-314, shows the interest which even
sober and practical men were beginning to feel in the doctrine
before the end of the century.
[777] On this I have a philological remark of some interest,--namely,
that there is reason to believe that 'the word "independence," in
its modern acceptation,' does not occur in our language before
the early part of the eighteenth century. See _Hare's Guesses at
Truth_, 2nd series, 1848, p. 262. A similar change, though at a
later period, took place in France. See the observations on the
word 'individualisme,' in _Tocqueville_, _Démocratie en
Amérique_, vol. iv. p. 156; and in the later work, by the same
author, _L'Ancien Régime_, Paris, 1856, pp. 148, 149.
[778] Archbishop Whately (_Dangers to Christian Faith_, pp. 76, 77)
says: 'Neither the attacks on our religion, nor the evidences in
its support, were, to any great extent, brought forward in a
popular form, till near the close of the last century. On both
sides, the learned (or those who professed to be such) seem to
have agreed in this,--that the mass of the people were to
acquiesce in the decision of their superiors, and neither should,
nor could, exercise their own minds on the question.' This is
well put, and quite true; and should be compared with the
complaint in _Wakefield's Life of Himself_, vol. ii. p. 21;
_Nichols's Lit. Anec. of the Eighteenth Century_, vol. viii. p.
144; and _Hodgson's Life of Bishop Porteus_, pp. 73, 74, 122,
125, 126. See also a speech by Mansfield, in 1781 (_Parl. Hist._
vol. xxii. p. 265), when an attempt was made to put down the
'Theological Society.' The whole debate is worth reading; not on
account of its merits, but because it supplies evidence of the
prevailing spirit.
In connexion with all this, there was a corresponding change in the very
form and make of our literature. The harsh and pedantic method, which
our great writers had long been accustomed to employ, was ill suited to
an impetuous and inquisitive generation, thirsting after knowledge, and
therefore intolerant of obscurities formerly unheeded. Hence it was
that, early in the eighteenth century, the powerful, but cumbrous,
language, and the long, involved sentences, so natural to our ancient
authors, were, notwithstanding their beauty, suddenly discarded, and
were succeeded by a lighter and simpler style, which, being more rapidly
understood, was better suited to the exigencies of the age.[779]
[779] Coleridge (_Lit. Remains_, vol. i. pp. 230 seq.) has made some
interesting remarks on the vicissitudes of English style; and he
justly observes, p. 238, that, 'after the Revolution, the spirit
of the nation became much more commercial than it had been
before; a learned body, or clerisy, as such, gradually
disappeared; and literature in general began to be addressed to
the common, miscellaneous public.' He goes on to lament this
change; though, in that, I disagree with him. See also _The
Friend_, vol. i. p. 19, where he contrasts the modern style with
'the stately march and difficult evolutions' of the great writers
of the seventeenth century. Compare, on this alteration, the
preface to Nader Shah, in _Works of Sir W. Jones_, vol. v. p.
544. See also, in _Harford's Life of Burgess_, pp. 40, 41, a
curious letter from Monboddo, the last of our really great
pedants, mourning over this characteristic of modern composition.
He terms it contemptuously a 'short cut of a style;' and wishes
to return to 'the true ancient taste,' with plenty of
'parentheses!'
The truth is, that this movement was merely part of that tendency
to approximate the different classes of society which was first
clearly seen in the eighteenth century, and which influenced not
only the style of author, but also their social habits. Hume
observes that, in the 'last age,' learned men had separated
themselves too much from the world; but that, in his time, they
were becoming more 'conversible.' _Essay V._, in _Hume's
Philosophical Works_, vol. iv. pp. 539, 540. That 'philosophers'
were growing men of the world, is also noticed in a curious
passage in _Alciphron_, dial. i., in _Berkeley's Works_, vol. i.
p. 312; and, respecting the general social amalgamation, see a
letter to the Countess of Bute, in 1753, in _Works of Lady Mary
Montagu_, edit. 1803, vol. iv. pp. 194, 195. As to the influence
of Addison, who led the way in establishing the easy, and
therefore democratic, style, and who, more than any single
writer, made literature popular, compare _Aikin's Life of
Addison_, vol. ii. p. 65, with _Turner's Hist. of England_, vol.
ii. p. 7. Subsequently a reaction was attempted by Johnson,
Gibbon, and Parr; but this, being contrary to the spirit of the
age, was short-lived.
The extension of knowledge being thus accompanied by an increased
simplicity in the manner of its communication, naturally gave rise to a
greater independence in literary men, and a greater boldness in literary
inquiries. As long as books, either from the difficulty of their style,
or from the general incuriosity of the people, found but few readers, it
was evident that authors must rely upon the patronage of public bodies,
or of rich and titled individuals. And, as men are always inclined to
flatter those upon whom they are dependent, it too often happened that
even our greatest writers prostituted their abilities by fawning upon
the prejudices of their patrons. The consequence was that literature, so
far from disturbing ancient superstitions, and stirring up the mind to
new inquiries, frequently assumed a timid and subservient air, natural
to its subordinate position. But now all this was changed. Those servile
and shameful dedications;[780] that mean and crouching spirit; that
incessant homage to mere rank and birth; that constant confusion between
power and right; that ignorant admiration for everything which is old,
and that still more ignorant contempt for everything 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.[781]
[780] And the servility was, for the most part, well paid; indeed,
rewarded far more than it was worth. During the sixteenth,
seventeenth, and early part of the eighteenth century, a sum of
money was invariably presented to the author in return for his
dedication. Of course, the grosser the flattery, the larger the
sum. On the relation thus established between authors and men of
rank, and on the eagerness with which even eminent writers looked
to their patrons for gratuities, varying from 40_s._ to 100_l._,
see _Drake's Shakespeare and his Times_, 1817, 4to. vol. ii. p.
225; _Monk's Life of Bentley_, vol. i. pp. 194, 309; _Whiston's
Memoirs_, p. 203; _Nichols's Illustrations_, vol. ii. p. 709;
_Harris's Life of Hardwicke_, vol. iii. p. 35; _Bunbury's Life of
Hanmer_, p. 81. Compare a note in _Burton's Diary_, vol. iii. p.
52; and as to the importance of fixing on a proper person to whom
to dedicate, see _Ellis's Letters Lit. Men_, pp. 231-234; and the
matter-of-fact remark in _Bishop Newton's Life_, p. 14; also,
_Hughes's Letters_, edit. 1773, vol. iii. p. xxxi. appendix.
About the middle of the eighteenth century was the turning-point
of this deplorable condition; and Watson, for instance, in 1769,
laid it down as a rule, 'never to dedicate to those from whom I
expected favours.' _Watson's Life of Himself_, vol. i. p. 54. So,
too, Warburton, in 1758, boasts that his dedication was not, as
usual, 'occupied by trifles or falsehoods.' See his letter, in
_Chatham Correspond._ vol. i. p. 315. Nearly at the same period,
the same change was effected in France, where D'Alembert set the
example of ridiculing the old custom. See _Brougham's Men of
Letters_, vol. ii. pp. 439, 440; _Correspond. de Madame
Dudeffand_, vol. ii. p. 148; and _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol.
xl. p. 41, vol. lxi. p. 285.
[781] 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.
From all these things there resulted consequences of vast importance.
From this simplification, independence, and diffusion[782] 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
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 anything 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.[783] With this 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.
[782] 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.
[783] The apparent caprice and irregularity in small numbers arise from
the 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.
It must be considered as a most fortunate circumstance, that after the
death of Anne,[784] 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.[785] 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,[786] that, notwithstanding their arbitrary temper,
there was no danger of their organizing a party to extend the
boundaries of the royal prerogative.[787] And as they were foreigners,
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.[788] 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.[789]
[784] 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. p. 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.
[785] 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 Français_, vol.
i. p. 159.
[786] 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.
[787] 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 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.
[788] 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.
[789] The ill-feeling which the Church of England generally bore against
the government of the two first Georges was openly displayed, and
was so pertinaceous 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 instill 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.
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
attempted 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.[790] 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.
[790] '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.
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,[791] and was said
to look upon Hanover as a foreign country, whose interests were to be
considered of subordinate importance.[792] At the same time, the last
hopes of the House of Stuart were now destroyed;[793] the Pretender
himself was languishing in Italy, where he shortly after died; and his
son, a slave to vices which seemed hereditary in that family, was
consuming his life in an unpitied and ignominious obscurity.[794]
[791] 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: 'What a 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.
[792] _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxix. p. 955; _Walpole's Mem. of George III._
vol. i. pp. 4, 110.
[793] The accession of George III. is generally fixed on as the period
when English Jacobinism became extinct. See _Butler's
Reminiscences_, vol. ii. p. 92. At the first court held by the
new king, it was observed, says Horace Walpole, that 'the Earl of
Litchfield, Sir Walter Bagot, and the principal Jacobites went to
court.' _Walpole's Mem. of George III._ vol. i. p. 14. Only three
years earlier the Jacobites had been active; and in 1757, Rigby
writes to the Duke of Bedford: 'Fox's election at Windsor is very
doubtful. There is a Jacobite subscription of 5,000_l._ raised
against him, with Sir James Dashwood's name at the head of it.'
_Bedford Correspond._ vol. ii. p. 261.
[794] Charles Stuart was so stupidly ignorant, that at the age of
twenty-five he could hardly write, and was altogether unable to
spell. _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. iii. pp. 165, 166, and
appendix, p. ix. After the death of his father, in 1766, this
abject creature, who called himself king of England, went to
Rome, and took to drinking. _Ibid._ vol. iii. pp. 351-353. In
1779, Swinburne saw him at Florence, where he used to appear
every night at the opera, perfectly drunk. _Swinburne's Courts of
Europe_, vol. i. pp. 253-255; and in 1787, only the year before
he died, he continued the same degrading practice. See a letter
from Sir J. E. Smith, written from Naples in March 1787, in
_Smith's Correspond._ vol. i. p. 208. Another letter, written as
early as 1761 (_Grenville Papers_, vol. i. p. 366), describes
'the young Pretender always drunk.'
And yet these circumstances, which appeared so favourable, did of
necessity involve the most disastrous consequences. The fear of a
disputed succession being removed, the sovereign was emboldened to a
course on which he otherwise would not have ventured.[795] All those
monstrous doctrines respecting the rights of kings, which the Revolution
was supposed to have destroyed, were suddenly revived.[796] The clergy,
abandoning the now hopeless cause of the Pretender, displayed the same
zeal for the House of Hanover which they had formerly displayed for the
House of Stuart. The pulpits resounded with praises of the new king, of
his domestic virtues, of his piety, but above all of his dutiful
attachment to the English church. The result was, the establishment of
an alliance between the two parties more intimate than any that had been
seen in England since the time of Charles I.[797] Under their auspices,
the old Tory faction rapidly rallied, and were soon able to dispossess
their rivals of the management of the government. This reactionary
movement was greatly aided by the personal character of George III.; for
he, being despotic as well as superstitious, was equally anxious to
extend the prerogative, and strengthen the church. Every liberal
sentiment, everything approaching to reform, nay, even the mere mention
of inquiry, was an abomination in the eyes of that narrow and ignorant
prince. Without knowledge, without taste, without even a glimpse of one
of the sciences, or a feeling for one of the fine arts, education had
done nothing to enlarge a mind which nature had more than usually
contracted.[798] Totally ignorant of the history and resources of
foreign countries, and barely knowing their geographical position, his
information was scarcely more extensive respecting the people over whom
he was called to rule. In that immense mass of evidence now extant, and
which consists of every description of private correspondence, records
of private conversation and of public acts, there is not to be found the
slightest proof that he knew any one of those numerous things which the
governor of a country ought to know; or, indeed, that he was acquainted
with a single duty of his position, except that mere mechanical routine
of ordinary business, which might have been effected by the lowest clerk
in the meanest office in his kingdom.
[795] On the connexion between the decline of the Stuart interest and
the increased power of the crown under George III., compare
_Thoughts on the Present Discontents_, in _Burke's Works_, vol.
i. pp. 127, 128, with _Watson's Life of Himself_, vol. i. p. 136;
and for an intimation that this result was expected, see
_Grosley's London_, vol. ii. p. 252.
[796] _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. v. p. 245: 'The divine indefeasible
right of kings became the favourite theme--in total forgetfulness
of its incompatibility with the parliamentary title of the
reigning monarch.' Horace Walpole (_Mem. of George III._ vol. i.
p. 16) says, that in 1760 'prerogative became a fashionable
word.'
[797] The respect George III. always displayed for church-ceremonies
formed of itself a marked contrast with the indifference of his
immediate predecessors; and the change was gratefully noticed.
Compare _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. v. pp. 54, 55, with the
extract from Archbishop Secker, in _Bancroft's American
Revolution_, vol. i. p. 440. For other evidence of the admiration
both parties felt and openly expressed for each other, see an
address from the bishop and clergy of St. Asaph (_Parr's Works_,
vol. vii. p. 352), and a letter from the king to Pitt (_Russell's
Memorials of Fox_, vol. iii. p. 251), which should be compared
with _Priestley's Memoirs_, vol. i. pp. 137, 138.
[798] The education of George III. had been shamefully neglected; and
when he arrived at manhood he never attempted to repair its
deficiencies, but remained during his long life in a state of
pitiable ignorance. Compare _Brougham's Statesmen_, vol. i. pp.
13-15; _Walpole's Mem. of George III._ vol. i. p. 55; _Mahon's
Hist. of England_, vol. iv. pp. 54, 207.
The course of proceeding which such a king as this was likely to follow
could be easily foreseen. He gathered round his throne that great party,
who, clinging to the tradition of the past, have always made it their
boast to check the progress of their age. During the sixty years of his
reign, he, with the sole exception of Pitt, never willingly admitted to
his councils a single man of great ability;[799] not one whose name is
associated with any measure of value either in domestic or in foreign
policy. Even Pitt only maintained his position in the state by
forgetting the lessons of his illustrious father, and abandoning those
liberal principles in which he had been educated, and with which he
entered public life. Because George III. hated the idea of reform, Pitt
not only relinquished what he had before declared to be absolutely
necessary,[800] but did not hesitate to persecute to the death the party
with whom he had once associated in order to obtain it.[801] Because
George III. looked upon slavery as one of those good old customs which
the wisdom of his ancestors had consecrated, Pitt did not dare to use
his power for procuring its abolition, but left to his successors the
glory of destroying that infamous trade, on the preservation of which
his royal master had set his heart.[802] Because George III. detested
the French, of whom he knew as much as he knew of the inhabitants of
Kamtchatka or of Tibet, Pitt, contrary to his own judgment, engaged in a
war with France by which England was seriously imperilled, and the
English people burdened with a debt that their remotest posterity will
be unable to pay.[803] But, notwithstanding all this, when Pitt, only a
few years before his death, showed a determination to concede to the
Irish some small share of their undoubted rights, the king dismissed him
from office; and the king's friends, as they were called,[804] expressed
their indignation at the presumption of a minister who could oppose the
wishes of so benign and gracious a master.[805] And when, unhappily for
his own fame, this great man determined to return to power, he could
only recover office by conceding that very point for which he had
relinquished it; thus setting the mischievous example of the minister of
a free country sacrificing his own judgment to the personal prejudices
of the reigning sovereign.
[799] See some good remarks by Lord John Russell in his Introduction to
the _Bedford Correspondence_, vol. iii. p. lxii.
[800] In a motion for reform in Parliament in 1782, he declared that it
was 'essentially necessary.' See his speech, in _Parl. Hist._
vol. xxii. p. 1418. In 1784 he mentioned 'the necessity of a
parliamentary reform,' vol. xxiv. p. 349; see also pp. 998, 999.
Compare _Disney's Life of Jebb_, p. 209. Nor is it true, as some
have said, that he afterwards abandoned the cause of reform
because the times were unfavourable to it. On the contrary, he,
in a speech delivered in 1800, said (_Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxv. p.
47): 'Upon this subject, sir, I think it right to state the
inmost thoughts of my mind; I think it right to declare my most
decided opinion, that, _even if the times were proper for
experiments, any, even the slightest, change in such a
constitution must be considered as an evil_.' It is remarkable
that, even as early as 1783, Paley appears to have suspected the
sincerity of Pitt's professions in favour of reform. See
_Meadley's Memoirs of Paley_, p. 121.
[801] In 1794 Grey taunted him with this in the House of Commons:
'William Pitt, the reformer of that day, was William Pitt, the
prosecutor, ay and persecutor too, of reformers now.' _Parl.
Hist._ vol. xxxi. p. 532; compare vol. xxxiii. p. 659. So, too,
Lord Campbell (_Chief-Justices_, vol. ii. p. 544): 'He afterwards
tried to hang a few of his brother reformers who continued steady
in the cause.' See further, on this damning fact in the career of
Pitt, _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. vii. p. 105; _Brougham's
Statesmen_, vol. ii. p. 21; _Belsham's History_, vol. ix. pp. 79,
242; _Life of Cartwright_, vol. i. p. 198; and even a letter from
the mild and benevolent Roscoe, in _Life of Roscoe, by his Son_,
vol. i. p. 113.
[802] Such was the king's zeal in favour of the slave-trade, that in
1770 'he issued an instruction under his own hand commanding the
governor (of Virginia), upon pain of the highest displeasure, to
assent to no law by which the importation of slaves should be in
any respect prohibited or obstructed.' _Bancroft's American
Revolution_, vol. iii. p. 456: so that, as Mr. Bancroft
indignantly observes, p. 469, while the courts of law had decided
'that as soon as any slave set his foot on English ground he
becomes free, the king of England stood in the path of humanity,
and made himself the pillar of the colonial slave-trade.' The
shuffling conduct of Pitt in this matter makes it hard for any
honest man to forgive him. Compare _Brougham's Statesmen_, vol.
ii. pp. 14, 103-105; _Russell's Mem. of Fox_, vol. iii. pp. 131,
278, 279; _Belsham's Hist. of Great Britain_, vol. x. pp. 34, 35;
_Life of Wakefield_, vol. i. p. 197; _Porter's Progress of the
Nation_, vol. iii. p. 426; _Holland's Mem. of the Whig Party_,
vol. ii. p. 157; and the striking remarks of Francis, in _Parl.
Hist._ vol. xxxii. p. 949.
[803] That Pitt wished to remain at peace, and was hurried into the war
with France by the influence of the court, is admitted by the
best-informed writers, men in other respects of different
opinions. See, for instance, _Brougham's Statesmen_, vol. ii. p.
9; _Rogers's Introduction to Burke's Works_, p. lxxxiv.;
_Nicholls's Recollections_, vol. ii. pp. 155, 200.
[804] The mere existence of such a party, with such a name, shows how,
in a political point of view, England was receding during this
period from the maxims established at the Revolution. Respecting
this active faction, compare the indignant remarks of Burke
(_Works_, vol. i. p. 133) with _Albemarle's Rockingham_, vol. i.
pp. 5, 307; _Buckingham's Mem. of George III._ vol. i. p. 284,
vol. ii. p. 154; _Russell's Mem. of Fox_, vol. i. pp. 61, 120,
vol. ii. pp. 50, 77; _Bedford Correspond._ vol. iii. p. xlv.;
_Parr's Works_, vol. viii. p. 513; _Butler's Reminiscences_, vol.
i. p. 74; _Burke's Correspond._ vol. i. p. 352; _Walpole's George
III._ vol. iv. p. 315; _The Grenville Papers_, vol. ii. pp. 33,
34, vol. iii. p. 57, vol. iv. p. 79, 152, 219, 303; _Parl. Hist._
vol. xvi. pp. 841, 973, vol. xviii. pp. 1005, 1246, vol. xix. pp.
435, 856, vol. xxii. pp. 650, 1173.
[805] See an extraordinary passage in _Pellew's Life of Sidmouth_,
vol. i. p. 334.
As it was hardly possible to find other ministers, who to equal
abilities would add equal subservience, it is not surprising that the
highest offices were constantly filled by men of notorious
incapacity.[806] Indeed, the king seemed to have an instinctive
antipathy to everything great and noble. During the reign of George II.
the elder Pitt had won for himself a reputation which covered the world,
and had carried to an unprecedented height the glories of the English
name.[807] He, however, as the avowed friend of popular rights,
strenuously opposed the despotic principles of the court; and for this
reason he was hated by George III. with a hatred that seemed barely
compatible with a sane mind.[808] Fox was one of the greatest statesmen
of the eighteenth century, and was better acquainted than any other with
the character and resources of those foreign nations with which our own
interests were intimately connected.[809] To this rare and important
knowledge he added a sweetness and an amenity of temper which extorted
the praises even of his political opponents.[810] But he, too, was the
steady supporter of civil and religious liberty; and he, too, was so
detested by George III., that the king, with his own hand, struck his
name out of the list of privy councillors,[811] and declared that he
would rather abdicate the throne than admit him to a share in the
government.[812]
[806] This decline in the abilities of official men was noticed by
Burke, in 1770, as a necessary consequence of the new system.
Compare _Thoughts on the Present Discontents_ (_Burke's Works_,
vol. i. p. 149) with his striking summary (_Parl. Hist._ vol.
xvi. p. 879) of the degeneracy during the first nine years of
George III. 'Thus situated, the question at last was not, who
could do the public business best, but who would undertake to do
it at all. Men of talents and integrity would not accept of
employments where they were neither allowed to exercise their
judgment nor display the rectitude of their hearts.' In 1780,
when the evil had become still more obvious, the same great
observer denounced it in his celebrated address to his Bristol
constituents. 'At present,' he says, 'it is the plan of the court
to make its servants insignificant.' _Burke's Works_, vol. i. p.
257. See further _Parr's Works_, vol. iii. pp. 256, 260, 261.
[807] The military success of his administration is related in very
strong language, but not unfairly, in _Mahon's Hist. of England_,
vol. iv. pp. 108, 185, 186, and see the admirable summary in
_Brougham's Statesmen_, vol. i. pp. 33, 34: and for evidence of
the fear with which he inspired the enemies of England, compare
_Mahon_, vol. v. p. 165 note; _Bedford Correspond._ vol. iii. pp.
87, 246, 247; _Walpole's Letters to Mann_, vol. i. p. 304, edit.
1843; _Walpole's Mem. of George III._ vol. ii. p. 232; and the
reluctant admission in _Georgel, Mémoires_, vol. i. pp. 79, 80.
[808] Lord Brougham (_Sketches of Statesmen_, vol. i. pp. 22, 33) has
published striking evidence of what he calls 'the truly savage
feelings' with which George III. regarded Lord Chatham (compare
_Russell's Mem. of Fox_, vol. i. p. 129). Indeed, the sentiments
of the king were even displayed in the arrangements at the
funeral of the great minister. _Note in Adolphus's Hist. of
George III._ vol. ii. p. 568; and for other evidence of ill-will,
see two notes from the king to Lord North, in _Mahon's Hist. of
England_, vol. vi. appendix, pp. lii. liv.; _The Grenville
Papers_, vol. ii. p. 386; _Bancroft's American Revolution_, vol.
i. p. 438.
[809] Lord Brougham (_Sketches of Statesmen_, vol. i. p. 219) says: 'It
may be questioned if any politician, in any age, ever knew so
thoroughly the various interests and the exact position of all
the countries with which his own had dealings to conduct or
relations to maintain.' See also _Parr's Works_, vol. iv. pp. 14,
15; _Russell's Mem. of Fox_, vol. i. pp. 320, 321, vol. ii. pp.
91, 243; _Bisset's Life of Burke_, vol. i. p. 338.
[810] Burke, even after the French Revolution, said, that Fox 'was of
the most artless, candid, open, and benevolent disposition,
disinterested in the extreme; of a temper mild and placable even
to a fault, without one drop of gall in his whole constitution.'
Speech on the Army Estimates in 1790, in _Parl. Hist._ vol.
xxviii. p. 356. For further evidence, compare _Alison's Hist. of
Europe_, vol. vii. p. 171; _Holland's Mem. of the Whig Party_,
vol. i. pp. 3, 273; _Trotter's Mem. of Fox_, pp. xi. xii., 24,
178, 415.
[811] _Adolphus's Hist. of George III._ vol. vi. p. 692. A singular
circumstance connected with this wanton outrage is related in the
_Mem. of Holcroft_, vol. iii. p. 60.
[812] Compare _Adolphus's Hist. of George III._ vol. iv. pp. 107, 108,
with _Russell's Mem. of Fox_, vol. i. pp. 191, 287, 288, vol. ii.
p. 44. Dutens, who had much intercourse with English politicians,
heard of the threat of abdication in 1784. _Dutens's Mémoires_,
vol. iii. p. 104. Lord Holland says, that during the fatal
illness of Fox, 'the king had watched the progress of Mr. Fox's
disorder. He could hardly suppress his indecent exultation at his
death.' _Holland's Mem. of the Whig Party_, vol. ii. p. 49.
While this unfavourable change was taking place in the sovereign and
ministers of the country, a change equally unfavourable was being
effected in the second branch of the imperial legislature. Until the
reign of George III., the House of Lords was decidedly superior to the
House of Commons in the liberality and general accomplishments of its
members. It is true, that in both houses there prevailed a spirit which
must be called narrow and superstitious, if tried by the larger standard
of the present age. But among the peers such feelings were tempered by
an education that raised them far above those country gentlemen and
ignorant fox-hunting squires of whom the lower house was then chiefly
composed. From this superiority in their knowledge, there naturally
followed a larger and more liberal turn of thought than was possessed by
those who were called the representatives of the people. The result was,
that the old Tory spirit, becoming gradually weaker in the upper house,
took refuge in the lower; where, for about sixty years after the
Revolution, the high-church party and the friends of the Stuarts formed
a dangerous faction.[813] Thus, for instance, the two men who rendered
the most eminent services to the Hanoverian dynasty, and therefore to
the liberties of England, were undoubtedly Somers and Walpole. Both of
them were remarkable for their principles of toleration, and both of
them owed their safety to the interference of the House of Lords.
Somers, early in the eighteenth century, was protected by the peers from
the scandalous prosecution instituted against him by the other house of
parliament.[814] Forty years after this, the Commons, who wished to hunt
Walpole to the death, carried up a bill encouraging witnesses to appear
against him by remitting to them the penalties to which they might be
liable.[815] This barbarous measure had been passed through the lower
house without the least difficulty; but in the Lords it was rejected by
a preponderance of nearly two to one.[816] In the same way the Schism
Act, by which the friends of the church subjected the dissenters to a
cruel persecution,[817] was hurried through the Commons by a large and
eager majority.[818] In the Lords, however, the votes were nearly
balanced; and although the bill was passed, amendments were added by
which the violence of its provisions was in some degree softened.[819]
[813] In 1725, the Duke of Wharton, in a letter to the Pretender, after
mentioning some proceedings in the Commons, adds, 'In the House
of Lords our number is so small, that any behaviour there will be
immaterial.' _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. ii. appendix, p.
xxiii. See also, respecting the greater strength of the Tories in
the House of Commons, _Somers Tracts_, vol. xi. p. 242, vol.
xiii. pp. 524, 531; _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. iv. p. 158;
_Campbell's Chief-Justices_, vol. ii. p. 156.
[814] Compare _Vernon Correspond._ vol. iii. p. 149, with _Burnet's Own
Time_, vol. iv. p. 504. Burnet says, 'All the Jacobites joined to
support the pretensions of the Commons.' The Commons complained
that the Lords had shown 'such an indulgence to the person
accused as is not to be paralleled in any parliamentary
proceedings.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. v. p. 1294. See also their angry
remonstrance, pp. 1314, 1315.
[815] _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. iii. p. 122.
[816] 'Content, 47; non-content, 92.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xii. p. 711.
Mr. Phillimore (_Mem. of Lyttleton_, vol. i. p. 213) ascribes
this to the exertions of Lord Hardwicke; but the state of parties
in the upper house is sufficient explanation; and even in 1735 it
was said that 'the Lords were betwixt the devil and the deep
sea,' the devil being Walpole. _Marchmont Papers_, vol. ii. p.
59. Compare _Bishop Newton's Life of Himself_, p. 60.
[817] See an account of some of its provisions in _Mahon's Hist. of
England_, vol. i. pp. 80, 81. The object of the bill is frankly
stated in _Parl. Hist._ vol. vi. p. 1349, where we are informed
that 'as the farther discouragement and even ruin of the
dissenters was thought necessary for accomplishing this scheme,
it was begun with the famous Schism Bill.'
[818] By 237 to 126. _Parl. Hist._ vol. vi. p. 1351.
[819] _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. i. p. 83; _Bunbury's Correspond.
of Hanmer_, p. 48. The bill was carried in the Lords by 77
against 72.
This superiority of the upper house over the lower was, on the whole,
steadily maintained during the reign of George II.;[820] the ministers
not being anxious to strengthen the high-church party in the Lords, and
the king himself so rarely suggesting fresh creations as to cause a
belief that he particularly disliked increasing their numbers.[821]
[820] 'If we scrutinize the votes of the peers from the period of the
revolution to the death of George II., we shall find a very great
majority of the old English nobility to have been the advocates
of Whig principles.' _Cooke's Hist. of Party_, vol. iii. p. 363.
[821] Compare _Harris's Life of Hardwicke_, vol. iii. p. 519, with the
conversation between Sir Robert Walpole and Lord Hervey, in
_Hervey's Mem. of George II._ vol. ii. p. 251, edit. 1848.
It was reserved for George III., by an unsparing use of his prerogative,
entirely to change the character of the upper house, and thus lay the
foundation for that disrepute into which since then the peers have been
constantly falling. The creations he made were numerous beyond all
precedent; their object evidently being to neutralize the liberal spirit
hitherto prevailing, and thus turn the House of Lords into an engine for
resisting the popular wishes, and stopping the progress of reform.[822]
How completely this plan succeeded, is well known to the readers of our
history; indeed, it was sure to be successful, considering the character
of the men who were promoted. They consisted almost entirely of two
classes: of country gentlemen, remarkable for nothing but their wealth,
and the number of votes their wealth enabled them to control;[823] and
of mere lawyers, who had risen to judicial appointments partly from
their professional learning, but chiefly from the zeal with which they
repressed the popular liberties, and favoured the royal
prerogative.[824]
[822] _Cooke's Hist. of Party_, vol. iii. pp. 363, 364, 365, 463; _Parl.
Hist._ vol. xviii. p. 1418, vol. xxiv. p. 493, vol. xxvii. p.
1069, vol. xxix. pp. 1334, 1494, vol. xxxiii. pp. 90, 602, 1315.
[823] This was too notorious to be denied; and in the House of Commons,
in 1800, Nicholls taunted the Government with 'holding out a
peerage, or elevation to a higher rank in the peerage, to every
man who could procure a nomination to a certain number of seats
in parliament.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxv. p. 762. So, too,
Sheridan, in 1792, said (vol. xxix. p. 1333), 'In this country
peerages had been bartered for election interest.'
[824] On this great influx of lawyers into the House of Lords, most of
whom zealously advocated arbitrary principles, see _Belsham's
Hist. of Great Britain_, vol. vii. pp. 266, 267; _Adolphus's
Hist. of George III._ vol. iii. p. 363; _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxv.
p. 1523.
That this is no exaggerated description, may be ascertained by any one
who will consult the lists of the new peers made by George III. Here and
there we find an eminent man, whose public services were so notorious
that it was impossible to avoid rewarding them; but, putting aside those
who were in a manner forced upon the sovereign, it would be idle to deny
that the remainder, and of course the overwhelming majority, were marked
by a narrowness and illiberality of sentiment which, more than anything
else, brought the whole order into contempt.[825] No great thinkers; no
great writers; no great orators; no great statesmen; none of the true
nobility of the land,--were to be found among the spurious nobles
created by George III. Nor were the material interests of the country
better represented in this strange composition. Among the most important
men in England, those engaged in banking and commerce held a high place:
since the end of the seventeenth century their influence had rapidly
increased; while their intelligence, their clear, methodical habits,
and their general knowledge of affairs, made them every way superior to
those classes from whom the upper house was now recruited. But in the
reign of George III. claims of this sort were little heeded; and we are
assured by Burke, whose authority on such a subject no one will dispute,
that there never had been a time in which so few persons connected with
commerce were raised to the peerage.[826]
[825] It was foretold at the time, that the effect of the numerous
creations made during Pitt's power would be to lower the House of
Lords. Compare _Butler's Reminiscences_, vol. i. p. 76, with
Erskine's speech in _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxix. p. 1330; and see
Sheridan's speech, vol. xxxiii. p. 1197. But their language,
indignant as it is, was restrained by a desire of not wholly
breaking with the court. Other men, who were more independent in
their position, and cared nothing for the chance of future
office, expressed themselves in terms such as had never before
been heard within the walls of Parliament. Rolle, for instance,
declared that 'there had been persons created peers during the
present minister's power, who were not fit to be his grooms.'
_Parl. Hist._ vol. xxvii. p. 1198. Out of doors, the feeling of
contempt was equally strong; see _Life of Cartwright_, vol. i. p.
278; and see the remark even of the courtly Sir W. Jones, on the
increasing disregard for learning shown by 'the nobles of our
days.' _Preface to Persian Grammar_, in _Jones's Works_, vol. ii.
p. 125.
[826] In his _Thoughts on French Affairs_, written in 1791, he says, 'At
no period in the history of England have so few peers been taken
out of trade, or from families newly created by commerce.'
_Burke's Works_, vol. i. p. 566. Indeed, according to Sir
Nathaniel Wraxall (_Posthumous Memoirs_, vol. i. pp. 66, 67,
Lond. 1836), the only instance when George III. broke this rule
was when Smith the banker was made Lord Carrington. Wraxall is an
indifferent authority, and there may be other cases; but they
were certainly very few, and I cannot call any to mind.
It would be endless to collect all the symptoms which mark the political
degeneracy of England during this period; a degeneracy the more
striking, because it was opposed to the spirit of the time, and because
it took place in spite of a great progress, both social and
intellectual. How that progress eventually stopped the political
reaction, and even forced it to retrace its own steps, will appear in
another part of this work; but there is one circumstance which I cannot
refrain from noticing at some length, since it affords a most
interesting illustration of the tendency of public affairs, while at the
same time it exhibits the character of one of the greatest men, and,
Bacon alone excepted, the greatest thinker, who has ever devoted himself
to the practice of English politics.
The slightest sketch of the reign of George III. would indeed be
miserably imperfect if it were to omit the name of Edmund Burke. The
studies of this extraordinary man not only covered the whole field of
political inquiry,[827] but extended to an immense variety of subjects,
which, though apparently unconnected with politics, do in reality bear
upon them as important adjuncts; since, to a philosophic mind, every
branch of knowledge lights up even those that seem most remote from it.
The eulogy passed upon him by one who was no mean judge of men,[828]
might be justified, and more than justified, by passages from
his works, as well as by the opinions of the most eminent of his
contemporaries.[829] Thus it is, that while his insight into the
philosophy of jurisprudence has gained the applause of lawyers,[830] his
acquaintance with the whole range and theory of the fine arts has won
the admiration of artists;[831] a striking combination of two pursuits,
often, though erroneously, held to be incompatible with each other. At
the same time, and notwithstanding the occupations of political life, we
know on good authority, that he had paid great attention to the history
and filiation of languages;[832] a vast subject, which within the last
thirty years has become an important resource for the study of the human
mind, but the very idea of which had, in its large sense, only begun to
dawn upon a few solitary thinkers. And, what is even more remarkable,
when Adam Smith came to London full of those discoveries which have
immortalized his name, he found to his amazement that Burke had
anticipated conclusions the maturing of which cost Smith himself many
years of anxious and unremitting labour.[833]
[827] Nicholls, who knew him, says, 'The political knowledge of Mr.
Burke might be considered almost as an encyclopædia; every man
who approached him received instruction from his stores.'
_Nicholls's Recollections_, vol. i. p. 20.
[828] 'The excursions of his genius are immense. His imperial fancy has
laid all nature under tribute, and has collected riches from
every scene of the creation, and every walk of art.' _Works of
Robert Hall_, London, 1846, p. 196. So, too, Wilberforce says of
him, 'He had come late into Parliament, and had had time to lay
in vast stores of knowledge. The field from which he drew his
illustrations was magnificent. Like the fabled object of the
fairy's favours, whenever he opened his mouth pearls and diamonds
dropped from him.' _Life of Wilberforce_, vol. i. p. 159.
[829] Lord Thurlow is said to have declared, what I suppose is now the
general opinion of competent judges, that the fame of Burke would
survive that of Pitt and Fox. _Butler's Reminiscences_, vol. i.
p. 169. But the noblest eulogy on Burke was pronounced by a man
far greater than Thurlow. In 1790, Fox stated in the House of
Commons, 'that if he were to put all the political information
which he had learnt from books, all which he had gained from
science, and all which any knowledge of the world and its affairs
had taught him, into one scale, and the improvement which he had
derived from his right hon. friend's instruction and conversation
were placed in the other, he should be at a loss to decide to
which to give the preference.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxviii. p. 363.
[830] Lord Campbell (_Lives of the Chief-Justices_, vol. ii. p. 443)
says, 'Burke, a philosophic statesman, deeply imbued with the
scientific principles of jurisprudence.' See also, on his
knowledge of law, _Butler's Reminiscences_, vol. i. p. 131; and
_Bisset's Life of Burke_, vol. i. p. 230.
[831] Barry, in his celebrated Letter to the Dilettanti Society, regrets
that Burke should have been diverted from the study of the fine
arts into the pursuit of politics, because he had one of those
'minds of an admirable expansion and catholicity, so as to
embrace the whole concerns of art, ancient as well as modern,
domestic as well as foreign.' _Barry's Works_, vol. ii. p. 538,
4to, 1809. In the _Annual Register_ for 1798, p. 329, 2nd edit.,
it is stated that Sir Joshua Reynolds 'deemed Burke the best
judge of pictures that he ever knew.' See further _Works of Sir
J. Reynolds_, Lond. 1846, vol. i. p. 185; and _Bisset's Life of
Burke_, vol. ii. p. 257. A somewhat curious conversation between
Burke and Reynolds, on a point of art, is preserved in
_Holcroft's Memoirs_, vol. ii. pp. 276, 277.
[832] See a letter from Winstanley, the Camden Professor of Ancient
History, in _Bisset's Life of Burke_, vol. ii. pp. 390, 391, and
in _Prior's Life of Burke_, p. 427. Winstanley writes, 'It would
have been exceedingly difficult to have met with a person who
knew more of the philosophy, the history, and filiation of
languages, or of the principles of etymological deduction, than
Mr. Burke.'
[833] Adam Smith told Burke, 'after they had conversed on subjects of
political economy, that he was the only man who, without
communication, thought on these topics exactly as he did.'
_Bisset's Life of Burke_, vol. ii. p. 429; and see _Prior's Life
of Burke_, p. 58; and on his knowledge of political economy,
_Brougham's Sketches of Statesmen_, vol. i. p. 205.
To these great inquiries, which touch the basis of social philosophy,
Burke added a considerable acquaintance with physical science, and even
with the practice and routine of mechanical trades. All this was so
digested and worked into his mind, that it was ready on every occasion;
not, like the knowledge of ordinary politicians, broken and wasted in
fragments, but blended into a complete whole, fused by a genius that
gave life even to the dullest pursuits. This, indeed, was the
characteristic of Burke, that in his hands nothing was barren. Such was
the strength and exuberance of his intellect, that it bore fruit in all
directions, and could confer dignity upon the meanest subjects, by
showing their connexion with general principles and the part they have
to play in the great scheme of human affairs.
But what has always appeared to me still more remarkable in the
character of Burke, is the singular sobriety with which he employed his
extraordinary acquirements. During the best part of his life, his
political principles, so far from being speculative, were altogether
practical. This is particularly striking, because he had every
temptation to adopt an opposite course. He possessed materials for
generalization far more ample than any politician of his time, and he
had a mind eminently prone to take large views. On many occasions, and
indeed whenever an opportunity occurred, he showed his capacity as an
original and speculative thinker. But the moment he set foot on
political ground, he changed his method. In questions connected with the
accumulation and distribution of wealth he saw that it was possible, by
proceeding from a few simple principles, to construct a deductive
science available for the commercial and financial interests of the
country. Further than this he refused to advance, because he knew that,
with this single exception, every department of politics was purely
empirical, and was likely long to remain so. Hence it was, that he
recognized in all its bearings that great doctrine, which even in our
own days is too often forgotten, that the aim of the legislator should
be, not truth, but expediency. Looking at the actual state of knowledge,
he was forced to admit, that all political principles have been raised
by hasty induction from limited facts; and that, therefore, it is the
part of a wise man, when he adds to the facts, to revise the induction,
and, instead of sacrificing practice to principles, modify the
principles that he may change the practice. Or, to put this in another
way, he lays it down that political principles are at the best but the
product of human reason; while political practice has to do with human
nature and human passions, of which reason forms but a part;[834] and
that, on this account, the proper business of a statesman is, to
contrive the means by which certain ends may be effected, leaving it to
the general voice of the country to determine what those ends shall be,
and shaping his own conduct, not according to his own principles, but
according to the wishes of the people for whom he legislates, and whom
he is bound to obey.[835]
[834] 'Politics ought to be adjusted, not to human reasonings, but to
human nature; of which the reason is but a part, and by no means
the greatest part.' _Observations on a late State of the Nation_,
in _Burke's Works_, vol. i. p. 113. Hence the distinction he had
constantly in view between the generalizations of philosophy,
which ought to be impregnable, and those of politics, which must
be fluctuating; and hence in his noble work, _Thoughts on the
Cause of the present Discontents_, he says (vol. i. p. 136), 'No
lines can be laid down for civil or political wisdom. They are a
matter incapable of exact definition.' See also p. 151, on which
he grounds his defence of the spirit of party; it being evident
that if truth were the prime object of the political art, the
idea of party, as such, would be indefensible. Compare with this
the difference between 'la vérité en soi' and 'la vérité
sociale,' as expounded by M. Rey in his _Science Sociale_, vol.
ii. p. 322, Paris, 1842.
[835] In 1780 he plainly told the House of Commons that 'the people are
the masters. They have only to express their wants at large and
in gross. We are the expert artists; we are the skilful workmen,
to shape their desires into perfect form, and to fit the utensil
to the use. They are the sufferers, they tell the symptoms of the
complaint; but we know the exact seat of the disease, and how to
apply the remedy according to the rules of art. How shocking
would it be to see us pervert our skill into a sinister and
servile dexterity, for the purpose of evading our duty, and
_defrauding our employers, who are our natural lords_, of the
object of their just expectations!' _Burke's Works_, vol. i. p.
254. In 1777, in his _Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol_
(_Works_, vol. i. p. 216), 'In effect, to follow, not to force,
the public inclination; to give a direction, a form, a technical
dress, and a specific sanction, to the general sense of the
community,--is the true end of legislature.' In his _Letter on
the Duration of Parliament_ (vol. ii. p. 430), 'It would be
dreadful, indeed, if there was any power in the nation capable of
resisting its unanimous desire, or even the desire of any very
great and decided majority of the people. The people may be
deceived in their choice of an object. _But I can scarcely
conceive any choice they can make to be so very mischievous, as
the existence of any human force capable of resisting it._' So,
too, he says (vol. i. pp. 125, 214), that when government and the
people differ, government is generally in the wrong: compare pp.
217, 218, 276, vol. ii. p. 440. And to give only one more
instance, but a very decisive one, he, in 1772, when speaking on
a Bill respecting the Importation and Exportation of Corn, said,
'On this occasion I give way to the present Bill, not because I
approve of the measure in itself, but because I think it prudent
to yield to the spirit of the times. _The people will have it so;
and it is not for their representatives to say nay._ I cannot,
however, help entering my protest against the general principles
of policy on which it is supported, because I think them
extremely dangerous.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xvii. p. 480.
It is these views, and the extraordinary ability with which they were
advocated, which make the appearance of Burke a memorable epoch in our
political history.[836] We had, no doubt, other statesmen before him,
who denied the validity of general principles in politics; but their
denial was only the happy guess of ignorance, and they rejected theories
which they had never taken the pains to study. Burke rejected them
because he knew them. It was his rare merit that, notwithstanding every
inducement to rely upon his own generalizations, he resisted the
temptation; that, though rich in all the varieties of political
knowledge, he made his opinions subservient to the march of events; that
he recognized as the object of government, not the preservation of
particular institutions, nor the propagation of particular tenets, but
the happiness of the people at large; and, above all, that he insisted
upon an obedience to the popular wishes, which no statesman before him
had paid, and which too many statesmen since him have forgotten. Our
country, indeed, is still full of those vulgar politicians, against whom
Burke raised his voice; feeble and shallow men, who, having spent their
little force in resisting the progress of reform, find themselves at
length, compelled to yield; and then, so soon as they have exhausted the
artifices of their petty schemes, and, by their tardy and ungraceful
concessions, have sown the seed of future disaffection, they turn upon
the age by which they have been baffled; they mourn over the degeneracy
of mankind; they lament the decay of public spirit; and they weep for
the fate of a people, who have been so regardless of the wisdom of their
ancestors, as to tamper with a constitution already hoary with the
prescription of centuries.
[836] The effect which Burke's profound views produced in the House of
Commons, where, however, few men were able to understand them in
their full extent, is described by Dr. Hay, who was present at
one of his great speeches; which, he says, 'seemed a kind of new
political philosophy.' _Burke's Correspond._ vol. i. p. 103.
Compare a letter from Lee, written in the same year, 1766, in
_Forster's Life of Goldsmith_, vol. ii. pp. 38, 39; and in
_Bunbury's Correspond. of Hanmer_, p. 458.
Those who have studied the reign of George III. will easily understand
the immense advantage of having a man like Burke to oppose these
miserable delusions; delusions which have been fatal to many countries,
and have more than once almost ruined our own.[837] They will also
understand that, in the opinion of the king, this great statesman was,
at best, but an eloquent declaimer, to be classed in the same category
with Fox and Chatham; all three ingenious men, but unsafe, unsteady,
quite unfit for weighty concerns, and by no means calculated for so
exalted an honour as admission into the royal councils. In point of
fact, during the thirty years Burke was engaged in public life, he never
once held an office in the cabinet;[838] and the only occasions on
which he occupied even a subordinate post, were in those very short
intervals when the fluctuations of politics compelled the appointment of
a liberal ministry.
Indeed the part taken by Burke in public affairs must have been very
galling to a king who thought everything good that was old, and
everything right that was established.[839] For, so far was this
remarkable man in advance of his contemporaries, that there are few of
the great measures of the present generation which he did not
anticipate, and zealously defend. Not only did he attack the absurd laws
against forestalling and regrating,[840] but, by advocating the freedom
of trade, he struck at the root of all similar prohibitions.[841] He
supported those just claims of the Catholics,[842] which, during his
lifetime, were obstinately refused; but which were conceded, many years
after his death, as the only means of preserving the integrity of the
empire. He supported the petition of the Dissenters, that they might be
relieved from the restrictions to which, for the benefit of the Church
of England, they were subjected.[843] Into other departments of politics
he carried the same spirit. He opposed the cruel laws against
insolvents,[844] by which, in the time of George III., our statute-book
was still defaced; and he vainly attempted to soften the penal
code,[845] the increasing severity of which was one of the worst
features of that bad reign.[846] He wished to abolish the old plan of
enlisting soldiers for life;[847] a barbarous and impolitic practice, as
the English legislature began to perceive several years later.[848] He
attacked the slave-trade;[849] which, being an ancient usage, the king
wished to preserve, as part of the British constitution.[850] He
refuted,[851] but, owing to the prejudices of the age, was unable to
subvert, the dangerous power exercised by the judges, who, in criminal
prosecutions for libel, confined the jury to the mere question of
publication; thus taking the real issue into their own hands, and making
themselves the arbiters of the fate of those who were so unfortunate as
to be placed at their bar.[852] And, what many will think not the least
of his merits, he was the first in that long line of financial reformers
to whom we are deeply indebted.[853] Notwithstanding the difficulties
thrown in his way, he carried through Parliament a series of bills, by
which several useless places were entirely abolished, and, in the single
office of paymaster-general, a saving effected to the country of
25,000_l._ a year.[854]
[837] Burke was never weary of attacking the common argument, that,
because a country has long flourished under some particular
custom, therefore the custom must be good. See an admirable
instance of this in his speech on the power of the
attorney-general to file informations _ex officio_; where he
likens such reasoners to the father of Scriblerus, who 'venerated
the rust and canker which exalted a brazen pot-lid into the
shield of a hero.' He adds: 'But, sir, we are told that the time
during which this power existed, is the time during which
monarchy most flourished: and what, then, can no two things
subsist together but as cause and effect? May not a man have
enjoyed better health during the time that he walked with an
oaken stick, than afterwards, when he changed it for a cane,
without supposing, like the Druids, that there are occult virtues
in oak, and that the stick and the health were cause and effect?'
_Parl. Hist._ vol. xvi. pp. 1190, 1191.
[838] This, as Mr. Cooke truly says, is an instance of aristocratic
prejudice; but it is certain that a hint from George III. would
have remedied the shameful neglect. _Cooke's Hist. of Party_,
vol. iii. p. 277, 278.
[839] It is easy to imagine how George III. must have been offended by
such sentiments as these: 'I am not of the opinion of those
gentlemen who are against disturbing the public repose; I like a
clamour whenever there is an abuse. The fire-bell at midnight
disturbs your sleep, but it keeps you from being burnt in your
bed. The hue and cry alarms the county, but preserves all the
property of the province.' Burke's speech on Prosecutions for
Libels, in 1771, in _Parl. Hist._ vol. xvii. p. 54.
[840] He moved their repeal. _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxvi. p. 1169. Even Lord
Chatham issued, in 1766, a proclamation against forestallers and
regraters, very much to the admiration of Lord Mahon, who says,
'Lord Chatham acted with characteristic energy.' _Mahon's Hist.
of England_, vol. v. p. 166. More than thirty years later, and
after Burke's death, Lord Kenyon, then chief-justice, eulogised
these preposterous laws. _Holland's Mem. of the Whig Party_, vol.
i. p. 167. Compare _Adolphus's Hist. of George III._ vol. vii. p.
406; and _Cockburn's Memorials of his Time_, Edinb. 1856, p. 73.
[841] 'That liberality in the commercial system, which, I trust, will
one day be adopted.' _Burke's Works_, vol. i. p. 223. And, in his
letter to Burgh (_Ibid._ vol. ii. p. 409), 'But that to which I
attached myself the most particularly, was to fix the principle
of a free trade in all the ports of these islands, as founded in
justice, and beneficial to the whole; but principally to this,
the seat of the supreme power.'
[842] _Prior's Life of Burke_, p. 467; _Burke's Works_, vol. i. pp.
263-271, 537-561, vol. ii. pp. 431-447. He refutes (vol. i. p.
548) the notion that the coronation oath was intended to bind the
crown in its legislative capacity. Compare _Mem. of Mackintosh_,
vol. i. pp. 170, 171, with _Butler's Reminiscences_, vol. i. p.
134.
[843] _Parl. Hist._ vol. xvii. pp. 435, 436, vol. xx. p. 306. See also
_Burke's Correspondence_, vol. ii. pp. 17, 18; and _Prior's Life
of Burke_, p. 143.
[844] _Burke's Works_, vol. i. pp. 261, 262, part of his speech at
Bristol.
[845] _Prior's Life of Burke_, p. 317. See also his admirable remarks,
in _Works_, vol. ii. p. 417; and his speech, in _Parl. Hist._
vol. xxviii. p. 146.