and not till then, that I have fixed the commencement of my narrative.

At that period the two great contending parties were distinguished, as at present, by the nicknames of Whig and Tory. But it is very remarkable that, in Queen Anne's reign, the relative meaning of these terms was not only different but opposite to that which they bore at the accession of William the Fourth. In theory, indeed, the main principle of each continues the same. The leading principle of the Tories is the dread of popular licentiousness. The leading principle of the Whigs is the dread of Royal encroachment. It may thence, perhaps, be deduced that good and wise men would attach themselves either to the Whig or to the Tory party, according as there seemed to be the greater danger at that particular period from despotism or from democracy. The same person who would have been a Whig in 1712 would have been a Tory in 1830. For, on examination, it will be found that, in nearly all particulars, a modern Tory resembles a Whig of Queen Anne's reign, and a Tory of Queen Anne's reign a modern Whig.*

It is, therefore, a certain and a very curious fact, that the representative at this time of any great Whig family, who probably imagines that he is treading in the footsteps of his forefathers, in reality, while adhering to their party name, is acting against almost every one of their party principles!

I am far, however, from wishing to impute this change as an inconsistency, or want of principle, in either Whigs or Tories. The current of party often carries men very far, and almost imperceptibly, from the point where they first embarked; and what we scarcely blame even in individuals, we cannot, of course, condemn in successive generations. And in all variations the name is commonly the last thing that is changed: a remark which Paley makes of religion,† and which is equally true in politics.

Besides these two great party divisions, there was also, in the reign of Anne, a handful of Republicans and a large body of Jacobites. The former generally screened themselves under the name of Whigs, as the latter under the name of Tories. But the former, comprising at that time only a few of the more violent Dissenters, and a remnant of the Roundheads, possessed hardly any influence, and deserves but little detail. Nay, even amongst that small party which was taunted as republican, by far the greater number are not to be understood as positive enemies of the throne. They wished both the monarchy and peerage to subsist, though with diminished authority. It is true, that the term of Republican Party was perpetually in the mouth of the Tories and the courtiers. But this, which at first sight might make us believe in its strength, is, in fact, only another proof of its weakness; since the idea of a republic was so generally hateful to the nation as to afford a useful byword for cri

• Some instances and illustrations of this remarkable counter-change will be found in the Appendix to this volume, ad fin.

† Moral Philosophy, book v. ch. x.

mination.1 "It may be confidently asserted," says Mr. Hallam, of the reign of William, "that no republican party had any existence, if by that word we are to understand a set of men whose object was the abolition of our limited monarchy. . . . I believe it would be difficult to name five persons to whom even a speculative preference of a commonwealth may, with great probability, be ascribed."* It is surely no small proof how severely the people had suffered under the old commonwealth, to find that, with all the misconduct of the succeeding reigns, that commonwealth had left no roots nor offsets behind it.

The Jacobites, on the other hand, were at this time a most numerous and powerful party. To explain their principles and conduct will require a short historical retrospect.

The Revolution of 1688 is an event of which the English have long been justly proud. While James the Second continued a constitutional monarch, they continued a loyal people. They were neither rebellious under just authority, nor submissive under despotic encroachments. They took up arms neither too late nor too soon. If their conduct be compared with that of any other people, under similar circumstances, it may well be doubted whether any ever so completely and so admirably fulfilled their conflicting duties as subjects and as freemen.

On deposing and banishing James the Second, the proclamation of his infant son as King, with the Prince of Orange or one of the Princesses as Regent, would undoubtedly, in my opinion, have been the natural and proper course. But the doubts entertained at that time of the Prince of Wales' legitimacy, his removal into an enemy's country, the probability of his education as a Roman Catholic, the firm determination of William to decline a temporary trust, and the necessity of making England, in his hands, an active member of the Confederacy for maintaining the Liberties of Europe-all these prevented a compromise else so just and salutary. The result was, a vast extension of party feuds, sixty years of national division, and three civil wars. The party of the Jacobites, which would otherwise have been utterly insignificant, and soon have ceased to exist at all, grew into a large and formidable power; and the discussion turned no longer, as it should have done, on the personal guilt of James, but on the inherent right of his son.

It is also very remarkable, that even over those minds which had utterly disavowed any such inherent right, the tenet still exercised a latent but considerable influence. Compare the style of the leading statesmen of the day in addressing James the Second and his

1

* Constitutional Hist. vol. iii. p. 164, 3d ed.

[In one of the productions (dated 1715) of that remarkable pamphleteer on the Hanoverian side, John Asgill, after speaking of himself as one "who stands condemned for a heretick, and suspected for a republican," he adds:

“But after the manner that some men call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers." "And after the manner that some men call republick, so reverence I and obey my Sovereign," ," "The Jure Divino of the House of Hanover."]

successor. Even in the worst actions of James, we find even the Opposition using more respectful and deferential language towards him than William, in the fulness of power, often received from his own official servants.* They entertained, unconsciously, a sort of feeling that the Prince of Orange was not their rightful ruler. And how much stronger must that feeling have been amidst the multitude, which is so much less capable of appreciating arguments or drawing distinctions which respects laws or institutions from their antiquity so much more than from their wisdom! How should this feeling warn the nations never lightly, nor without full provocation, to cast off the sway of their rulers! How does it show that, in many cases, a bad King with a good title may be happier for the state than a good King with a bad title!

Thus the Revolution, though undoubtedly a great and glorious event, was nevertheless attended with no small concomitant evils. Still, however, there was the prospect that the succession would be preserved in the line of Charles the First. But the death of Queen Mary in 1694, and of the Duke of Gloucester in 1700, having blighted these hopes, it became necessary for Parliament to provide for the succession. In 1701 was accordingly passed the celebrated Act of Settlement, excluding not only the son of James the Second (then known by the name of the Pretender), but the next Catholic heirs; and entailing the crown upon Sophia, Electress Dowager of Hanover, a daughter of the Queen of Bohemia, and a granddaughter of King James the First. This was followed up, in 1702, by another act for abjuring the Pretender, to which William gave the Royal assent only a few hours before he expired;—a legaey worthy that great man.

On an impartial consideration, the measures of 1701 and 1702 may be considered to deserve unmixed praise. For, however desirable the project of a Regency might have been at first, it seems certain that any subsequent attempt to bring in the Pretender could not have been accomplished without ruin to both our civil and religious liberties. The Pretender being therefore excluded, who then should be chosen? With so strong a Protestant feeling as then happily prevailed in England, it would have been little short of madness to select a Catholic sovereign. No other alternative then remained, to combine hereditary right as much as possible with constitutional freedom, but to appoint the nearest Protestant heir. There was, no doubt, serious evil in selecting a sovereign who, like George the First, was a German in birth and in habits, and a stranger to the manners, to the laws, and even to the language, of the people he was called upon to govern. There was evil in selecting the ruler of a small independent state; and there was reason to fear that the interests of the Electorate might be sometimes unduly preferred to those of England. But how light and transient do not

See especially the letters to the King of Admiral Russell in the Shrewsbury Correspondence, and those of Lord Sunderland in the Hardwicke Papers. Nothing can be more blunt and insolent.

these evils appear, when compared to those of priestcraft and slavery, which they averted! With what reverence ought not the promoters of the Hanover succession, during the reign of Anne, to be remembered by every patriotic friend of freedom, by every duteous son of the Church! And how much has their wisdom been shown forth, not merely by contemporary arguments, but by subsequent results, by the long period of happiness and honour which this country, through the blessing of Providence, has enjoyed under the present reigning family!

A part of this happiness and honour should, no doubt, also be ascribed to the cautious limitations which accompanied the Act of Settlement. It was provided:-1. That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown shall join in communion with the Church of England as by law established.-2. That in case the Crown and imperial dignity of this realm shall hereafter come to any person, not being a native of this kingdom of England, this nation be not obliged to engage in any war for the defence of any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England, without the consent of Parliament.-3. That no person who shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown shall go out of the dominions of England, Scotland, or Ireland, without the consent of Parliament.-4. That from and after the time that the further limitation by this act shall take effect, all matters and things relating to the well-governing of this kingdom, which are properly cognizable in the Privy Council by the laws and customs of this realm, shall be transacted there; and all resolutions taken thereupon shall be signed by such of the Privy Council as shall take, advise, and consent to the same.-5. That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, no person born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents), shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either house of Parliament; or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military; or to have any grant of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, from the Crown to himself, or to any other or others in trust for him.-6. That no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons.-7. That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, judges' commissions be made QUAMDIU SE BENE GESSERINT, and their salaries ascertained and established; but upon the address of both Houses of Parliament it may be lawful to remove them.-8. That no pardon under the great seal of England be pleadable to an impeachment by the Commons in Parliament.

The first of these articles was a safeguard of our national religion, as the second of our national independence. The want of some such restraint as the fifth had been felt very strongly in the case of William and his foreign favourites, his Portlands and his Albemarles;

and its enactment proved most salutary during the reigns of the first two Georges. Great advantages would in like manner have been derived from the third article, had it not, as I shall afterwards have occasion to show, been too readily repealed on the accession of George the First. The sixth article, on the other hand, was hasty and ill-considered. There can be no doubt that, in the reign of William, as in the two preceding, the number of placemen in the House of Commons was dangerously and unconstitutionally large; nor can it be denied that a fearful degree of corruption and venality had grown out of that abuse.* But to extirpate that abuse by its opposite, by the total and unconditional exclusion of all members of the Government, seems scarcely less absurd than a physician who should advise a glutton to touch no food at all. To pronounce the favour of the Crown to be of course incompatible with the confidence of the people, appears dangerous in theory. To determine that no minister of state should bring forward and explain his measures to Parliament, would be ruinous in practice. So evident, indeed, were these and other such considerations, that, in 1706, after an interval of cool reflection, the article was repealed. But two provisions of great importance were established in its stead. First, that every member of the House of Commons accepting an office under the Crown, except a higher commission in the army, shall vacate his seat, and a new writ shall issue. Secondly, that no person holding an office created since the 25th of October, 1705, shall be capable of being elected at all. These restrictions continued unchanged, and even unquestioned, during the reigns of the four Georges. It may be observed, however, that the vacating of seats by members who take office might often have been productive of most serious injury, had it not in a great measure been neutralized by the effect of the smaller boroughs. For until our new constitution of parliament in 1832, any eminent statesman, though he might be out-voted at one place, was perfectly sure of his election at another. The defeat of a great party leader, under any circumstances, such as that of Mr. Brougham in Westmoreland, or of Sir Robert Peel at Oxford, was speedily repaired at Winchelsea or Westbury.

The Act of Settlement, in favour of the House of Hanover, was, however, attended with one great but unavoidable evil, a large increase of the Jacobite party. Many of the Tories had been willing to concur in the exclusion of James the Second and his son, so long as the throne was held by other members of his family, but were most reluctant to admit so wide a departure from the hereditary line

See, for instance, Parl. Hist. vol. v. pp. 886, 911, &c.

† See the excellent remarks of Mr. Hallam (Const. Hist. vol. iii. p. 257, 8vo ed.). I would, however, presume to doubt whether that eminent writer be not mistaken when he says, that "at the same time were excluded all such as held pensions during the pleasure of the Crown." That clause seems to have been rejected in 1706, since ten years afterwards a bill for that very object was brought in by General Stanhope., See the Parl. Hist., vol. vii. p. 374.