« السابقةمتابعة »
of power, be just some
weary, perhaps, of the long opposition in which he had been engaged, and unable to bear the event which dashed the cup of power from his lips, just as they first touched it. Let us, however, be just to the memory of this nobleman. He made the change upon something like grounds of principle. He gave his support to Lord Shelburne's administration, upon the most positive assurances, that the independency of America was to be acknowledged, and the wishes of the people, relative to Parliamentary Reform, granted,' p. 93. He supported, too, in joining Lord Shelburne, an intimate personal friend; the late Mr Pitt then entering upon his brilliant career, in a high, though a subordinate situation of the ministry. How different such grounds of adhering to the Court, from those upon which many men of exalted rank in our times condescend to abandon their independence, sink themselves among the mob of base sycophants, and support every measure, and every man, that the Palace party may be pleased to patronize! Surely there was something in the talents and the name of such a man as Mr Pitt, calculated to varnish over the conduct of those who clung to him while he dispensed the favours of the Crown, and to make their motives defensible, until they quitted him upon his dismissal, and gave the same support to his feeble successor. But what shall be said of those high-born grandees, filling the rank of princes, and revelling in wealth which the lords of principalities may envy, who yet abdicate all the noblest functions of such exalted station, and, alike regardless of measures, and careless of personal merit, make themselves the regular and almost hereditary minions of every vile and contemptible tool whom the Crown may find it suited to views of selfish policy to employ? The successors of Mr Pitt, with his name ever on their lips to shed a false lustre over their own insignificance, and bind their supporters to the degradation of following such leaders, are notoriously the enemies of his strongest political opinions. When the Duke of Rutland took office with him, it was upon assurance that Parliar mentary reform was to be a primary object of his administra, tion. He saw him twice, and in appearance sincerely, attempt this measure; and he died before his conduct changed. But, to which of Mr Pitt's principles do those noble persons lend their aid, who are now deluded by his name into a support of his pretended successors? It would be reckoned too ridiculous in any man to affect personal deference towards the leading members of such cabinets as we have lately seen. The names of Jenkinsonian and Addingtonian, are hardly more barbarous and uncouth, than the nature of such beings would be ridiculous
if they could be figured to have a real existence. Aware of this, the ministers of the passing day have contrived to borrow Mr Pitt's name,-so that whoever finds it convenient to support them, may conccal his humiliation from himself by calling that celebrated man his leader. Yet how perfectly flimsy is the disguise ! Acting in his name, our consistent ministers so vehemently oppose the very principles to which he actually sacrificed his place, that his most sincere personal friends are unable to attend the Pitt clubs, which, preferring the favour of the live ing to the memory of the departed minister, make hostility and the cause of Religious Liberty the shibboleth of their union, and yearly meet to celebrate his birthday, by proscribing his most fixed opinions !
In 1776, Dr Watson preached the Restoration and Accession Sermons before the University, and published the former under the title of « The Principles of the Revolution Vindicated.' It was cautiously but boldly written; and cried down by the Tories as treasonable. But Judge Wilson, a friend and fellow countryman of our author's, anxious for his safety, having asked Mr Dunning his opinion of it, he replied, “ It is just such treason as ought to be preached once a month at St James's.' The Court, however, was of another mind in the article of sermons and their preachers; and never forgave this Whig discourse. The cry of Republican, (to which the word Jacobin has in our day succeeded), was raised by them against the author; the venal writers were let loose upon him; and Mr Cumberland, little to his honour, led the attack, in some sorry pamphlets, which few could read and fewer could admire. Bishop Hoadley, our author's celebrated predecessor in principles and persecution, definedmen of Republican principles' to be a sort of dangerous men who have of late taken heart, and defended the Revolution that sayed us.' The description is quite as applicable in our times as in those of the two prelates; for now the Revolution is attacked by two classes of declaimers, the hirelings of the Court, and the tools of the mob party. Dr Watson sets against the abuse to which his sermon exposed him, the applause of Mr Fox which it gained; and adds, ' I always looked i upon Mr Fox to be one of the most constitutional reasoners, • and one of the most argumentative orators in either House of • Parliament. I was, at the time this compliment was paid me, • and am still, much gratified by it. The approbation of such
men ever has been, and ever will be, dearer to me than the 6 most dignified and lucrative stations in the church.'
It is painful to find the highest personages in the state so tainted withi vulgar prejudice, or so forgetful of the tenure by which they hold their exalted station, as to reckon the man their enemy, and the enemy of the Constitution, who preached the very principles upon which alone they were sent for, and placed over this great and free country.
Though levee-conversations are but silly things in themselves, and the silliest of all possible things when repeated, yet I must mention what happened to myself at the King's levee, in November, 1787. I was standing next to a Venetian nobleman; the King was conversing with him about the republic of Venice, and hastily turning to me said, “ There, now, you hear what he says of a republic." My answer was, “ Sir, I look upon a republic to be one of the worst forms of government." The King gave me, as he thought, another blow about a republic. I answered, that I could not live under a republic. His Majesty still pursued the subject; I thought myself insulted, and firmly said, “Sir, I look upon the tyranny of any one man to be an intolerable evil, and upon the tyranny of an hundred to be an hundred times as bad." The King went off. His Majesty, I doubt not, had given credit to the calumnies which the court-insects had buzzed into his ears, of my being a favourer of republican principles, because I was known to be a supporter of revolution principles, and had a pleasure in letting me see what he thought of me. This was not quite fair in the King, especially as there is not a word in any of my writings in favour of a republic, and as I had desired Lord Shelburne, before I accepted the bishopric, to assure His Majesty of my supreme veneration for the Constitution. If he thought that, in giving such assuranee, I stooped to tell a lie for the sake of a bishopric, His Majesty formed an erroneous opinion of my principles. But the reign of George the Third was the triumph of Toryism. The Whigs had power for a moment, they quarrelled amongst themselves, and thereby lost the King's confidence, lost the people's confidence, and lost their power for ever ; or, to speak more, philosophically, there was neither Whiggism nor Toryism left; excess of riches, and excess of taxes, combined with excess of luxury, had introduced universal Selfism.' p. 193, 194.
"I had long suspected that I was, from I know not what just cause, obnoxious to the Court; but I did not, till after the archbishopric of York had been given to the Bishop of Carlisle, know that I had been proscribed many years before. By a letter from a noble friend, the Duke of Grafton, dated 10th December, 1807, I was informed that one of the most respectable earls in the kingdom, who had long known my manner of life, on a vacancy of the mastership of Trinity College, had gone of his own accord (and without his ever mentioning the circumstance to me) to Mr Pitt, stating what just pretensions I had to the offer of it ; that Mr Pitt concurred with him, but said that a certain person would not hear of it. Ought I to question the veracity of Mr Pitt? No, I cannot do it. What then ought I to say of a certain person who had repeatedly signified to me his high
approbation of my publications, and had been repeatedly heard to say to others, that the Bishop of Landaff had done more in support of religion than any bishop on the bench? I ought to say with St Paul, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
• Notwithstanding this anecdote, I cannot bring myself to believe that the King was either the first projector or the principal actor in the sorry farce of neglecting a man whom they could not dishonour, of distressing a man whom they could not dispirit, which has been playing at Court for near twenty-six years.
* But be the dramatis personæ whom they may, the curtain which will close the scene is fast falling both on them and me; and I hope 80 to attemper my feelings of the wrong they have not wilfully, perhaps, but unadvisedly done me, as to be able at the opening of the next act to embrace them with Christian charity and unfeigned good will; for the detestable maxim, Qui nescit dissimulare nescit regnare, will not be heard of in heaven. The knowledge, that the neglect I had suffered was rather owing to the will of the monarch than to the ill will of the minister, gave me pleasure. It removed in a degree from my mind a suspicion which I had long reluctantly entertained, that Mr Pitt had always been my enemy. I did not expect, indeed, that any minister would be very zealous ip promoting a man who professed and practised parliamentary and personal independ. ence; but Mr Piti had been under obligations to me, and he knew that I had always been the warın friend of his warm friend the Duke of Rutland : and I was unwilling to suppose him capable of forgetting either obligations or connexions in the pursuit of his ambition.
As to the King's dislike of me, unless his education had made him more of a Whig, it was natural enough. My declared opposition to the increased and increasing influence of the Crown had made a great impression on His Majesty's mind; for on the day I did homage, he asked the Duke of Rutland if his friend the Bishop of Landaff was not a great enemy to the influence of the Crown ; saying, at the same time, that he wished he had not a place of two hundred a year to give away.
I presume not to question the truth of this declaration of His Majesty, but I speak with some certainty of the truth of the Duke of Rutland's reply,—“That the Bishop of Landaff was an enemy to the increase of the influence of the crown, from an apprehension that it would undermine the constitution.” This apprehension was not then unfounded, nor has it since then been lessened, but greatly augmented, especially by the enormous augmentation of the national debt.'-p. 478—480.
Of the Monarch of these realms, we are heartily disposed to speak with all the respect and tenderness due to his exalted rank, and his unhappy situation. But he is now as far removed from the tumults of earthly affairs as if the grave had closed upon his venerable age--and the stern impartiality of history already awaits his actions. Among his good qualities, was a steadfast attachment to the Church; and it was in part founded upon, and warmed by feelings of real piety towards Religion itself. Is it then conceivable that one so zealous for Christianity should have overlooked the vast services which such' men as Paley and Watson had rendered to the Gospel cause? Its most subtle and effectual enemy Mr Gibbon, had been permitted to hold office under our pious sovereign; yet the men whose best powers of reaon and eloquence had been most successfully employed in restoring it to the confidence of reasoning men, shaken by Gibbon's attacks, were objects of jealousy, distrust, neglect and aversion, through the whole of his long reign. Even when Mr Pitt would have placed them in the stations which they merited, and which the real interests of religion and the establishment required them to fill, this pious prince interposed ; and, to the still greater disa credit of the minister, his veto was found all powerful. Was his Majesty insensible to their high deserts ? Unless we doubt his own words above cited, we cannot imagine it. Was he insincere in his religious zeal? No man will suspect it who has an accurate idea of his character. Was his affection for the ecclesiastical establishment of the country false and hollow? The obvious harmony between that attachment and his principles of civil government, forbid the supposition. What, then, shall we say ? He knew the merits of Paley and Watson-he acknowledged their services to the Church and the Gospel-he was a sincere friend of both Gospel and Church-But he was a temporal monarch, reigning by Tory principles, and he hated Whiggism in all its forms. This feeling absorbed every other; and a patron of liberal policy in vain served the cause of religion and its establishments. His sins were counted against him his services availed him not—the religious Head of the Church was lost in the Royal Head of the Tories,
But though this may account for such conduct by assigning its motives, does it afford any justification of it—we will not say in the eye of conscience, or of an enlarged reason-but in point of common worldly prudence? When the religion of the State was exposed to imminent peril, especially during the period of the French revolution; when the cause of the Church and the State were more particularly identified, by the common danger to which all establishments then seemed exposed; when the alliance, reprobated by the best Christians as well as the soundest statesmen, between the Government and the Hierarchy, for secular and party ends, was thought most indispensable by the High-Church Tory faction-surely policy would have loudly, even if justice and gratitude were silent, called for the elevation, to conspicuous stations in the national establishment, of the two