such they were at the time, of the great interests of the most civilized portion of mankind.

De Torcy, through the whole of the third volume of his Memoirs, cannot help repeatedly contrasting, with pleasure, the existing and former situation of France: and these expressions, connected with the attendant circumstances of the case, amount to something like a reproach to the Tory ministers, with whom France had now to deal, instead of Marlborough and the Whigs.

Again, it cannot be denied that Harley, the first minister in the Tory administration, by the shuffling, temporising, and narrow nature of his mind, was totally unfit to compose the differences and adjust the interests of Europe at that remarkable crisis. Bolingbroke should have been the Tory minister, not Harley, if any great and decisive alteration was to be made in the policy and measures of the country, and if a peace was to be attempted. England would not then have been disgraced by some of the wretched and even dishonourable measures that were resorted to. Bolingbroke, in his very curious close of his eighth letter seems often to defend more than he can approve, to defend measures of which certainly he would not have been the author, and to some of which, it is to be hoped, if prime minister, he would not have submitted.

To the general train and object of Bolingbroke's very able and spirited reasonings, the Memoirs of De Torcy seem to me, though little intended for any such purpose, to be a very adequate reply. The question is not whether the Whigs made a proper use of their success in war, when they came to negotiations for a peace, but, when that question has been decided, as I think it must be, against the Whigs, the question is, whether next the Tory ministers made fair use of that success, and whether they conducted themselves in a spirit of good faith with their allies, or proper sympathy with the great interests of their country.

This second question must, I think, be determined against them decidedly, and even with indignation.

Since I wrote the lecture which I have now delivered, the work of Mr. Coxe has appeared, his History of the Princes of the House of Bourbon in Spain. Every subject that I have

now alluded to is here treated very fully, and I must refer to it. I have not found any occasion to alter what I had written. I do not admire the Tory ministry any more than Mr. Coxe; but whether the Whigs, from the first, were sufficiently moderate and disposed to peace, is another ques

tion.

Mr. Coxe's work is in many places entertaining, and is on the whole a valuable accession to our historical information; but, in the present state of the world and of literature, I suspect that much of the work will be passed over with a slight perusal by the general reader.

TH

LECTURE XXIV.

ANNE.

HE reign of Anne is distinguished, even in the annals of England, for the violence of its politics. Party violence has been not uncommonly a topic of censure and lamentation with good men, and their accusations and reproaches have been urged often with sincerity, and sometimes with reason; but care must be taken on these occasions both by those who are disposed to make these indiscriminate indictments, and those who are disposed to listen to them. It is in itself rather a suspicious circumstance, when men who are at all conversant with the business of the world are found expressing themselves very strongly or very often against the violence of parties or the fury of factions. In a mixed and free government, there will naturally arise, as I must for ever repeat, two great and leading divisions, those who lean to the side of authority, and those who lean to the side of privilege. Questions, unlike in name and form, will often involve the same general principles, and men are not, therefore, always as inconsistent as they seem. Trains of measures will often emanate from one point, and proceed in the most strictly logical succession, and must be therefore supported and resisted always by the same men. It is, therefore, not possible that those who are really independent and sincere should not often in free legislative assemblies, vote in sets and parties, and it is equally impossible that they should not become inflamed by sympathy and collision. Read the works of Soame Jenyns, and of Locke. Would not each of these men, for instance, while they retained their integrity, have been seen always on the opposite sides of any question that could affect the constitution and government of a free country?

The real and proper topic for lamentation and reproach, is

not, exactly, that men are often violent and systematic in their opposition to each other, but that they do not adopt their principles with sufficient care, and then follow them up with sincerity and honour. Moderate men, as they call themselves, and men of no party, as they profess themselves to be, will generally be found to be men who take little concern, or are but ill informed, on political subjects; and if they are members of the legislature, they are pretty uniformly observed, as they are of no party, forsooth, to take care to be of that party which is the strongest-to be of the minister's party (be he who he may), and to benefit by their neutrality. It is possible, indeed, for men to be of no party, and to assume the high station of real patriots; and even when they are of a party, to remain patriots, by refusing to sanction those measures of the party which they disapprove. This is, perhaps, the highest possible ambition of an intelligent and virtuous man, but such an eminence can only be attained on one hard condition, that of never receiving a favour from those in power.

I may recur to this subject on 'some occasion hereafter; for the present, however, I conclude by observing, that the causes of political animosity were, in these times, very peculiarly weighty and animating. The questions that lay often between the parties were, in reality, what family was to possess the throne; whether the title of the crown was to be founded on divine and hereditary right, or on the principles of an original contract, that is, whether on arbitrary or free principles; whether the religion established in the country was to be certainly Protestant, or probably Roman Catholic; in a word, whether principles decidedly favourable, or principles clearly hostile, to the civil and religious liberties of the country, were to be maintained and established.

But in a sort of connexion with this subject, I may mention, that in a mixed government like this, the attention of those who wish well to the popular part of it, has been always very naturally directed to the influence which the executive power can directly exercise on the legislative bodies, by means of posts, places, and pensions, given to their members.

Place bills have therefore at different times been attempted,

and efforts of this kind were also made in the reign which we are now considering, and with some success.

It is to be observed, however, that it seems not now to have been any longer proposed, that every man should necessarily be shut out of parliament by holding an official situation. The bills were for limiting the number of such members, not excluding them altogether. The number, for instance, was to have been fifty; and to limit the number is a measure of a very different complexion from a general bill of exclusion. You will see speeches in favour of and against the measure in the debates.

Bills were brought into the commons, and rejected by the lords, one in 1712, only by a majority of five; but instead of following the fortunes of these bills through the houses, I shall prefer calling your attention to some observations on the general subject, which may be found drawn up by Paley in his chapter on the British Constitution.

Nothing can drop from the pen of such a writer, so remarkable for his clearness and excellent sense, that can be without its importance, particularly where the subject has any immediate connexion with the business of human life. This eminent reasoner, however, feels it necessary to protest against any influence, but that which results from the acceptance or expectation of public preferments; nay more, against any influence which requires any sacrifice of personal probity.

This last seems a large concession-a concession which might, at first sight, be thought to leave no further difference of opinion possible. What could the most ardent patriot wish for, but that the house should be so constituted, that no sacrifice of personal probity should be required?

Dr. Paley must, however, be again heard.

He contends, that in political, above all other subjects, the arguments, or rather the conjectures, on each side of a question, are often so equally poised, that the wisest judgments may be held in suspense. These he calls subjects of indifference. And again, when the subject is not indifferent in itself, it will appear such to a great part of those to whom it is proposed, from want of information, or reflection, or experience, or capacity to weigh the reasons on each side. "These