Chapter VII (6)

[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.