to have changed his political associates to and fro with little concern. Indeed a character so cold and selfish could scarce be expected to glow with any ardour of private friendship, and though he loved society he never shone in it. "What can he mean," cried Foote, "by coming among us? He "is not only dull himself but the cause of dullness in others." "I never heard anything from him that was at all stri"king," said Dr. Johnson to Boswell.* But he deserves this high praise, that to men of genius he was uniformly kind. He always acknowledged fully their claim to public respect, and on several important occasions, even when most clearly on the other side in politics, he showed himself the enlightened and generous protector of literary merit.

While the Government of Lord North was thus fortified by new accessions and by a better distribution of its members, the Opposition was even more than proportionably weakened and divided. Wilkes when he ceased to be a martyr was shunned as an ally. It was found that his name during his imprisonment had been far more potent than his presence and exertions after his release. In the former period the Society of the Bill of Rights, while taking a forward part in public agitation, had raised a sum of no less than 17,000l. for the discharge of his debts. Wilkes, however, was by no means satisfied, thinking that they ought not only to free him from embarrassment, but make some provision for his future ease and comfort.** The Society now lost its weight and influence, and finally came to be dissolved through the quarrels of its members. None of them had been more strenuous in supporting Wilkes both at Brentford and Mile End than the Rev. John Horne, afterwards Horne Tooke. His abilities were ill fitted for the profession of a clergyman, which indeed he at last renounced, but they highly qualified him for his favourite occupation as a demagogue. Between him and Wilkes there now arose a violent

* Boswell's Life of Johnson, vol. viii. p. 168. ed. 1835.

** Almon's Memoirs and Correspondence of Wilkes, vol. iv. p. 10. and 14.

1772.

DECLINE OB WILKES'S INFLuence.

313

animosity and a keen altercation carried on in newspapers. Descending to the lowest and most selfish details they were not ashamed thus publicly to wrangle respecting a Welsh pony and a hamper of claret!

Even before the close of 1770 might be discerned the growing discord and weakness of Wilkes and his City friends. At a meeting which they convened to consider their course of action, some proposed a new Remonstrance to the King, while others urged an impeachment of Lord North in the House of Commons. "What is the use of a new Re"monstrance?" cried Wilkes. "It would only serve to make "another paper kite for His Royal Highness the Prince of "Wales!" "What is the use of an impeachment?" cried Sawbridge. "Lord North is quite sure of the Bishops and "the Scotch Peers in the Upper House, and could not fail "to be acquitted!" But although these ardent patriots might differ a little as to the means, they were bent on one and the same end; and the Remonstrance which was at last agreed upon appears to have been framed by their united wisdom. As thus drawn up it teemed with silly vagaries fit only to please the lowest order of intellects. Thus it prayed that His Majesty would for ever remove from his presence and councils all his Ministers and Secretaries of State, especially Lord Mansfield (who by the way was not one of them), and that His Majesty would not again admit any Scotchman into the administration! *

Extravagancies like these could not fail among Wilkes's own supporters to disgust the upright and reflecting. Such was Alderman Oliver. During his imprisonment with the Lord Mayor in the Tower Wilkes became ambitious to fill the office of Sheriff for the ensuing year, and pitched upon Oliver as a most eligible second candidate. But the Alderman when applied to answered coldly, that he differed from Mr. Wilkes in many views of public affairs, and declined to be his colleague in the London Shrievalty. Finally Wilkes

* See the Annual Register, 1770, p. 160., and Wilkes's own account in the Gentleman's Magazine for the same year, p. 519.

succeeded in his own object, being chosen Sheriff in conjunction with Alderman Bull; but he must have keenly felt the alienation of so many among his best and worthiest allies.

It was not only beyond Temple Bar that the cause of Opposition languished. In Parliament it was still divided between the followers of Rockingham and the followers of Chatham; and worse still than division, its stock of grievances ran low. The Falkland Islands no longer held out a plea for war. The complaints of the American Colonies were hushed, and it was hoped appeased. The blow to Constitutional freedom in the case of the Middlesex Election, however unjustifiable, had lost its novelty and therefore much of its popular effect. The tyranny of Privilege had ceased when the prisoners in the Tower were set free. Under these circumstances the whole country, so long troubled by the warring of parties, manifested its desire for repose. Then it was that Burke wrote to one of his friends as follows: "After the violent ferment in the nation as remarkable "a deadness and vapidity has succeeded."* Then it was that Junius in despair flung down his pen.

This lull of parties in England may be said to have continued for nearly three years. Parliament was not again convened until the January following; and when it did meet, turned its first attention to subjects of religious policy. A Petition was presented to the House of Commons by Sir William Meredith from about two hundred of the clergy, and some thirty or forty physicians and civil lawyers, praying that at the Universities and elsewhere their professions might be relieved from the necessity of subscription to the Thirtynine Articles. The prayer of this Petition appears to have been supported by the principal men then in Opposition, with the remarkable exception of Burke. He did not plead for the perfection of the Articles as they stood, but he showed the difficulty of dispensing with them, and of fraCorrespondence, vol. i. p. 256,

*To Mr. Shackleton, July 31. 1771. See also p. 504.

1772.

THE THIRTY NINE-ARTICLES.

315

ming better in their place. "These gentlemen," said Burke, "desire, instead of Articles, to make a profession of their "belief in the Holy Scriptures. But what are we to under"stand by the Holy Scriptures? The Romish Canon admits "the books of the Apocrypha; the Canon of Luther excludes "some parts of the Pentateuch and the whole epistle to the "Hebrews; and some ancient Fathers have rejected the "book of Revelations. Mankind are as little likely to be of one mind on this as on any other subject."

The reception of this Petition, or the very idea of entertaining it, was opposed with much zeal by Lord North, Mr. Charles Fox, and other Ministerial Members. Nevertheless this being considered as an open question, the new Solicitor General ventured to take part in its support. "The Univer"sities," said he, "which prepare for all the learned pro"fessions, and to rear fit Members of Parliament, ought not "to be confined to those of a particular creed; and we must "reform them if they will not reform themselves." A division being called for, the Petition was rejected by 217 votes against 71.

A similar fate attended shortly afterwards a motion of Mr. Henry Seymour. The object of his intended measure was to secure the possessions of the subject against dormant claims of the Church; this was called the Church Nullum Tempus Bill.

In the midst of these debates on questions of religious policy an incident occurred which gave fresh force and edge to them. According to annual custom Dr. Nowell, chaplain to the House of Commons, preached before them on the 30th of January. As usual also the discourse was but thinly attended; only the Speaker and four other Members being present, and these perhaps not very attentive. Motions of thanks and for printing the Sermon were afterwards carried without notice or remark. But when the Sermon came to be transmitted to the Members in its printed form it was found to convey most highflown doctrines from the school of Filmer and Sacheverell, inculcating passive obedience, and re

pugnant to the principles of the Revolution of 1688. Mr. Thomas Townshend, at that time a speaker of some note, and afterwards a Minister with the title of Lord Sydney, was the first to sound the alarm. He moved that Dr. Nowell's sermon should be burned by the hands of the common hangman; and his motion might perhaps have been carried had not the House remembered just in time their own former vote of thanks. That former vote combined with their more recent indignation made the situation of the House a little embarrassing, not to say ridiculous. Several acrimonious discussions ensued. At length it was agreed that in the Journals the vote of thanks should be expunged.

These debates, as may be supposed, did not pass without many and some severe allusions to the words of the Service which the Church has appointed for King Charles's Day. In consequence Mr. Frederick Montagu moved to repeal the Act for its observance. He declared that to his mind the Service for that day was no less than blasphemous, as conveying a parallel between our blessed Saviour and King Charles. On the other hand Sir Roger Newdigate, Member for the University of Oxford, zealously stood forth in defence of the Liturgy, and on a division he was supported by 125 votes against 97.

This conjuncture seemed to the Protestant Dissenters opportune for urging their pretensions. Several expressions in their favour had been heard to fall in the course of these debates from the midst of the Ministerial ranks. A meeting of the principal pastors resident in London, and belonging to the various Nonconformist congregations, was thereupon convened; and it was resolved to unite their efforts towards one common end. Their first step was to seek to dispense with the obligation imposed by the Toleration Act of William, though not enforced, of subscribing certain of the Articles: their final object was no doubt the repeal of the Test Act. With their sanction and support a Bill for the first step was proposed by Sir Henry Hoghton as a leading gentleman in the county of Lancaster, and seconded by Sir