I. 1713. dread of royal encroachment. It may thence, per- CHAP. haps, 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. First, as to the Tories. The Tories of Queen Anne's reign pursued a most unceasing opposition to a just and glorious war against France. They treated the great general of the age as their peculiar adversary. To our recent enemies, the French, their policy was supple and crouching. They had an indifference, or even an aversion, to our old allies the Dutch. They had a political leaning towards the Roman Catholics at home. They were supported by the Roman Catholics in their elections. They had a love of triennial parliaments in preference to septennial. They attempted to abolish the protecting duties and restrictions of commerce. They wished to favour our trade with France at the expense of our trade with Portugal. They were supported by a faction, whose war-cry was "Repeal of the Union,” in a sister kingdom. To serve a temporary purpose in the House of Lords, they had recourse (for the first time in our annals) to a large and over CHAP. whelming creation of peers. Like the Whigs in I. May, 1831, they chose the moment of the highest 1713. popular passion and excitement to dissolve the House of Commons, hoping to avail themselves of a short-lived cry for the purpose of permanent delusion. The Whigs of Queen Anne's time, on the other hand, supported that splendid war which led to such victories as Ramillies and Blenheim. They had for a leader the great man who gained those victories. They advocated the old principles of trade. They prolonged the duration of parliaments. They took their stand on the principles of the Revolution of 1688. They raised the cry of "No Popery." They loudly inveighed against the subserviency to France the desertion of our old allies-the outrage wrought upon the peers the deceptions practised upon the sovereign — and the other measures of the Tory administration. - Such were the Tories and such were the Whigs of Queen Anne. Can it be doubted that, at the accession of William the Fourth, Harley and St. John would have been called Whigs Somers and Stanhope Tories? Would not the October Club have loudly cheered the measures of Lord Grey, and the Kit-Cat find itself renewed in the Carlton? 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 I. treading in the footsteps of his forefathers, in reality, CHAP. 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 * Moral Philosophy, book v. ch. x. 1713. CHAP. mouth of the Tories and the courtiers. But this, I. which at first sight might make us believe in its 1713. 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 crimination. "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. 66 66 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 * Constitutional Hist. vol. iii. p. 164. 3d ed. I. compared with that of any other people, under CHAP. similar circumstances, it may well be doubted whether any one ever so completely and so admirably 1713. 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 |