dividual whom they attacked, the tongue and the soul of Hampden, an invincible orator, and an undaunted patriot. May the recollection of those contests, and those triumphs, brighten the last days of this illustrious man, and kindle those who have embraced the same studies to seek for a similar inspiration!

Such instances might persuade us that the study of the law, by giving men a better knowledge of their rights, gives them a stronger desire to preserve them, and by affording them a nearer view of our constitution, enables them the better to appreciate and cherish its excellencies. Unfortunately, however, there are instances on the other side, of men who, attracted by the brilliant rewards in the profession of the law, which the Crown has to give, have made themselves the tools of tyranny and corruption. But this is by no means an exclusive attribute of lawyers. The mean Lord Strafford, who sold his country for an office and a peerage, was a country gentleman; and the false Lord Bolingbroke, who betrayed his benefactor, and endeavoured to restore a race of despots, which the nation had proscribed, was a wit and a man of fashion.

K

130

CHAP. XVI.

PARTY. REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE.

Party is a body of men united, for promoting, by their joint endeavours, the national interest, upon some particular principle, in which they are all agreed. Men thinking freely, will, in particular instances, think differently. But still, as the greater part of the measures which arise in the course of public business are related to, or dependent on, some great leading general principles in government, a man must be peculiarly unfortunate in the choice of his political company if he does not agree with them, at least nine times in ten. And this is all that ever was required for a character of the greatest uniformity and steadiness in connection. How men can proceed without connection at all, is to me utterly incomprehensible. Of what sort of materials must that man be made, how must he be tempered and put together, who can sit whole years in Parliament, with five hundred and fifty of his fellow-citizens, amidst the storm of such tempestuous passions, in the sharp conflict of so many wits and tempers, and characters, in the agitation of such mighty questions, in the discussion of such vast and ponderous interests, without seeing any one sort of men, whose character, conduct, or disposition, would lead him to associate himself with them, to aid and be aided in any one system of public utility? BURKE.

THE reign of Queen Anne is as remarkable for the violent contentions as that of George I. is for the complete ascendency of party. It is

worth while to consider the effects both of the

contention and the triumph. Let us, first, however, endeavour, in a few words, to explain the existence of party, and to vindicate the integrity of those who avow that they belong to party. The general defence, indeed, may be left where Mr. Burke has placed it. There can be nothing more striking, or more sound, than his writings on this subject. But although his reasoning never has, and never can be answered, a certain degree of favour still attends the man who declares himself not to belong to party; as if he were clearing himself from the imputation of dishonesty or selfish

ness.

The division of England into two great parties began, as I conceive, and still continues, in consequence of wide and irreconcileable differences of opinion.

The Tories look upon the exaltation of the Crown as the favourite object of the State. Allowing, as they now do, perhaps, that the King is entrusted with his power for the public good, they yet think that public good requires he should be unfettered in the exercise of his

prerogative, so far as the law permits. While he remains within the legal bounds assigned to him, they are extremely unwilling to controul his power. If he steps beyond them, or places the country in great danger, they are ready to oppose the Crown by their votes in Parliament, or in any other legal manner. It follows from their doctrine, however, that their tendency always is to support the King in the first place, in all his measures, and to refuse their sanction only when those measures have placed the country in peril so imminent, that they are obliged reluctantly to disclose their own opinions.

The Whigs look towards the people, whose welfare is the end and object of all government. They maintain, that as the King's advisers are responsible for his measures, it is the duty of Parliament to examine and pronounce whether those measures are wise and salutary. They are, therefore, ready to interfere with any exercise of the prerogative, which they think unwise or improper; and to insist (too haughtily, perhaps, at times) upon the adoption of that line of policy which they consider

as best adapted to the wants and state of the country.

Such appears to me a just general representation of Whig and Tory opinions. I know that the Tory doctrine is not now so much avowed as formerly, but it animates more than ever, if possible, the views and conduct of that party.

If I have made a fair statement, it was inevitable that the two parties should separate, and remain divided.

Let me now suppose a young member of Parliament coming to London at the beginning of the reign of Queen Anne. He adopts, if you please, the general opinions of the Tories. He votes generally, but not always, with that party. He naturally becomes acquainted with some of them. He talks over the questions that are coming on for some time before. These conversations lead to a more intimate union his opinions are listened to, and his doubts melt away in the course of amicable discussion. Sometimes, when the measure is one of party policy rather than of principle, he surrenders his own opinion to that of the states