struggle broke out between them and the two Houses of Parliament touching the right of publishing the debates; the end of which was, that both houses, though aided by the crown, were totally defeated; and, for the first time, the people were able to study the proceedings of the national legislature, and thus gain some acquaintance with the national affairs.232 Scarcely was this triumph completed, when fresh stimulus was given by the promulgation of that great political doctrine of personal representation, 233 which must eventually carry all before it; and the germ of which may be traced late in the seventeenth century, when the true idea of personal independence began to take root and flourish. 234 Finally, it was reserved for the eighteenth cenearliest notice of this new power, which I have met with, 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.

232 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.

233 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.

234 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, 2d series, 1848, p. 262. A similar change, though at a ater period, took place in France. See the observations on the word 'individual.

tury, to set the first example of calling on the people to adjudicate upon those solemn questions of religion in which hitherto they had never been consulted, although it is now universally admitted that to their growing intelligence these, and all other matters, must ultimately be referred.235

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.

236

isme,' 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.

235 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; 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.

236

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 cen tury, and which influenced not only the style of authors, 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 "conversi. ble." 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,

The extension of knowledge being thus accompanied by ar 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;237 that mean and crouching spirit; that incessant homage to mere rank and birth; that constant confusion between power and right; that ignorant admiration for every thing which is old, and that still more ignorant contempt for every thing 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.

238

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 reac tion was attempted by Johnson, Gibbon, and Parr; but this, being contrary to the spirit of the age, was short-lived.

237

And the servility was, for the most part, well paid; indeed, rewarded for 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 40s. to 1007., 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 Illustra tions, 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 of 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 Euvres de Voltaire, vol. xl. p. 41, vol. lxi. p. 285.

238 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

From all these things there resulted consequences of vast importance. From this simplification, independence, and diffusion 239 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 any thing 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. 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.

230 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.

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.240 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.

241

It must be considered as a most fortunate circumstance, that after the death of Anne, 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.22 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, that, notwithstanding their arbitrary temper, there was no danger of their organizing a party to extend the boundaries of the royal

243

240 The apparent caprice and irregularity in small numbers arise from the pertur bations 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.

241 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. pp. 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.

249 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 François, vol. i. p. 159. 243 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.