reserved all his favours for those who declaimed on the natural equality of men, and the popular origin of government.  This was the state of things from the Revolution till the death of George the Second.  The effect was what might have been expected.  Even in that profession which has generally been most disposed to magnify the prerogative, a great change took place.  Bishopric after bishopric and deanery after deanery were bestowed on Whigs and Latitudinarians.  The consequence was that Whiggism and Latitudinarianism were professed by the ablest and most aspiring churchmen.

Hume complained bitterly of this at the close of his history.  “The Whig party,” says he, “for a course of near seventy years, has almost without interruption enjoyed the whole authority of government, and no honours or offices could be obtained but by their countenance and protection.  But this event, which in some particulars has been advantageous to the State, has proved destructive to the truth of history, and has established many gross falsehoods, which it is unaccountable how any civilised nation could have embraced, with regard to its domestic occurrences.  Compositions the most despicable, both for style and matter,”—­in a note he instances the writings of Locke, Sydney, Hoadley, and Rapin,—­“have been extolled and propagated and read as if they had equalled the most celebrated remains of antiquity.  And forgetting that a regard to liberty, though a laudable passion, ought commonly to be subservient to a reverence for established government, the prevailing faction has celebrated only the partisans of the former.”  We will not here enter into an argument about the merit of Rapin’s History or Locke’s political speculations.  We call Hume merely as evidence to a fact well known to all reading men, that the literature patronised by the English Court and the English ministry, during the first half of the eighteenth century, was of that kind which courtiers and ministers generally do all in their power to discountenance, and tended to inspire zeal for the liberties of the people rather than respect for the authority of the Government.

There was still a very strong Tory party in England.  But that party was in opposition.  Many of its members still held the doctrine of passive obedience.  But they did not admit that the existing dynasty had any claim to such obedience.  They condemned resistance.  But by resistance they meant the keeping out of James the Third, and not the turning out of George the Second.  No radical of our times could grumble more at the expenses of the royal household, could exert himself more strenuously to reduce the military establishment, could oppose with more earnestness every proposition for arming the executive with extraordinary powers, or could pour more unmitigated abuse on placemen and courtiers.  If a writer were now, in a massive Dictionary, to define a Pensioner as a traitor and a slave, the Excise as a hateful tax, the Commissioners of the Excise as wretches, if he were to write a satire full of reflections on men who receive “the price of boroughs and of souls,” who “explain their country’s dear-bought rights away,” or