spheres of eminence imprinted their spirit on the age, and shone forth as master-minds in poetry or politics— it must be felt on all sides how great is the variety of interest which they have afforded, and how high the pitch of excellence which they have attained. Few writers have ever comprised so much of wit and wisdom in so agreeable a form; none have ever addressed themselves to a wider circle of readers. Novels are read by women, even by those who read nothing else; and novels are read by men, even by those who read everything else.

The excellent example set by Queen Anne in her private conduct, as also the observance of virtue which she maintained in her Court and household, have been acknowledged even by those who did not entirely approve it, and were inclined to a laxer rule of life. As an unwilling, or it might be said unconscious, witness to her merit on this point we may cite Lord Chesterfield. In a memoir which he prepared with care, but with good discretion left unpublished, he observes

66

Queen Anne had always been devout, chaste, and formal; in short, a prude. She discouraged, as much as she could, the usual and even the most pardonable vices of Courts. Her Drawing Rooms were more respectable than agreeable, and had more the air of solemn places of worship than the gaiety of a Court. Public and crowded assemblies, where every man was sure of meeting every woman, were not known in those days. But every woman of fashion kept what was called a Day,' which was a formal circle of her acquaintances of both sexes, unbroken by any cardtables, tea-tables, or other amusements. There the fine women and fine men met perhaps for an hour; and if they had anything particular to say to one another it

could be only conveyed by the language of the eyes. The other public diversion was merely for the eyes, for it was going round and round the ring in Hyde Park and bowing to one another slightly, respectfully, or tenderly, as occasion required. No woman of fashion could receive any man at her morning toilet without alarming the husband and his friends. If a fine man and fine woman were well enough disposed to wish for a private meeting, the execution of their good intentions was difficult and dangerous. The preliminaries could only be settled by the hazardous expedient of letters; and the only places almost for the conclusion and ratification of the definitive treaty were the Indian houses in the City, where the good woman of the house from good-nature, and perhaps some little motive of interest, let out her back-rooms for momentary lodgings to distressed lovers. But all these difficulties and dangers were in a great measure removed by the arrival of the present Royal Family. King George the First loved pleasures, and was not delicate in the choice of

There can scarcely be named any point in knowledge and science, or in their practical application, which has not received great improvement since the reign of Queen Anne. Manufactures and trade, the Fine Arts, public teaching in all its branches, the repeal of barbarous penalties, the order and rule of prisons, the speed and security of travelling, the comforts and appliances of daily life-all these have immensely advanced; and there are new discoveries which in

"On the Mistresses of Kings | different headings in my edition of George I. and II." (MS.). Some Lord Chesterfield's Works, vol. ii. other extracts from this Memoir p. 439-442. But much the greater were inserted by me under two part remains unpublished.

former days even the wildest flights of fancy could never have surmised. But perhaps the same amount of research which serves to bring forward these results in full detail may convince the mind of the inquirer, as it has my own, that the people of Queen Anne enjoyed much the larger measure of happiness.

It is to be observed in the first place how far more widely spread was in those days the spirit of contentment. Men were willing to make the best of the present without a feverish anxiety for the past or for the future-without constantly longing that yesterday might come back, or that to-morrow might come on. The laws were not so good, but the people were better satisfied with them. The Church was less efficient, but

was more cheerfully maintained.

My meaning may be further illustrated. The tendency of the people in Queen Anne's reign was I think, according to the figure of speech which we find in the First Book of Kings, "to dwell safely, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree." The tendency of the present age, unless I much mistake it, would be rather to contend by ingenious arguments that the vine and fig are not the best of all possible fruit-trees-that we ought immediately to root them up and to plant in their stead some saplings of another kind. It may not be wholly prejudice that views this disposition with regret.. Is there any real happiness in such constant yearning and striving for something other than exists? Is it good to live in an age when everything is being improved away off the face of the earth?

But let us view the question in more detail. If we look to the country districts we shall judge perhaps that in Queen Anne's time the harsh features of the

8

feudal system had passed away while some of the milder ones remained. In other words there was no trace of serfdom or compulsory service, but there lingered the feeling of protection due by the lord of the soil to his retainers in sickness or old age. Labour was then no mere contract of work done for value received. Service was still in some degree requited even when it ceased to be performed. As between landlord and tenant also, a more cordial spirit, a more intimate relation, appears to have prevailed. There was wholly absent that main cause of alienation, whenever at present alienation does occur—the excessive preserving of game. We find it laid down in the Spectator as an admitted truth, that "the sport is the more agreeable where the game is the harder to come at." In those days and in days much later, the return of the shooting season was hailed with pleasure not by the landlord only but by the farmer also. The young squire would cheerily step into the homestead for his midday meal; and sit down with a well-earned appetite to a dish of eggs and bacon, with a glass-or it might be two-of the honest home-brewed, instead of the luxurious luncheon-baskets which according to the present fashion would be spread before him. He would point with some pride to "the birds" which his morning's walk had gained him, and descant at some length on the sagacity and skill of his dogs; for at that time-before the time of "driving "—these were deemed no small part of the enjoyment of the day. In return he would be most warmly greeted and made welcome, undisturbed by any little questions which

8 No. 131, July 31, 1711. This paper is by Addison.

would be reserved for another time, as of the mouldering floor in the barn, or the leaky roof in the "beast-houses;" and when he again stepped forth, he would see his tenant at his side taking interest in his sport, and eager to point out to him the haunts of the nearest coveys. All was cheerfulness and sunshine between the two classes when they met not for business alone. Surely that was a more manly system-a nobler incentive to country life in the autumn months-than the one which at present in some counties at least too often prevails; when the entire object seems to be ostentatious display-to produce a bulletin of the greatest possible number of killed in the smallest possible number of hours-to station each distinguished guest at the corner of a wood, and bid him there stand still, while pheasants and rabbits by the score are made to pass before him.

It may be said indeed that at the present day those persons who for political objects are striving by speech or print to sow dissension between the owners and the occupiers of the soil find no argument so ready to their hand or so persuasive as this excessive increase and effeminate pursuit of game. It may be said that in several of our English shires the rabbit is now the best ally of the Radical. But it was not so under Queen Anne, nor even under George the Third.

Passing to the towns and pursuing the comparison of the two periods, we may deem that under Queen Anne there was much less of wealth but much less also of abject poverty. The contrasts were not so sharp, nor stood as it were so closely face to face with each other. Nevertheless in that day also trade was not a little lucrative. As is stated by Budgell in the Spectator: "I have observed greater estates got about ' Change than at