Very plain people now wear finer | really come up with the Whigs. The cloth than Beau Fielding or Beau absolute position of the parties has Edgeworth could have procured in been altered; the relative position reQueen Anne's reign. We would rather mains unchanged. Through the whole trust to the apothecary of a modern of that great movement, which began village than to the physician of a large before these party-names existed, and town in Anne's reign. A modern which will continue after they have beboardingschool miss could tell the most come obsolete, through the whole of learned professor of Anne's reign some that great movement of which the things in geography, astronomy, and Charter of John, the institution of the chemistry, which would surprise him. House of Commons, the extinction of Villanage, the separation from the see of Rome, the expulsion of the Stuarts, the reform of the Representative System, are successive stages, there have been, under some name or other, two sets of men, those who were before their age, and those who were behind it, those who were the wisest among their contemporaries, and those who gloried in being no wiser than their great grandfathers. It is delightful to think, that, in due time, the last of those who straggle in the rear of the great march will occupy the place now occupied by the advanced guard. The Tory Parliament of 1710 would have passed for a most liberal Parliament in the days of Elizabeth; and there are at present few members of the Conser vative Club who would not have been fully qualified to sit with Halifax and Somers at the Kit-cat. The science of government is an experimental science; and therefore it is, like all other experimental sciences, a progressive science. Lord Mahon would have been a very good Whig in the days of Harley. But Harley, whom Lord Mahon censures so severely, was very Whiggish when compared even with Clarendon; and Clarendon was quite a democrat when compared with Lord Burleigh. If Lord Mahon lives, as we hope he will, fifty years longer, we have no doubt that, as he now boasts of the resemblance which the Tories of our time bear to the Whigs of the Revolution, he will then boast of the resemblance borne by the Tories of 1882 to those immortal patriots, the Whigs of the Reform Bill. Society, we believe, is constantly advancing in knowledge. The tail is now where the head was some generations ago. But the head and the tail Though, therefore, we admit that a still keep their distance. A nurse of modern Tory bears some resemblance this century is as wise as a justice of to a Whig of Queen Anne's reign, we the quorum and cust-alorum in Shal-can by no means admit that a Tory of low's time. The wooden spoon of this year would puzzle a senior wrangler of the reign of George the Second. A boy from the National School reads and spells better than half the knights of the shire in the October Club. But there is still as wide a difference as ever between justices and nurses, senior wranglers and wooden spoons, members of Parliament and children at charity schools. In the same way, though a Tory may now be very like what a Whig was a hundred and twenty years ago, the Whig is as much in advance of the Tory as ever. The stag, in the Treatise on the Bathos, who "feared his hind feet would o'ertake the fore," was not more mistaken than Lord Mahon, if he thinks that he has Anne's reign resembled a modern Whig. Have the modern Whigs passed laws for the purpose of closing the entrance of the House of Commons against the new interests created by trade? Do the modern Whigs hold the doctrine of divine right? Have the modern Whigs laboured to exclude all Dissenters from office and power? The modern Whigs are, indeed, at the present moment, like the Tories of 1712, desirous of peace, and of close union with France. But is there no difference between the France of 1712 and the France of 1832 ? Is France now the stronghold of the "Popish tyranny" and the "arbitrary power" against which our ancestors fought and prayed? Lord Mahon will find we during the last four years of Anne's reign, the Tories were in the right, and the Whigs in the wrong. That question was, whether England ought to conclude peace without exacting from Phi think, that his parallel is, in all essential circumstances, as incorrect as that which Fluellen drew between Macedon and Monmouth, or as that which an ingenious Tory lately discovered between Archbishop Williams and Arch-lip a resignation of the Spanish crown? bishop Vernon. No Parliamentary struggle, from the We agree with Lord Mahon in time of the Exclusion Bill to the time thinking highly of the Whigs of Queen of the Reform Bill, has been so violent Anne's reign. But that part of their as that which took place between the conduct which he selects for especial authors of the Treaty of Utrecht and praise is precisely the part which we the War Party. The Commons were think most objectionable. We revere for peace; the Lords were for vigorous them as the great champions of political hostilities. The Queen was compelled and of intellectual liberty. It is true to choose which of her two highest prethat, when raised to power, they were rogatives she would exercise, whether not exempt from the faults which power she would create Peers, or dissolve the naturally engenders. It is true that Parliament. The ties of party superthey were men born in the seventeenth seded the ties of neighbourhood and of century, and that they were therefore blood. The members of the hostile ignorant of many truths which are factions would scarcely speak to each familiar to the men of the nineteenth other, or bow to each other. The women century. But they were, what the re-appeared at the theatres bearing the formers of the Church were before them, and what the reformers of the House of Commons have been since, the leaders of their species in a right direction. It is true that they did not allow to political discussion that latitude which to us appears reasonable and safe; but to them we owe the removal of the Censorship. It is true that they did not carry the principle of religious liberty to its full extent; but to them we owe the Toleration Act. badges of their political sect. The schism extended to the most remote counties of England. Talents, such as had seldom before been displayed in political controversy, were enlisted in the service of the hostile parties. On one side was Steele, gay, lively, drunk with animal spirits and with factious animosity, and Addison, with his polished satire, his inexhaustible fertility of fancy, and his graceful simplicity of style. In the front of the opposite Though, however, we think that the ranks appeared a darker and fiercer Whigs of Anne's reign were, as a spirit, the apostate politician, the ribald body, far superior in wisdom and pub-priest, the perjured lover, a heart burnlic virtue to their contemporaries the ing with hatred against the whole huTories, we by no means hold ourselves man race, a mind richly stored with bound to defend all the measures of our favourite party. A life of action, if it is to be useful, must be a life of compromise. But speculation admits of no compromise. A public man is often under the necessity of consenting to measures which he dislikes, lest he should endanger the success of measures which he thinks of vital importance. But the historian lies under no such necessity. On the contrary, it is one of his most sacred duties to point out clearly the errors of those whose general conduct he admires. It seems to us, then, that, on the great question which divided England images from the dunghill and the lazarhouse. The ministers triumphed, and the peace was concluded. Then came the reaction. A new sovereign ascended the throne. The Whigs enjoyed the confidence of the King and of the Parliament. The unjust severity with which the Tories had treated Marlborough and Walpole was more than retaliated. Harley and Prior were thrown into prison; Bolingbroke and Ormond were compelled to take refuge in a foreign land. The wounds inflicted in this desperate conflict continued to rankle for many years. It was long before the members of either In fact, soon after the peace, the two branches of the House of Bourbon began to quarrel. A close alliance was formed between Philip and Charles, lately competitors for the Castilian crown. A Spanish princess, betrothed to the King of France, was sent back in the most insulting manner to her party could discuss the question of the | cradle. There was surely no reason peace of Utrecht with calmness and to think that the policy of the King of impartiality. That the Whig Ministers Spain would be swayed by his regard had sold us to the Dutch; that the for a nephew whom he had never seen. Tory Ministers had sold us to the French; that the war had been carried on only to fill the pockets of Marlborough; that the peace had been concluded only to facilitate the return of the Pretender; these imputations and many others, utterly unfounded, or grossly exaggerated, were hurled backward and forward by the political dis-native country; and a decree was put putants of the last century. In our time the question may be discussed without irritation. We will state, as concisely as possible, the reasons which have led us to the conclusion at which we have arrived. The dangers which were to be apprehended from the peace were two; first, the danger that Philip might be induced, by feelings of private affection, to act in strict concert with the elder branch of his house, to favour the French trade at the expense of England, and to side with the French government in future wars; secondly, the danger that the posterity of the Duke of Burgundy might become extinct, that Philip might become heir by blood to the French crown, and that thus two great monarchies might be united under one sovereign. forth by the Court of Madrid com- though called the Family Compact, The second danger was that Philip might have succeeded to the crown of his native country. This did not hap pen; but it might have happened; and at one time it seemed very likely to happen. A sickly child alone stood between the King of Spain and the The first danger appears to us alto- heritage of Lewis the Fourteenth gether chimerical. Family affection Philip, it is true, solemnly renounced has seldom produced much effect on his claim to the French crown. But the policy of princes. The state of the manner in which he had obtained Europe at the time of the peace of possession of the Spanish crown had Utrecht proved that in politics the ties proved the inefficacy of such renun of interest are much stronger than ciations. The French lawyers declared those of consanguinity or affinity. The Philip's renunciation null, as being inElector of Bavaria had been driven consistent with the fundamental law of from his dominions by his father-in- the realm. The French people would law; Victor Amadeus was in arms probably have sided with him whom against his sons-in-law; Anne was they would have considered as the seated on a throne from which she had rightful heir. Saint Simon, though assisted to push a most indulgent fa- much less zealous for hereditary mother. It is true that Philip had been narchy than most of his countrymen, accustomed from childhood to regard and though strongly attached to the his grandfather with profound vene-Regent, declared, in the presence of ration. It was probable, therefore, that that prince, that he never would sup the influence of Lewis at Madrid would port the claims of the House of Orbe very great. But Lewis was more than seventy years old; he could not live long; his heir was an infant in the leans against those of the King of Spain. "If such," he said, "be my feelings, what must be the feelings of others?" Bolingbroke, it is certain, as it had before rallied round him. was fully convinced that the renuncia-And of this he seems to have been tion was worth no more than the fully aware. For many years the paper on which it was written, and demanded it only for the purpose of blinding the English Parliament and people. Yet, though it was at one time probable that the posterity of the Duke of Burgundy would become extinct, and though it is almost certain that, if the posterity of the Duke of Burgundy had become extinct, Philip would have successfully preferred his claim to the crown of France, we still defend the principle of the Treaty of Utrecht. In the first place, Charles had, soon after the battle of Villa-Viciosa, inherited, by the death of his elder brother, all the dominions of the House of Austria. Surely, if to these dominions he had added the whole monarchy of Spain, the balance of power would have been seriously endangered. The union of the Austrian dominions and Spain would not, it is true, have been so alarming an event as the union of France and Spain. But Charles was actually Emperor. Philip was not, and never might be, King of France. The certainty of the less evil might well be set against the chance of the greater evil. But, in fact, we do not believe that Spain would long have remained under the government either of an Emperor or of a King of France. The character of the Spanish people was a better security to the nations of Europe than any will, any instrument of renunciation, or any treaty. The same energy which the people of Castile had put forth when Madrid was occupied by the Allied armies, they would have again put forth as soon as it appeared that their country was about to become a French province. Though they were no longer masters abroad, they were by no means disposed to see foreigners set over them at home. If Philip had attempted to govern Spain by mandates from Versailles, a second Grand Alliance would easily have effected what the first had failed to accomplish. The Spanish nation would have rallied against him as zealously favourite hope of his heart was that he might ascend the throne of his grandfather; but he seems never to have thought it possible that he could reign at once in the country of his adoption and in the country of his birth. These were the dangers of the peace; and they seem to us to be of no very formidable kind. Against these dangers are to be set off the evils of war and the risk of failure. The evils of the war, the waste of life, the suspen sion of trade, the expenditure of wealth, the accumulation of debt, require no illustration. The chances of failure it is difficult at this distance of time to calculate with accuracy. But we think that an estimate approximating to the truth may, without much difficulty, be formed. The Allies had been victorious in Germany, Italy, and Flanders. It was by no means improbable that they might fight their way into the very heart of France. But at no time since the commencement of the war had their prospects been so dark in that country which was the very object of the struggle. In Spain they held only a few square leagues. The temper of the great majority of the nation was decidedly hostile to them. If they had persisted, if they had obtained success equal to their highest expectations, if they had gained a series of victories as splendid as those of Blenheim and Ramilies, if Paris had fallen, if Lewis had been a prisoner, we still doubt whether they would have accomplished their object. They would still have had to carry on interminable hostilities against the whole population of a country which affords peculiar facilities to irregular warfare, and in which invading armies suffer more from famine than from the sword. We are, therefore, for the peace of Utrecht. We are indeed no admirers of the statesmen who concluded that peace. Harley, we believe, was a solemn trifler, St. John a brilliant knave. The great body of their followers consisted of the country clergy and the country gentry; two classes of men who were then inferior in intelligence | Lord Dover performed his part dilito decent shopkeepers or farmers of gently, judiciously, and without the our time. Parson Barnabas, Parson slightest ostentation. He had two Trulliber, Sir Wilful Witwould, Sir merits which are rarely found together Francis Wronghead, Squire Western, in a commentator. He was content to Squire Sullen, such were the people be merely a commentator, to keep in who composed the main strength of the background, and to leave the forethe Tory party during the sixty years ground to the author whom he had which followed the Revolution. It is undertaken to illustrate. Yet, though true that the means by which the willing to be an attendant, he was by Tories came into power in 1710 were no means a slave; nor did he consider most disreputable. It is true that the it as part of his duty to see no faults manner in which they used their power in the writer to whom he faithfully was often unjust and cruel. It is true and assiduously rendered the humblest that, in order to bring about their literary offices. favourite project of peace, they resorted to slander and deception, without the slightest scruple. It is true that they passed off on the British nation a renunciation which they knew to be invalid. It is true that they gave up the Catalans to the vengeance of Philip, in a manner inconsistent with humanity and national honour. But on the great question of Peace or War, we cannot but think that, though their motives may have been selfish and malevolent, their decision was beneficial to the The faults of Horace Walpole's head and heart are indeed sufficiently glaring. His writings, it is true, rank as high among the delicacies of intellectual epicures as the Strasburg pies among the dishes described in the Almanach des Gourmands. But as the pâté-de-foie-gras owes its excellence to the diseases of the wretched animal which furnishes it, and would be good for nothing if it were not made of livers preternaturally swollen, so none but an unhealthy and disorganised mind could have produced such literary luxuries as the works of Walpole. He was, unless we have formed a very erroneous judgment of his character, the most eccentric, the most artificial, the most fastidious, the most capricious of men. His mind was a bundle of inconsistent whims and affectations. His features were covered by mask within mask. When the outer disguise of obvious affectation was removed, you were still as far as ever from seeing the real man. He played innumerable parts, and over-acted them all. When he talked misanthropy, he out-Timoned Timon. When he talked philanthropy, he left Howard at an immeasurable distance. He scoffed at courts, and kept a chronicle of their most trifling scandal; at society, and was blown about by its slightest veerings of opinion; at literary fame, and left fair copies of his private letters, with copious notes, to be published after his decease; at rank, and never for a moment forgot that he was an Honourable; at the practice of entail, and tasked the ingenuity of conveyancers |