placed at his disposal, have contributed largely to the same object; and the MS. Memoirs of the Master of Sinclair are valuable, as containing the keen and shrewd remarks of an intelligent and observant man, himself an actor in all the scenes he describes, and as supplying the best commentary upon the events of the Rebellion in 1715, and the conduct of its leaders, which we have yet seen. But the most interesting source from whence Lord Mahon has derived information is unquestionably the collection of the Stuart Papers, which, falling into the hands of the late Pope, at the death of the last member of that ill-fated race, were by him presented to King George IV., and are at present deposited at Cumberland Lodge. Were we inclined to moralize, we might well find abundant material in the circle of events by which the triumphant successors of the expelled line have inherited even to the most private records of the long series of abortive plans and disappointed hopes of their unfortunate rivals.

In an appendix to the present volume is contained a great variety of extracts from these MS. collections, including several letters from Bolingbroke to the Pretender, during the time he acted as his Minister. These are in themselves admirable specimens of his clear, concise, and easy style; and they give a vivid picture of the state of the Pretender's cause, the difficulties with which it was encompassed, the hereditary obstinacy of the Stuarts, and the weakness and want of conduct in their advisers.

The domestic history of England during the reign of Anne, is that of the great struggles between Whig and Tory; and Lord Mahon introduces his subject with some very striking remarks upon the relative position and objects of those parties. He has pointed out a number of precisely parallel lines of policy, and instances of unscrupulous resort to the same censurable set of weapons of party warfare, in the Tories of the reign of Queen Anne and the Whigs of the reign of William IV. :

At that period the two great contending parties were distinguished, as at present, by the nicknames of Whig and Tory. But it is very remarkable that in Queen Anne's reign the relative meaning of these terms was not only different but opposite to that which they bore at the accession of William IV. In theory, indeed, the main principle of each continues the same. The leading principle of the Tories is the dread of popular licentiousness. The leading principle of the Whigs is the dread of royal encroachment. It may thence, perhaps, be deduced that good and wise men would attach themselves either to the Whig or to the Tory party, according as there seemed to be the greater danger at that particular period from despotism or from democracy. The same person who would have been a Whig in 1712 would have been a Tory in 1830. For, on examination, it will be found that, in nearly all particulars, a modern

Tory

Tory resembles a Whig of Queen Anne's reign, and a Tory of Queen Anne's reign a modern Whig.

First, as to the Tories. The Tories of Queen Anne's reign pursued a most unceasing opposition to a just and glorious war against France. They treated the great General of the age as their peculiar adversary. To our recent enemies, the French, their policy was supple and crouching. They had an indifference, or even an aversion, to our old allies the Dutch. They had a political leaning towards the Roman Catholics at home. They were supported by the Roman Catholics in their elections. They had a love of triennial parliaments in preference to septennial. They attempted to abolish the protecting duties and restrictions of commerce. They wished to favour our trade with France at the expense of our trade with Portugal. They were supported by a faction whose war-cry was "Repeal of the Union," in a sister kingdom. To serve a temporary purpose in the House of Lords, they had recourse (for the first time in our annals) to a large and overwhelming creation of peers. Like the Whigs in May, 1831, they chose the moment of the highest popular passion and excitement to dissolve the House of Commons, hoping to avail themselves of a short-lived cry for the purpose of permanent delusion. The Whigs of Queen Anne's time, on the other hand, supported that splendid war which led to such victories as Ramillies and Blenheim. They had for a leader the great man who gained those victories. They advocated the old principles of trade. They prolonged the duration of parliaments. They took their stand on the principles of the Revolution of 1688. They raised the cry of "No Popery." They loudly inveighed against the subserviency to France, the desertion of our old allies, the outrage wrought upon the peers, the deceptions practised upon the sovereign, and the other measures of the Tory administration.

'Such were the Tories and such were the Whigs of Queen Anne. Can it be doubted that, at the accession of William IV., Harley and St. John would have been called Whigs; Somers and Stanhope, Tories? Would not the October Club have loudly cheered the measures of Lord Grey, and the Kit-Cat find itself renewed in the Carlton?'-Vol. i. pp. 6-8.

The defence of the Whigs against these imputations, as we have noticed them in some of their organs, seems to be founded upon the famous Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means. They do not deny the facts, but they assert, that while the Tories of 1713 resorted to such modes of furthering the interests of arbitrary power, they have employed them in advancing the progress and securing the ascendency of the democracy. Such an answer will not be deemed sufficient by two large classes; those who think that we may err as easily and as widely on the side of democracy as of despotism-and those who believe that the distinction of right and wrong obtains in politics as in the other transactions of human

life,

life, and that we are bound to pursue the attainment of our objects only by the straight and open paths.

There is another remarkable coincidence between the position of the Tories in 1713 and the Whigs in 1836; it is, that in both there is the same union with another party, acting for the time subordinately to them, and suffering them to take the lead, yet preserving a distinct character, possessing a powerful influence in the country, and intent upon carrying out their objects to a much greater extent :

'Besides these two great party divisions, there were also, in the reign of Anne, a handful of Republicans and a large body of Jacobites. The former generally screened themselves under the name of Whigs, as the latter under the name of Tories. But the former, comprising at that time only a few of the more violent Dissenters, and a remnant of the Roundheads, possessed hardly any influence, and deserves but little detail. Nay, even amongst that small party which was taunted as republican, by far the greater number are not to be understood as positive enemies of the throne. They wished both the monarchy and peerage to subsist, though with diminished authority. It is true, that the term of Republican Party was perpetually in the mouth of the Tories and the courtiers. But this, which at first sight might make us believe in its strength, is, in fact, only another proof of its weakness; since the idea of a republic was so generally hateful to the nation as to afford a useful byword for crimination. "It may be confidently asserted," says Mr. Hallam, of the reign of William, "that no republican party had any existence, if by that word we are to understand a set of men whose object was the abolition of our limited monarchy. . . . . . I believe it would be difficult to name five persons to whom even a speculative preference of a commonwealth may, with great probability, be ascribed." It is surely no small proof how severely the people had suffered under the old commonwealth, to find that, with all the misconduct of the succeeding reigns, that commonwealth had left no roots nor offsets behind it. The Jacobites, on the other hand, were at this time a most numerous and powerful party. To explain their principles and conduct will require a short historical retrospect.'-pp. 9, 10.

He proceeds to point out, in an able summary, the various causes which, since the expulsion of James II., had tended to strengthen and increase the Jacobite party. Totally different, then, as were the political tenets of the adherents of the Stuarts from those of the modern Radicals, yet pursuing the comparison which Lord Mahon has instituted between the Tories of Queen Anne's reign and the Whigs of our days, we may observe than position they were similarly situated between two great opposing parties, the champions of hereditary right and the supporters of the Hanover succession; that they were upheld to a great degree by the Jacobites, who regarded them as instruments for the accomplishment of their own ends; that they equally disclaimed any

compact,

compact, yet accepted support; and that their leaders maintained a secret intelligence with these doubtful and sinister allies which went far beyond their ostensible agreement.

We will not pursue this analogy farther. In writing the history of a period so near our own, and the events of which are so easily traceable in their effects upon ourselves, such comparisons naturally suggest themselves. Considerations connected with our political institutions, and with the changes they have subsequently undergone, almost unavoidably arise out of the subject. But in all the remarks which he introduces upon topics connected with our constitutional history, Lord Mahon preserves a remarkable tone of calmness and impartiality. Sincere in expressing, without reserve, his own opinions and impressions, he states them in the fairest and most candid manner. He places his reader in possession of the facts upon which he grounds his inferences, without ever losing the tone of moderation befitting the historian.

The natural bias of the author evidently leads him to sympathize with the feelings and opinions of the illustrious men who at that period were the leaders of the Whig party. His admiration of the great name and achievements of the Duke of Marlborough renders him extremely forbearing and tender in dealing with the glaring defects which stained the character of the hero. Yet it is impossible to palliate faults which all the lustre of his military glory cannot efface. One fact appears in the Stuart Papers which is more than sufficient to affix a stain of the foulest treachery upon his reputation. In one of Bolingbroke's private letters to the Pretender, written during the height of the rebellion of 1715, speaking of the indiscretion of the followers of the Jacobites, and the great difficulty of preserving secrecy in their affairs, he cites as instances of this want of caution, that a gentleman belonging to Stair named the number of battalions we expected from Sweden, and that the Marquis d'Effiat told me the very sum which Marlborough has advanced to you.' Marlborough was at this time deeply mortified and irritated at the coldness and neglect with which he had been treated by the new monarch, who probably entertained some jealousy of the power and influence attached to his name, and suspicions not ill founded of his trustworthiness. It has already been ascertained that during his whole life he kept up a secret correspondence with the exiled family, for which double dealing the very unsatisfactory excuse has been made, that it was not carried on with a view of seriously promoting the return of the Stuarts, but of making his peace with them in the contingency of their success. But in the present instance this equivocal apology falls to the ground, for no aid could be more substantial than a loan at this critical moment, nor, consi

dering Marlborough's known love of money, could he have adopted a more convincing method of showing that he was in earnest. The study of this period, the searching scrutiny which later times have instituted into the conduct and character of its public men, cannot indeed contribute to raise our ideas of their characters and principles. To whichever party we turn, we find almost every one of its chiefs not only animated by the bitterest and fiercest party spirit against his opponents, but intriguing against his colleagues, and carrying on under-plots to supplant and overthrow his associates, with a degree of duplicity which would now be stigmatized as the basest dereliction both of public principle and of private honour.

Lord Mahon gives us the clearest account of this succession of intrigues which we have yet seen, and the subject is one of those which present many difficulties to the historian. It is comparatively easy to describe those great public transactions which are open to all the world at the time-which are recorded in state papers-which are handed down by the contemporary statement of numerous witnesses. But the period before us contains, with the exception of the rebellion of 1715, few features of a striking and salient character. It is the chronicle of party struggles and ministerial changes, and the causes of important events are to be explored through a labyrinth of petty personal interests, and of obscure motives of rivalry and jealousy. Yet the ultimate influence of such quiet and noiseless times, when trifles float on the surface, and when the current takes its natural course, undisturbed by forceful counteractions, is perhaps more permanent upon posterity. The peaceful administration of Walpole produced more lasting effects than the brilliant exploits of Marlborough; and perhaps the changes now in progress in French society will make an enduring impression, when the meteor-like course of Napoleon has scarcely left a vestige of its track. The reason is evident;-in the one case an insensible but powerful direction is given to the national habits, and they imperceptibly undergo essential modifications; while in the other an abrupt violence is done to them, and they revert back to their former state as soon as the pressure is removed.

From this period we may observe in full efficiency one great practical excellence of the British constitution. While its uniform tendency has been gradually to purify and elevate the character of the public servants of the country, at the same time its stability never depended upon the possession of any uncommon share of disinterestedness or public virtue in its ministers. It made no unreasonable demands upon the weakness of human nature. adapted imperfect instruments to its uses; it did not stand still till it could procure faultless ones. Here is one leading distinction between

VOL. LVII. NO. CXIV.

It