ing venality of his ministers, the constant conspiracies to which the country was exposed from within, and the unprecedented insults to which it was subjected from without; if we, moreover, consider that, to all this there were added two natural calamities of the most grievous description, a Great Plague, which thinned society in all its ranks, and scattered confusion through the kingdom; and a Great Fire, which, besides increasing the mortality from the pestilence, destroyed in a moment those accumulations of industry by which industry itself is nourished;—if we put all these things together, how can we reconcile inconsistencies apparently so gross? How could so wonderful a progress be made in the face of these unparalleled disasters? How could such men, under such circumstances, effect such improvements? These are questions which our political compilers are unable to answer; because they look too much at the peculiarities of individuals, and too little at the temper of the age in which those individuals live. Such writers do not perceive that the history of every civilized country is the history of its intellectual development, which kings, statesmen, and legislators are more likely to retard than to hasten; because, however great their power may be, they are at best the accidental and insufficient representatives of the spirit of their time; and because, so far from being able to regulate the movements of the national mind, they themselves form the smallest part of it, and, in a general view of the progress of Man, are only to be regarded as the puppets who strut and fret their hour upon a little stage; while, beyond them, and on every side of them, are forming opinions and principles which they can scarcely perceive, but by which alone the whole course of human affairs is ultimately governed.

The truth is, that the vast legislative reforms, for which the reign of Charles II. is so remarkable, merely form a part of that movement, which, though traceable to a much earlier period, had only for three generations been in undisguised operation. These important improvements were the result of that bold, sceptical, inquiring, and re

forming spirit, which had now seized the three great departments of Theology, of Science, and of Politics. The old principles of tradition, of authority, and of dogma, were gradually becoming weaker; and of course, in the same proportion, there was diminished the influence of the classes by whom those principles were chiefly upheld. As the power of particular sections of society thus declined, the power of the people at large increased. The real interests of the nation began to be perceived, so soon as the superstitions were dispersed by which those interests had long been obscured. This, I believe, is the real solution of what at first seems a curious problem,—namely, how it was that such comprehensive reforms should have been accomplished in so bad, and in many respects so infamous, a reign. It is, no doubt, true, that those reforms were essentially the result of the intellectual march of the age; but, so far from being made in spite of the vices of the sovereign, they were actually aided by them. With the exception of the needy profligates who thronged his court, all classes of men soon learned to despise a king who was a drunkard, a libertine, and a hypocrite; who had neither shame nor sensibility; and who, in point of honour, was unworthy to enter the presence of the meanest of his subjects. To have the throne filled for a quarter of a century by such a man as this, was the surest way of weakening that ignorant and indiscriminate loyalty, to which the people have often sacrificed their dearest rights. Thus, the character of the king, merely considered from this point of view, was eminently favourable to the growth of national liberty.108 But the advantage did not stop there. The reckless debaucheries of Charles made him

108 Mr. Hallam has a noble passage on the services rendered to English civilization by the vices of the English court: "We are, however, much indebted to the memory of Barbara duchess of Cleveland, Louisa duchess of Portsmouth, and Mrs. Eleanor Gwyn. We owe a tribute of gratitude to the Mays, the Killigrews, the Chiffinches, and the Grammonts. They played a serviceable part in ridding the kingdom of its besotted loyalty. They saved our forefathers from the Star-chamber and the High-commission court; they laboured in their vocation against standing armies and corruption; they pressed forward the great ultimate security of English freedom-the expulsion of the House of Stuart." Hallam's Const. Hist. vol. ii. p. 50.

abhor every thing approaching to restraint; and this gave him a dislike to a class, whose profession, at least, presupposes a conduct of more than ordinary purity. The consequence was, that he, not from views of enlightened policy, but merely from a love of vicious indulgence, always had a distaste for the clergy; and, so far from advancing their power, frequently expressed for them an open contempt.109 His most intimate friends directed against them those coarse and profligate jokes, which are preserved in the literature of the time; and which, in the opinion of the courtiers, were to be ranked among the noblest specimens of human wit. From men of this sort the church had, indeed, little to apprehend; but their language, and the favour with which it was received, are part of the symptoms by which we may study the temper of that age. Many other illustrations will occur to most readers; I may, however, mention one, which is interesting on account of the eminence of the philosopher concerned in it. The most dangerous opponent of the clergy in the seventeenth century, was certainly Hobbes, the subtlest dialectician of his time; a writer, too, of singular clearness, and, among British metaphysicians, inferior only to Berkeley. This profound thinker published several speculations very unfavourable to the church, and directly opposed to principles which are essential to ecclesiastical authority. As a natural consequence, he was hated by the clergy; his doctrines were declared to be

109 Burnet (Own Time, vol. i. p. 448) tells us that, in 1667, the king, even at the council-board, expressed himself against the bishops, and said, that the clergy "thought of nothing but to get good benefices, and to keep a good table." See also, on his dislike to the bishops, vol. ii. p. 22; and Pepys' Diary, vol. iv. p. 2. In another place, vol. iv. p. 42, Pepys writes: "And I believe the hierarchy will in a little time be shaken, whether they will or no; the king being offended with them, and set upon it, as I hear." Evelyn, in a conversation with Pepys, noticed with regret such conduct of Charles, "that a bishop shall never be seen about him, as the king of France hath always." Pepys, vol. iii. p. 201. Evelyn, in his benevolent way, ascribes this to "the negligence of the clergy;" but history teaches us, that the clergy have never neglected kings, except when the king has first neglected them. Sir John Reresby gives a curious account of a conversation Charles II. held with him respecting "mitred heads," in which the feeling of the king is very apparent. Reresby's Travels and Memoirs, p. 238.

highly pernicious; and he was accused of wishing to subvert the national religion, and corrupt the national morals.110 So far did this proceed, that, during his life, and for several years after his death, every man who ventured to think for himself was stigmatized as a Hobbist, or, as it was sometimes called, a Hobbian.111 This marked hostility on the part of the clergy, was a sufficient recommendation to the favour of Charles. The king, even before his accession, had imbibed many of his principles ;112 and, after the Restoration, he treated the author with what was deemed a scandalous respect. He protected him from his enemies; he somewhat ostentatiously hung up his portrait in his own private room at Whitehall;113 and he even conferred a pension on this, the most formidable opponent who had yet appeared against the spiritual hierarchy.114

If we look for a moment at the ecclesiastical appointments of Charles, we shall find evidence of the same tend

110 On the animosity of the clergy against Hobbes, and on the extent to which he reciprocated it, compare Aubrey's Letters and Lives, vol. ii. pp. 532, 631; Tennemann, Gesch. der Philos. vol. x. p. 111; with the angry language of Burnet (Own Time, vol. i. p. 322), and of Whiston (Memoirs, p. 251). See also Wood's Athena Oxonienses, edit. Bliss, vol. iii. p. 1211. Monconys, who was in London in 1663, says of Hobbes, "Il me dit l'aversion que tous les gens d'église tant catholiques que protestans avoient pour lui." Monconys' Voyages, vol. iii. p. 43; and p. 115, "M. Hobbes, que je trouvai toujours fort ennemi des prêtres catholiques et des protestans." About the same time, Sorbiere was in London; and he writes respecting Hobbes: "I know not how it comes to pass, the clergy are afraid of him, and so are the Oxford mathematicians and their adherents; wherefore his majesty (Charles II.) was pleased to make a very good comparison when he told me, he was like a bear, whom they baited with dogs to try him." Sorbiere's Voyage to England, p. 40.

111 This was a common expression for whoever attacked established opinions late in the seventeenth, and even early in the eighteenth century. For instances of it, see Baxter's Life of Himself, folio, 1696, part iii. p. 48; Boyle's Works, vol. v. pp. 505, 510; Monk's Life of Bentley, vol. i. p. 41; Vernon Correspond. vol. iii. p. 13; King's Life of Locke, vol. i. p. 191; Brewster's Life of Newton, vol. ii. p. 149.

112 Burnet says, they "made deep and lasting impressions on the king's mind." Own Time, vol. i. p. 172.

113.A likeness, by Cooper. See Wood's Athena Oxonienses, edit. Bliss, vol. iii. p. 1208.

114 Sorbiere's Voyage to England, p. 39; Wood's Athena Oxonienses, vol. iii. p. 1208. On the popularity of the works of Hobbes in the reign of Charles II. compare Pepys' Diary, vol. iv. p. 164, with Lives of the Norths, vol. iii. p. 339.

ency. In his reign, the highest dignities in the church were invariably conferred upon men who were deficient either in ability or in honesty. It would perhaps be an over-refinement to ascribe to the king a deliberate plan for lowering the reputation of the episcopal bench; but it is certain, that if he had such a plan, he followed the course most likely to effect his purpose. For it is no exaggeration to say, that, during his life, the leading English prelates were, without exception, either incapable or insincere; they were unable to defend what they really believed, or else they did not believe what they openly professed. Never before were the interests of the Anglican church so feebly guarded. The first Archbishop of Canterbury appointed by Charles was Juxon, whose deficiencies were notorious; and of whom, his friends could only say, that his want of ability was compensated by the goodness of his intentions.115 When he died, the king raised up as his successor Sheldon, whom he had previously made Bishop of London; and who not only brought discredit on his order by acts of gross intolerance,116 but who was so regardless of the common decencies of his station, that he used to amuse his associates, by having exhibitions in his own house, imitating the way in which the Presbyterians delivered their sermons. After the death of Sheldon, Charles appointed to the archbishopric Sancroft; whose superstitious fancies exposed him to the contempt even of his own profession, and who was as much despised as Sheldon had been hated.118 In the rank

117

115 Bishop Burnet says of him, at his appointment: "As he was never a great divine, so he was now superannuated." Own Time, vol. i. p. 303.

116 Of which his own friend, Bishop Parker, gives a specimen. See Parker's History of his own Time, pp. 31-33. Compare Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. iv. p. 429; Wilson's Mem. of De Foe, vol. i. p. 46.

117 In 1669, Pepys was at one of these entertainments, which took place not only at the house, but in the presence, of the archbishop. See the scandalous details in Pepys' Diary, vol. iv. pp. 321-322; or in Wilson's De Foe, vol. i. pp. 44, 45.

118 Burnet, who knew Sancroft, calls him "a poor-spirited and fearful man" (Own Time, vol. iii. p. 354); and mentions (vol. iii. p. 138) an instance of his superstition, which will be easily believed by whoever has read his ridiculous sermons, which D'Oyly has wickedly published. See Appendix to D'Oyly's Sancroft, pp. 339-420. Dr. Lake says, that every body was