on the accession of George III. Those of our readers who are only acquainted with the language of Whig statesmen, during their long exclusion from office in the reigns of the last two Georges, will be little prepared' for the part their predecessors acted, throughout the period treated of in these volumes. The air of a court proved as corrupting in their case, as it has invariably done in that of their opponents. The Tories, however, were equally wanting, at this time, in union. Jacobitism was dying out, as the prospect of a Stuart reaction was daily becoming less hopeful; but the Hanoverian Tories, headed by Sir William Wyndham, formed an important section of the parliamentary opposition. The chief struggle lay, as Lord Hervey observes, 'not between Jacobites and Hanoverians, or Tories and Whigs, but between Whigs and Whigs, who, conquerors in the common cause, were now split into civil contest among themselves, and had no considerable opponents but one another.'

Lord Hervey, it must be remembered, was a ministerial Whig, and there is, therefore, more significance in the following passage, wherein he describes the change which had passed on the political faith of the nation :

'The conscientious attachment to the natural right of this or that king, and the religious reverence to God's anointed, was so far eradicated by the propagation of revolutionary principles, that mankind was become much more clear-sighted on that score than formerly, and so far comprehended and gave into the doctrine of a king being made for the people and not the people for the king, that in all their steps it was the interest of the nation or the interest of particular actors that was considered, and never the separate interest of one or the other king. And though one might be surprised (if any absurdity arising from the credulity and ignorance of mankind could surprise one) how the influence of power could ever have found means to establish the doctrine of divine right of kings, yet no one can wonder that the opinion lost ground so fast, when it became the interest even of the princes on the throne for three successive reigns to expel it. The clergy, who had been paid for preaching it up, were now paid for preaching it down; the legislature had declared it of no force in the form of our government, and contrary to the fundamental laws and nature of our constitution; and what was more prevailing than all the rest, it was no longer the interest of the majority of the kingdom either to propagate or act on this principle, and consequently those who were before wise enough from policy to teach it, were wise enough now from the same policy to explode it; and those who were weak enough to take it up only because they were told it, were easily brought to lay it down by the same influence.'—Vol. i. p. 6. The secret of the court lay in the influence of the queen, which though less paraded than in some other instances that our history supplies, was in all ordinary cases omnipotent. The profligacy of the king's habits had led many of the courtiers to

calculate on a different state of things, and they consequently relied on the favour of Mrs. Howard, with whom a criminal connexion was known to exist. In this, however, they were dis. appointed, and though the low morale of the queen prevents any deep sympathy with her, an ingenuous mind cannot but rejoice that those who solicited royal favour, through the questionable channel of a mistress, should experience bitter disappointment. Where no higher motive prevails, it is well that courtiers should be taught by experience the folly, though they may not admit the guilt, of such a procedure. In the household of George II. domestic virtue was unknown. The mistress was courted in preference to the wife, and when the political blunder was detected, the consequences were deplored without the crime being abhorred. The discovery made on the accession of the prince is thus described by Lord Hervey :

'Whilst the King was Prince, there were so few occasions for the Queen to show her credit with him, that some were apt to imagine this latent dormant power was much less than it proved itself, when the time came that made it worth her while to try, show, and exert it. But as soon as ever the Prince became King, the whole world began to find out that her will was the sole spring on which every movement in the court turned and though his Majesty lost no opportunity to declare that the Queen never meddled with his business, yet nobody was simple enough to believe it; and few, besides himself, would have been simple enough to hope or imagine it could be believed, since everybody who knew there was such a woman as the Queen, knew she not only meddled with business, but directed everything that came under that name, either at home or abroad. Her power was unrivalled and unbounded—how dearly she earned it will be the subject of future consideration in these papers.'-Ib. p. 59.

The situation of the queen, however, apart from the worst feature of her case, was far from enviable. The king was morbidly sensitive to the imputation of being ruled by others, and the Opposition were low-minded enough to avail themselves of this weakness. His temper was at once obstinate and irascible, and it required, consequently, the utmost caution on the part of the queen, to prevent his suspecting what was notorious to all. From long experience, however, she knew how to adapt herself to his caprices, and thus succeeded in instilling her own sentiments, while he absurdly imagined himself to be dictating his. By this means,' says Lord Hervey, her dexterity and address made it impossible for any body to persuade him, what was truly the case, that whilst she was seemingly, on every occasion, giving up her opinion and her will to his, she was always in reality turning his opinion and bending his will to hers.'

On the king's accession, an entire change was expected in

the ministry. He had been accustomed to speak of Sir Robert Walpole as a great rogue,' of the Duke of Newcastle as an impertinent fool,' and of Lord Townshend as 'a choleric blockhead.' Those, therefore, who judged of princes as of other men, looked for new counsellors, and began to worship Sir Spencer Compton, as the rising sun. The first act of the monarch gave countenance to this supposition, and nothing probably was wanting but talent and promptitude on the part of the favourite, to have secured, at least, a temporary possession of power. George 1. died at Osnaburgh, on the 11th of June, 1727, and the event being reported to Walpole, three days afterwards, he hastened to Richmond, to announce it to the prince. His reception was far from flattering. Go to Chiswick,' said the new monarch, and take your directions from Sir Spencer Compton.' Walpole complied with this ungracious instruction, and in the interview which followed, saw that he had little to dread from such a rival. The queen was far more sagacious than her husband, and early perceived that the ability and experience of Walpole could alone accomplish those settlements which the king deemed needful. Rival parties contended for the royal favour, and Walpole was not a man to be outdone, when a prodigal expenditure could accomplish his object. He knew the sordid temper of the king, who, on his part, seems to have been equally aware of the character of his father's minister. Consider, Sir Robert,' said the monarch, significantly, when the settlement of the civil list was under discussion, 'what makes me easy in this matter, will prove for your ease, too; it is for my life it is to be fixed, and it is for your life.' The hint was taken, the bargain struck; and such a civil list was submitted to parliament as no minister had previously ventured to propose. 'No one,' says Lord Hervey, 'thought it reasonable, yet no one opposed it; no one wished for it, and no one voted against it; and I believe it is the single instance that can be given, of a question carried there, without two opponents or well-wishers.'

A new parliament was convened in January, 1728, of which Mr. Onslow was chosen speaker, and as he held this post in five successive parliaments-from 1728 to 1761-our readers will not be uninterested with the following sketch, in which the author's love of antithesis is somewhat amusingly displayed :—

"As he had no great pretensions to it, from his age, his character, his weight in the House, or his particular knowledge of the business, Sir Robert Walpole imagined that he must look upon his promotion entirely as an act of his favour, and consequently think himself obliged, in honour, interest, and gratitude, to show all the complaisance in his power to his patron and benefactor. However, Mr. Onslow had just that degree of fitness for this office, when he was first put into it, that

hindered the world from exclaiming against him, and yet was not enough for him to take it as his due. He was a man naturally eloquent, but rather too florid; was as far from wanting parts or application, as he was from possessing prudence or judgment; he had kept bad company of the collegiate kind, by which he had contracted a stiffness and pedantry in his manner of conversing; and whilst he was thoroughly knowing in past times, was totally ignorant of the modern world. No man ever courted popularity more, and to no man popularity was ever more coy: he cajoled both parties, and obliged neither; he disobliged his patron by seeming to favour his opponents, and gained no credit with them because it was only seeming. He had one merit truly and sincerely (as I believe, at least), which was an attachment to the constitution of England, and a love of liberty that never gave way; and was certainly no favourer of the power of the crown or the church. But these true Whig and laudable principles were so daubed by canting, fulsome, bombast professions, that it was as hard to find out whether there was anything good at bottom, as it would be to find out real beauty in a painted lady. In general he was passionate in his temper, violent in his manner, coxcomical in his gestures, and injudicious in his conduct.'-Ib. p. 103.

The conduct of this parliament was in keeping with the bargain of the minister. It had its appointed work, and it faithfully performed it. It served the purpose of the monarch, and of the premier, but deserves the execration of the people. The manifest injustice and glaring violation of all truth in its decisions, surpass even the most flagrant and infamous instances of any of their predecessors.'

We shall not attempt any continuous account of the contents of these volumes. Our purpose will be better answered, and the expectations of our readers be more fully met, by making a few selections from their multifarious and interesting sketches. Speaking of the views of the king at his accession, Lord Hervey says:

'He intended to have all his ministers in the nature of clerks, not to give advice, but to receive orders; and proposed, what by experiment he found impracticable, to receive applications and distribute favours through no principal channel, but to hear from all quarters, and employ indifferently in their several callings those who by their stations would come under the denomination of ministers. But it was very plain, from what I have just now related from the King's own lips, as well as from many other circumstances in his present conduct, that the Queen had subverted all his notions and schemes, and fully possessed his Majesty with an opinion that it was absolutely necessary, from the nature of the English government, that he should have but one minister; and that it was equally necessary, from Sir Robert's superior abilities, that he should be that one. To contradict his will directly, was always the way to strengthen it; and to labour to convince, was to confirm him. Besides all this, he was excessively passionate, and his temper upon those occasions was a sort of iron reversed, for the hotter it was the harder it was

to bend, and if ever it was susceptible of any impression or capable of being turned, it was only when it was quite cool.'-Ib. p. 184.

On another occasion, when referring to the disposal of patronage, he tells us :—

'The Duke of Richmond asked the King immediately to succeed Lord Scarborough, and the King was not averse to granting his request any further than he was always averse to giving anything to anybody. Many ingredients concurred to form this reluctance in his Majesty to bestowing. One was that, taking all his notions from a German measure, he thought every man who served him in England overpaid; another was, that while employments were vacant he saved the salary; but the most prevalent of all was his never having the least inclination to oblige. I do not believe there ever lived a man to whose temper benevolence was so absolutely a stranger. It was a sensation that, I dare say, never accompanied any one act of his power; so that whatever good he did was either extorted from him, or was the adventitious effect of some self-interested act of policy: consequently, if any seeming favour he conferred ever obliged the receiver, it must have been because the man on whom it fell was ignorant of the motives from which the giver bestowed. I remember Sir Robert Walpole saying once, in speaking to me of the King, that to talk with him of compassion, consideration of past services, charity, and bounty, was making use of words that with him had no meaning.'-Ib. p. 289.

The character of the prince-father of George 111.-is drawn with an equally unsparing pen. It is probably somewhat overcharged, as there were circumstances, disgraceful to both parties, which rendered the Prince of Wales specially obnoxious to Lord Hervey. Other evidence, however, is not wanting to confirm the substantial accuracy of the following sketch:

'The Prince's character at his first coming over, though little more respectable, seemed much more amiable than, upon his opening himself further and being better known, it turned out to be; for though there appeared nothing in him to be admired, yet there seemed nothing in him to be hated-neither anything great nor anything vicious; his behaviour was something that gained one's good wishes, though it gave one no esteem for him; for his best qualities, whilst they prepossessed one the most in his favour, always gave one a degree of contempt for him at the same time; his carriage, whilst it seemed engaging to those who did not examine it, appearing mean to those who did: for though his manners had the show of benevolence from a good deal of natural or habitual civility, yet his cajoling everybody, and almost in an equal degree, made those things which might have been thought favours, if more judiciously or sparingly bestowed, lose all their weight. He carried this affectation of general benevolence so far that he often condescended below the character of a Prince; and as people attributed this familiarity to popular, and not particular motives, so it only lessened their respect without increasing their good will, and instead of giving them good impressions of his humanity, only

VOL. XXIV.