gave them ill ones of his sincerity. He was indeed as false as his capacity would allow him to be, and was more capable in that walk than in any other, never having the least hesitation, from principle or fear of future detection, in telling any lie that served his present purpose. He had a much weaker understanding, and, if possible, a more obstinate temper, than his father; that is, more tenacious of opinions he had once formed, though less capable of ever forming right ones. Had he had one grain of merit at the bottom of his heart, one should have had compassion for him in the situation to which his miserable poor head soon reduced him; for his case, in short, was this :-he had a father that abhorred him, a mother that despised him, sisters that betrayed him, a brother set up against him, and a set of servants that neglected him, and were neither of use, nor capable of being of use to him, nor desirous of being so.'--Ib. p. 297.

To complete the family group we must take the following, in which the character of the queen is drawn with equal freedom. The painter was here employed on a favourite subject, and we cannot, therefore, suspect him of magnifying defects, or of infusing too dark colours. His love of antithesis may, perhaps, have led to the sacrifice of truth on some minor points, but on the whole the portrait is open to the suspicion of flattery rather than of caricature. A more miserable object was never sketched, and the other members of the royal household partook in various degrees of the family likeness :

'Her predominant passion was pride, and the darling pleasure of her soul was power; but she was forced to gratify the one and gain the other, as some people do health, by a strict and painful régime, which few besides herself could have had patience to support, or resolution to adhere to. She was at least seven or eight hours téte-à-tête with the King every day, during which time she was generally saying what she did not think, assenting to what she did not believe, and praising what she did not approve; for they were seldom of the same opinion, and he too fond of his own for her ever at first to dare to controvert it (consilii quamvis egregii quod ipse non afferret, inimicus :'—' An enemy to any counsel, however excellent, which he himself had not suggested.'-Tacitus ;) she used to give him her opinion as jugglers do a card, by changing it imperceptibly, and making him believe he held the same with that he first pitched upon. But that which made these tête-à-tétes seem heaviest was that he neither liked reading nor being read to (unless it was to sleep): she was forced, like a spider, to spin out of her own bowels all the conversation with which the fly was taken. However, to all this she submitted for the sake of power, and for the reputation of having it; for the vanity of being thought to possess what she desired was equal to the pleasure of the possession itself. But, either for the appearance or the reality, she knew it was absolutely necessary to have interest in her husband, as she was sensible that interest was the measure by which people would always judge of her power. Her every thought, word, and act therefore tended and was

calculated to preserve her influence there; to him she sacrificed her time, for him she mortified her inclination; she looked, spake, and breathed but for him, like a weathercock to every capricious blast of his uncertain temper, and governed him (if such influence so gained can bear the name of government) by being as great a slave to him thus ruled, as any other wife could be to a man who ruled her. For all the tedious hours she spent then in watching him whilst he slept, or the heavier task of entertaining him whilst he was awake, her single consolation was in reflecting she had power, and that people in coffee-houses and ruelles were saying she governed this country, without knowing how dear the government of it cost her.'-Ib. pp. 293–295.

Our special interest in all matters pertaining to the dissenting body, leads us to notice Lord Hervey's account of the treatment it experienced from the government of Sir Robert Walpole. In 1730, the design was entertained of applying to parliament for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and certainly, if ever any parties merited the favour of a monarch and his ministers, the dissenters of England had done so in an eminent degree. For forty years they had shown themselves the steady friends of the settlement of 1688, and had been amongst the earliest and most zealous advocates of the Hanoverian succession. Their services had hitherto been unrequited; and all they now asked for was, to be relieved from the operation of laws which had been passed for the repression of popery. They had, moreover, been faithful adherents to the Whig party, they constituted its electoral strength, had contributed largely to its long possession of office, and might very naturally now conclude, as Lord Hervey represents them as doing, that 'if they could not get rid of this stigmatising brand of reproach, that declared them unfit to be trusted with any employment in the executive part of the civil government, under a Whig parliament, they could never hope for relief at all, since the other set of men, who called themselves the church party, and whom they had always opposed, should they come into power, would not only from principle forbear to show the dissenters any favour, but would certainly, from resentment, go still further, and probably load them with some new oppression.' Such were the reasonings of dissenters; and as a new parliament was speedily to be convened, they deemed the present a fitting time to bring their claims before the legislature. The administration, however, deemed otherwise. They were willing to receive, but had no disposition to repay. Prodigal of private assurances, they were disinclined to encounter any difficulty, much less to hazard any danger, in order to verify their professions. Their gratitude was a lively sense of favours to be received, and they affected surprise, and even uttered reproach

ful language on discovering that a juster sense prevailed amongst others. We have seen a similar policy in more recent times, but have happily learned to resent the injustice, and to take our cause into our own hands, instead of credulously relying on the hollow professions of political allies. There is little faith in statesmen. They sneer at men of principle as obstinate and intractable; and guide their career by the arts of a paltry expediency, rather than the rules of a high-minded and generous morality. It was so emphatically with the minister Walpole. Like his Whig successors in our own day, he was terrified by the slightest murmur within the precincts of the church. The ghost of priestism haunted him. He saw it wherever he went, and abandoned judgment, conscience, and gratitude, rather than hazard its wrath. The Whigs have ever been amongst the most timid of mortals in church matters. In special cases, when urged by political necessity, they have for an instant grappled with priestly arrogance; but the old habit of servility is soon resumed, and they have evinced more than the patience of saints, without a particle of their spirit. In 1732, it was resolved, if possible, to divert dissenters from their purpose. The administration did not wish to break with them. In other words, their aid was still wanted, more especially as a general election was at hand. The usual appliances were, therefore, resorted to; and as the case was more than usually important, royal influence was employed by the premier. Hoadley, bishop of Salisbury, was known to stand well with the dissenters, and it was therefore resolved, that the Queen should send for him, ' and make it her request that he would do all in his power to divert this impending storm.' The meeting took place at Kensington, and the Queen, with profusion of affability,' solicited the services of Hoadley. The main argument, of course, was the unfitness of the present time. A more convenient season' was all the government desired. The case of dissenters was entitled to consideration; their claim was just; the feeling of the administration was most cordial. Such was the language used; it has ever been so, with parties similarly circumstanced and equally destitute of principle; and if words only could determine the matter, dissenters had abundant reason to be satisfied. But words may be hypocritical, or if not wholly so, may be a concession extorted by timidity, and designed to cloak a settled purpose of inaction. It was so in the present case. The bishop saw through the policy of which he was to be the dupe, and, therefore, while professing his readiness to do all in his power to extricate the government from the difficulties of its position, he informed the Queen that he must plainly and honestly tell her Majesty, that whenever the repeal of them

(the Test and Corporation Acts) came to be proposed in parliament, he must always be for it, and forward, as much as in him. lay, a step which he thought but common justice from this government, to its long-oppressed and long-faithful friends.' This was noble language from a bishop to a Queen, more especially when it was known that her influence was omnipotent in the promotions of the bench. The Premier followed up the application of his royal mistress, and with studied encomiums. on the dissenting body, and warm professions of regard, he sought to secure the bishop's advocacy. The hollowness of the whole, however, was strikingly evident, as will be seen from the following:

'As to himself,' says Walpole, 'in private and in confidence, he would not scruple to own to the Bishop that his heart was with them; but in this country, which was in reality a popular government that only bore the name of monarchy, and especially in this age where clamour and faction were so prevalent over reason and justice, he said, a minister sometimes must swim with the tide against his inclination, and that the current was too strong at present against this proposal of the Dissenters for any judicious minister to think of stemming it. He further added, that if he were wholly unconcerned as a minister, and only considered this thing as a friend to the Dissenters, he should certainly rather advise them to try it at the beginning of a new parliament than at the end of an old one, as people would be less afraid of the ferment in the country seven years before elections were again to come on, than one; and consequently those who were friends to the Dissenters would have the principal check to their showing themselves such, removed to so great a distance that it would be almost the same thing as being entirely taken away.

The Bishop asked Sir Robert if, in making use of this argument to the Dissenters, he might give them hopes of finding more favour from the Court in case they would adjourn their pretensions till the opening of a new parliament; but Sir Robert avoided hampering himself by any promise of that kind by saying, that as such a promise could never be kept a secret, so its being known to be given for the future would have just the same ill effects as the performance of it in present; and, for that reason, whatever he thought might be done, he would not, nor dare not, say it should be done.

The bishop plainly saw through this artifice, and at the same time perceived that his encouraging the Dissenters to proceed further in this affair at present would only ruin his own little remnant of interest at Court, without availing them, and therefore resolved plainly to represent to them what they had to expect, and advise them not to push a point which might force many who were thought their friends to desert them, and hurt many who would stand by them, and give their enemies ad. vantage without a possibility of procuring any benefit to themselves.'— Ib. p. 154.

The dissenters refused to adopt the advice tendered. They were sanguine of success, and appointed deputations to repair to

London, in order to confer with their leading friends. This step proved their ruin, and 'enabled Sir Robert Walpole,' as our memoir-writer says, 'to defeat the project entirely.' A committee of London dissenters was appointed, and the result was very similar to what has been seen in more recent times. We give Lord Hervey's account with the more satisfaction, as we trust that dissenters, whether provincial or metropolitan, have become too wise and too honest to allow the repetition of so truculent and base a policy :

'Out of the body of the London Dissenters a committee was to be chosen, to treat and confer with the ministers; and as the honest gentlemen who composed that committee were all monied men of the city and scriveners, who were absolutely dependent on Sir Robert, and chosen by his contrivance, they spoke only as he prompted, and acted only as he guided.

'However, to save appearances, everything was to be carried on with the utmost seeming formality; this packed committee was to meet the Lord Chancellor [King], Mr. Onslow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord President of the Council [Wilmington], the two Secretaries of State [Duke of Newcastle and Lord Harrington], and Sir Robert Walpole, in order to ask and learn from these great men what the Presbyterians, in case they brought their petition now into parliament, had to hope from the Court, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.

Sir Robert Walpole at this meeting began with a dissertation on the subject on which they were convened, and repeated most of the things he had before said to the Bishop of Salisbury. The Speaker avoided giving his opinion on the thing itself, but was very strong and explicit on the inexpediency of bringing it now before the parliament, and the little probability, if it was brought there, of its success. My Lord President looked wise, was dull, took snuff, and said nothing. Lord Harrington took the same silent, passive part. The Lord Chancellor and the Duke of Newcastle had done better had they followed that example too; but both spoke very plentifully, and were both equally unintelligible, the one from having lost his understanding, and the other from never having had any.

The result of this conference was reported by the committee to a general assembly of all the Dissenters in London, convened for that purpose; and upon that report this assembly came to the following resolu

tions:

First, That if a petition was to be now preferred to Parliament in their favour, that there was no prospect of success.

Secondly, That the present was consequently an improper time for any application to Parliament of that kind.

And, Thirdly, It was resolved to communicate the negotiations of the committee, and the resolutions of this assembly thereupon, to all the Dissenters in England.

'In this manner this storm that threatened the administration from