li. See also, in regard to the repeal of the Stamp Act, the

_Grenville Papers_, vol. iii. p. 373; a curious passage, with which Lord Mahon, the last edition of whose history was published in the same year (1853), appears to have been unacquainted. _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. v. p. 139. In America the sentiments of the king were well known. In 1775, Jefferson writes from Philadelphia: 'We are told, and everything proves it true, that he is the bitterest enemy we have.' _Jefferson's Correspond._ vol. i. p. 153. And in 1782 Franklin writes to Livingston, 'The king hates us most cordially.' _Life of Franklin_, vol. ii. p. 126.

[911] 'A court,' as Lord Albemarle observes,--'a court that required ministers to be, not the public servants of the state, but the private domestics of the sovereign.' _Albemarle's Mem. of Rockingham_, vol. i. p. 248. Compare _Bancroft's American Revolution_, vol. ii. p. 109. In the same way, Burke, in 1767, writes: 'His majesty never was in better spirits. He has got a ministry weak and dependent; and, what is better, willing to continue so.' _Burke's Correspond._ vol. i. p. 133. Ten years later, Lord Chatham openly taunted the king with this disgraceful peculiarity: 'Thus to pliable men, not capable men, was the government of this once glorious empire intrusted.' _Chatham's Speech in 1777_, in _Adolphus_, vol. ii. pp. 499, 500.

Everything being thus prepared, there followed those events which were to be expected from such a combination. Without stopping to relate details which are known to every reader, it may be briefly mentioned that, in this new state of things, the wise and forbearing policy of the preceding reign was set at naught, and the national councils guided by rash and ignorant men, who soon brought the greatest disasters upon the country, and within a few years actually dismembered the empire. In order to enforce the monstrous claim of taxing a whole people without their consent, there was waged against America a war ill-conducted, unsuccessful, and, what is far worse, accompanied by cruelties disgraceful to a civilized nation.[912] To this may be added, that an immense trade was nearly annihilated; every branch of commerce was thrown into confusion;[913] we were disgraced in the eyes of Europe;[914] we incurred an expense of 140,000,000_l._;[915] and we lost by far the most valuable colonies any nation has ever possessed.

[912] For some evidence of the ferocity with which this war was conducted by the English, see _Tucker's Life of Jefferson_, vol. i. pp. 138, 139, 160; _Jefferson's Mem. and Correspond._ vol. i. pp. 352, 429, vol. ii. pp. 336, 337; _Almon's Correspond. of Wilkes_, vol. v. pp. 229-232, edit. 1805; _Adolphus's Hist. of George III._ vol. ii. pp. 362, 391. These horrible cruelties were frequently mentioned in parliament, but without producing the least effect on the king or his ministers. See _Parl. Hist._ vol. xix. pp. 371, 403, 423, 424, 432, 438, 440, 477, 487, 488, 489, 567, 578, 579, 695, 972, 1393, 1394, vol. xx. p. 43. Among the expenses of the war which government laid before parliament, one of the items was for 'five gross of scalping knives.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xix. pp. 971, 972. See further _Mém. de Lafayette_, vol. i. pp. 23, 25, 99.

[913] In Manchester, 'in consequence of the American troubles, nine in ten of the artisans in that town had been discharged from employment.' This was stated in 1766, by no less an authority than Conway. _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. v. p. 135. As the struggle became more obstinate the evil was more marked, and ample evidence of the enormous injury inflicted on England will be found by comparing _Franklin's Correspondence_, vol. i. p. 352; _Adolphus's Hist. of George III._ vol. ii. p. 261; _Burke's Works_, vol. i. p. 111; _Parl. Hist._ vol. xviii. pp. 734, 951, 963, 964, vol. xix. pp. 259, 341, 710, 711, 1072; _Walpole's Mem. of George III._ vol. ii. p. 218.

[914] Even Mr. Adolphus, in his Tory history, says, that in 1782 'the cause of Great Britain seemed degraded to the lowest state; ill success and the prevalent opinion of mismanagement rendered the espousal of it among the selfish powers of the continent almost disreputable.' _Hist. of George III._ vol. iii. pp. 391, 392. For proof of the opinions held in foreign countries respecting this, I cannot do better than refer to _Mém. de Ségur_, vol. iii. pp. 184, 185; _[OE]uvres de Turgot_, vol. ix. p. 377; _Soulavie_, _Mém. de Louis XVI._ vol. iv. pp. 363, 364; _Koch_, _Tableau des Révolutions_, vol. ii. pp. 190-194; _Mem. of Mallet du Pan_, vol. i. p. 37.

[915] Sir John Sinclair, in his _Hist. of the Revenue_, vol. ii. p. 114, says 139,171,876_l._

Such were the first fruits of the policy of George III. But the mischief did not stop there. The opinions which it was necessary to advocate in order to justify this barbarous war, recoiled upon ourselves. In order to defend the attempt to destroy the liberties of America, principles were laid down which, if carried into effect, would have subverted the liberties of England. Not only in the court, but in both houses of parliament, from the episcopal bench, and from the pulpits of the church-party, there were promulgated doctrines of the most dangerous kind--doctrines unsuited to a limited monarchy, and, indeed, incompatible with it. The extent to which this reaction proceeded is known to very few readers, because the evidence of it is chiefly to be found in the parliamentary debates, and in the theological literature, particularly the sermons of that time, none of which are now much studied. But, not to anticipate matters belonging to another part of this work, it is enough to say that the danger was so imminent as to make the ablest defenders of popular liberty believe that everything was at stake; and that if the Americans were vanquished, the next step would be to attack the liberties of England, and endeavour to extend to the mother-country the same arbitrary government which by that time would have been established in the colonies.[916]

[916] Dr. Jebb, an able observer, thought that the American war 'must be decisive of the liberties of both countries.' _Disney's Life of Jebb_, p. 92. So, too, Lord Chatham wrote in 1777, 'poor England will have fallen upon her own sword.' _The Grenville Papers_, vol. iv. p. 573. In the same year, Burke said of the attempt made to rule the colonies by military force, 'that the establishment of such a power in America will utterly ruin our finances (though its certain effect), is the smallest part of our concern. It will become an apt, powerful, and certain engine for the destruction of our freedom here.' _Burke's Works_, vol. ii. p. 399. Compare vol. i. pp. 189, 210; _Parl. Hist._ vol. xvi. pp. 104, 107, 651, 652, vol. xix. pp. 11, 1056, vol. xx. p. 119, vol. xxi. p. 907. Hence it was that Fox wished the Americans to be victorious (_Russell's Mem. of Fox_, vol. i. p. 143); for which some writers have actually accused him of want of patriotism!

Whether or not these fears were exaggerated, is a question of considerable difficulty; but after a careful study of that time, and a study too from sources not much used by historians, I feel satisfied that they who are best acquainted with the period will be the most willing to admit that, though the danger may have been overrated, it was far more serious than men are now inclined to believe. At all events, it is certain that the general aspect of political affairs was calculated to excite great alarm. It is certain, that during many years, the authority of the crown continued to increase, until it reached a height of which no example had been seen in England for several generations. It is certain that the Church of England exerted all her influence in favour of those despotic principles which the king wished to enforce. It is also certain that, by the constant creation of new peers, all holding the same views, the character of the House of Lords was undergoing a slow but decisive change; and that, whenever a favourable opportunity arose, high judicial appointments and high ecclesiastical appointments were conferred upon men notorious for their leaning towards the royal prerogative. These are facts which cannot be denied; and, putting them together, there remains, I think, no doubt, that the American war was a great crisis in the history of England, and that if the colonists had been defeated, our liberties would have been for a time in considerable jeopardy. From that risk we were saved by the Americans, who with heroic spirit resisted the royal armies, defeated them at every point, and at length, separating themselves from the mother-country, began that wonderful career, which, in less than eighty years, has raised them to an unexampled prosperity, and which to us ought to be deeply interesting, as showing what may be effected by the unaided resources of a free people.

Seven years after this great contest had been brought to a successful close, and the Americans, happily for the interests of mankind, had finally secured their independence, another nation rose up and turned against its rulers. The history of the causes of the French Revolution will be found in another part of this volume; at present we have only to glance at the effects it produced upon the policy of the English government. In France, as is well known, the movement was extremely rapid; the old institutions, which were so corrupted as to be utterly unfit for use, were quickly destroyed; and the people, frenzied by centuries of oppression, practised the most revolting cruelties, saddening the hour of their triumph by crimes that disgraced the noble cause for which they struggled.

All this, frightful as it was, did nevertheless form a part of the natural course of affairs; it was the old story of tyranny exciting revenge, and revenge blinding men to every consequence except the pleasure of glutting their own passions. If, under these circumstances, France had been left to herself, the Revolution, like all other revolutions, would soon have subsided, and a form of government have arisen suited to the actual condition of things. What the form would have been, it is impossible now to say; that, however, was a question with which no foreign country had the slightest concern. Whether it should be an oligarchy, or a despotic monarchy, or a republic, it was for France to decide; but it was evidently not the business of any other nation to decide for her. Still less was it likely that, on so delicate a point, France would submit to dictation from a country which had always been her rival, and which not unfrequently had been her bitter and successful enemy.

But these considerations, obvious as they are, were lost upon George III., and upon those classes which were then in the ascendant. The fact that a great people had risen against their oppressors disquieted the consciences of men in high places. The same evil passions, and indeed the same evil language, which a few years before were directed against the Americans, were now turned against the French; and it was but too clear that the same results would follow.[917] In defiance of every maxim of sound policy, the English ambassador was recalled from France simply because that country chose to do away with the monarchy, and substitute a republic in its place. This was the first decisive step towards an open rupture, and it was taken, not because France had injured England, but because France had changed her government.[918] A few months later, the French, copying the example of the English in the preceding century,[919] brought their king to a public trial, sentenced him to die, and struck off his head in the midst of his own capital. It must be allowed that this act was needless, that it was cruel, and that it was grossly impolitic. But it is palpably evident that they who consented to the execution were responsible only to God and their country; and that any notice of it from abroad, which bore the appearance of a threat, would rouse the spirit of France, would unite all parties into one, and would induce the nation to adopt as its own a crime of which it might otherwise have repented, but which it could not now abjure without incurring the shame of having yielded to the dictation of a foreign power.

[917] In 1792, and therefore before the war broke out, Lord Lansdowne, one of the extremely few peers who escaped from the prevailing corruption, said,'The present instance recalled to his memory the proceedings of this country previous to the American war. The same abusive and degrading terms were applied to the Americans that were now used to the National Convention,--_the same consequences might follow_.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxx. p. 155.

[918] Compare _Belsham's Hist. of Great Britain_, vol. viii. p. 490, with _Tomline's Life of Pitt_, vol. ii. p. 548. The letter to Lord Gower, the English minister in Paris, is printed in _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxx. pp. 143, 144. Its date is 17th August, 1792.

[919] Just before the Revolution, Robert de Saint-Vincent pertinently remarked, by way of caution, that the English 'have dethroned seven of their kings, and beheaded the eighth.' _Mem. of Mallet du Pan_, vol. i. p. 146; and we are told in _Alison's Europe_ (vol. ii. pp. 199, 296, 315), that in 1792 Louis 'anticipated the fate of Charles I.' Compare _Williams's Letters from France_, 2nd edit. 1796, vol. iv. p. 2.

In England, however, as soon as the fate of the king was known, the government, without waiting for explanation, and without asking for any guarantee as to the future, treated the death of Louis as an offence against itself, and imperiously ordered the French residents to quit the country:[920] thus wantonly originating a war which lasted twenty years, cost the lives of millions, plunged all Europe into confusion, and, more than any other circumstance, stopped the march of civilization, by postponing for a whole generation those reforms, which, late in the eighteenth century, the progress of affairs rendered indispensable.

[920] Belsham (_Hist. of Great Britain_, vol. viii. p. 525) supposes, and probably with reason, that the English government was bent upon war even before the death of Louis; but it appears (_Tomline's Pitt_, vol. ii. p. 599) that it was not until the 24th of January 1793, that Chauvelin was actually ordered to leave England, and that this was in consequence of 'the British ministers having received information of the execution of the king of France.' Compare _Belsham_, vol. viii. p. 530. The common opinion, therefore, seems correct, that the proximate cause of hostilities was the execution of Louis. See _Alison's Hist._ vol. ii. p. 522, vol. v. p. 249, vol. vi. p. 656; and _Newmarch_, in _Journal of Statist. Soc._ vol. xviii. p. 108.

The European results of this, the most hateful, the most unjust, and the most atrocious war, England has ever waged against any country, will be hereafter considered;[921] at present I confine myself to a short summary of its leading effects on English society.

[921] Lord Brougham (_Sketches of Statesmen_, vol. i. p. 79) rightly says of this war, that 'the youngest man living will not survive the fatal effects of this flagrant political crime.' So eager, however, was George III. in its favour, that when Wilberforce separated himself from Pitt on account of the war, and moved an amendment on the subject in the House of Commons, the king showed his spite by refusing to take any notice of Wilberforce the next time he appeared at court. _Life of Wilberforce_, vol. ii. pp. 10, 72.

What distinguishes this sanguinary contest from all preceding ones, and what gives to it its worst feature, is, that it was eminently a war of opinions,--a war which we carried on, not with a view to territorial acquisitions, but with the object of repressing that desire for reforms of every kind, which had now become the marked characteristic of the leading countries of Europe.[922] As soon, therefore, as hostilities began the English government had a twofold duty to perform it had to destroy a republic abroad, and it had to prevent improvement at home. The first of these duties it fulfilled by squandering the blood and the treasure of England, till it had thrown nearly every family into mourning, and reduced the country to the verge of national bankruptcy. The other duty it attempted to execute by enacting a series of laws intended to put an end to the free discussion of political questions, and stifle that spirit of inquiry which was every year becoming more active. These laws were so comprehensive, and so well calculated to effect their purpose, that if the energy of the nation had not prevented their being properly enforced, they would either have destroyed every vestige of popular liberty, or else have provoked a general rebellion. Indeed, during several years the danger was so imminent, that, in the opinion of some high authorities, nothing could have averted it, but the bold spirit with which our English juries, by their hostile verdicts, resisted the proceedings of government, and refused to sanction laws which the crown had proposed, and to which a timid and servile legislature had willingly consented.[923]

[922] In 1793 and subsequently, it was stated both by the opposition, and also by the supporters of government, that the war with France was directed against doctrines and opinions, and that one of its main objects was to discourage the progress of democratic institutions. See, among many other instances, _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxx. pp. 413, 417, 1077, 1199, 1200, 1283, vol. xxxi. pp. 466, 592, 649, 680, 1036, 1047, vol. xxxiii. pp. 603, 604; _Nicholls's Recollections_, vol. ii. pp. 156, 157.

[923] Lord Campbell (_Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. vi. p. 449) says, that if the laws passed in 1794 had been enforced, 'the only chance of escaping servitude would have been civil war.' Compare _Brougham's Statesmen_, vol. i. p. 237, vol. ii. pp. 63, 64, on our 'escape from proscription and from arbitrary power ... during the almost hopeless struggle from 1793 to 1801.' Both these writers pay great and deserved honour to the successful efforts of Erskine with juries. Indeed the spirit of our jurors was so determined, that in 1794, at Tooke's trial, they only consulted eight minutes before bringing in a verdict of acquittal. _Stephens's Mem. of Horne Tooke_, vol. ii. p. 147; see also, on this crisis, _Life of Cartwright_, vol. i. p. 210. The people sympathised throughout with the victims; and while the trial of Hardy was pending, the attorney-general, Scott, was always mobbed when he left the court, and on one occasion his life was in danger. _Twiss's Life of Eldon_, vol. i. pp. 185, 186. Compare _Holcroft's Memoirs_, vol. ii. pp. 180, 181.

We may form some idea of the magnitude of the crisis by considering the steps which were actually taken against the two most important of all our institutions, namely, the freedom of the public press, and the right of assembling in meetings for the purpose of public discussion. These are, in a political point of view, the two most striking peculiarities which distinguish us from every other European people. As long as they are preserved intact, and as long as they are fearlessly and frequently employed, there will always be ample protection against those encroachments on the part of government which cannot be too jealously watched, and to which even the freest country is liable. To this may be added, that these institutions possess other advantages of the highest order. By encouraging political discussion, they increase the amount of intellect brought to bear upon the political business of the country. They also increase the total strength of the nation, by causing large classes of men to exercise faculties which would otherwise lie dormant, but which by these means are quickened into activity, and become available for other purposes of social interest.

But in the period we are now considering, it was deemed advisable that the influence of the people should be lessened; it was, therefore, thought improper that they should strengthen their abilities by exercising them. To relate the details of that bitter war, which, late in the eighteenth century, the English government carried on against every kind of free discussion, would lead me far beyond the limits of this Introduction; and I can only hastily refer to the vindictive prosecutions, and, whenever a verdict was obtained, the vindictive punishments, of men like Adams, Bonney, Crossfield, Frost, Gerald, Hardy, Holt, Hodson, Holcroft, Joyce, Kidd, Lambert, Margarot, Martin, Muir, Palmer, Perry, Skirving, Stannard, Thelwall, Tooke, Wakefield, Wardie, Winterbotham: all of whom were indicted, and many of whom were fined, imprisoned, or transported, because they expressed their sentiments with freedom, and because they used language such as in our time is employed with perfect impunity, by speakers at public meetings, and by writers in the public press.

As, however, juries in several cases refused to convict men who were prosecuted for these offences, it was determined to recur to measures still more decisive. In 1795, a law was passed, by which it was manifestly intended to put an end for ever to all popular discussions either on political or religious matters. For by it every public meeting was forbidden, unless notice of it were inserted in a newspaper five days beforehand;[924] such notice to contain a statement of the objects of the meeting, and of the time and place where it was to assemble. And, to bring the whole arrangement completely under the supervision of government, it was ordered, that not only should the notice, thus published, be signed by householders, but that the original manuscript should be preserved, for the information of the justices of the peace, who might require a copy of it: a significant threat, which, in those days, was easily understood.[925] It was also enacted that, even after these precautions had been taken, any single justice might compel the meeting to disperse, if, in his opinion, the language held by the speakers was calculated to bring the sovereign or the government into contempt; while, at the same time, he was authorized to arrest those whom he considered to be the offenders.[926] The power of dissolving a public meeting, and of seizing its leaders, was thus conferred upon a common magistrate, and conferred too without the slightest provision against its abuse. In other words, the right of putting an end to all public discussions on the most important subjects, was lodged in the hands of a man appointed by the crown, and removable by the crown at its own pleasure. To this it was added, that if the meeting should consist of twelve, or upwards of twelve persons, and should remain together for one hour after being ordered to separate,--in such case, the penalty of death was to be inflicted, even if only twelve disobeyed this the arbitrary command of a single and irresponsible magistrate.[927]

[924] 'Five days at least.' _Stat. 36 George III._ c. 8, § 1. This applied to meetings 'holden for the purpose or on the pretext of considering of or preparing any petition, complaint, remonstrance, or declaration, or other address to the king, or to both houses, or either house, of parliament, for alteration of matters established in church or state, or for the purpose or on the pretext of deliberating upon any grievance in church or state.' The only exceptions allowed were in the case of meetings called by magistrates, officials, and the majority of the grand jury.

[925] The insertor of the notice in the newspaper 'shall cause such notice and authority to be carefully preserved, ... and cause a true copy thereof (if required) to be delivered to any justice of the peace for the county, city, town, or place where such person shall reside, or where such newspaper shall be printed, and who shall require the same.' _36 George III._ c. 8, § 1.

[926] C. 8, §§ 6 and 7, referring to 'meetings on notice;' and to persons holding language which shall even 'tend to incite.' These two sections are very remarkable.

[927] 'It shall be adjudged,' says the Act, 'felony without benefit of clergy; and the offenders therein shall be adjudged felons, and shall suffer death as in case of felony without benefit of clergy.' _36 George III._ c. 8, § 6.

In 1799, another law was passed, forbidding any open field, or place of any kind, to be used for lecturing, or for debating, unless a specific license for such place had been obtained from the magistrates. It was likewise enacted, that all circulating-libraries, and all reading-rooms, should be subject to the same provision; no person, without leave from the constituted authorities, being permitted to lend on hire in his own house, newspapers, pamphlets, or even books of any kind.[928] Before shops of this sort could be opened, a license must first be obtained from two justices of the peace; which, however, was to be renewed at least once a year, and might be revoked at any intermediate period.[929] If a man lent books without the permission of the magistrates, or if he allowed lectures or debates, 'on any subject whatever,' to be held under his roof, then, for such grievous crime, he was to be fined 100_l._ a-day; and every person who aided him, either by presiding over the discussion, or by supplying a book, was for each offence to be fined 20_l._ The proprietor of so pernicious an establishment was not only to suffer from these ruinous fines, but was declared liable to still further punishment as the keeper of a disorderly house.[930]

[928] _Stat. 39 George III._ c. 79, § 15.

[929] The license 'shall be in force for the space of one year and no longer, or for any less space of time therein to be specified; and which license it shall be lawful for the justices of the peace' &c. 'to revoke and declare void, and no longer in force, by any order of such justices; ... and thereupon such license shall cease and determine, and be thenceforth utterly void and of no effect.' _39 George III._ c. 79, § 18.

[930] Such things are so incredible, that I must again quote the words of the Act: 'Every house, room, or place, which shall be opened or used as a place of meeting for the purpose of reading books, pamphlets, newspapers, or other publications, and to which any person shall be admitted by payment of money' (if not regularly licensed by the authorities), ... 'shall be deemed a disorderly house;' and the person opening it shall 'be otherwise punished as the law directs in case of disorderly houses.' _39 George III._ c. 79, § 15. The germ of this law may be found in _36 George III._ c. 8, § § 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Nowhere are the weakest parts of the human mind more clearly seen than in the history of legislation.

To modern ears it sounds somewhat strange, that the owner of a public reading-room should not only incur extravagant fines, but should also be punished as the keeper of a disorderly house; and that all this should happen to him, simply because he opened his shop without asking permission from the local magistrates. Strange, however, as this appears, it was, at all events, consistent, since it formed part of a regular plan for bringing, not only the actions of men, but even their opinions, under the direct control of the executive government. Thus it was that the laws, now for the first time passed, against newspapers, were so stringent, and the prosecution of authors so unrelenting, that there was an evident intention to ruin every public writer who expressed independent sentiments.[931] These measures, and others of a similar character, which will hereafter be noticed, excited such alarm, that, in the opinion of some of the ablest observers, the state of public affairs was becoming desperate, perhaps irretrievable. The extreme despondency with which, late in the eighteenth century, the best friends of liberty looked to the future, is very observable, and forms a striking feature in their private correspondence.[932] And although comparatively few men venture to express such sentiments in public, Fox, whose fearless temper made him heedless of risk, openly stated what would have checked the government, if anything could have done so. For this eminent statesman, who had been minister more than once, and was afterwards minister again, did not hesitate to say, from his place in parliament, in 1795, that if these, and other shameful laws which were proposed, should be actually passed, forcible resistance to the government would be merely a question of prudence; and that the people, if they felt themselves equal to the conflict, would be justified in withstanding the arbitrary measures by which their rulers sought to extinguish their liberties.[933]

[931] See the particulars in _Hunt's Hist. of Newspapers_, vol. i. pp. 281-4. Mr. Hunt says, p. 284: 'In addition to all these laws, directed solely towards the press, other statutes were made to bear upon it, for the purpose of repressing the free expression of popular opinion.' In 1793, Dr. Currie writes: 'The prosecutions that are commenced by government all over England against printers, publishers, &c. would astonish you; and most of these are for offences committed many months ago. The printer of the _Manchester Herald_ has had seven different indictments preferred against him for paragraphs in his paper; and six _different_ indictments for selling or disposing of six different copies of Paine,--all previous to the _trial_ of Paine. The man was opulent, supposed worth 20,000_l._; but these different actions will ruin him, as they were intended to do.' _Currie's Life_, vol. i. pp. 185, 186. See also a letter from Roscoe to Lord Lansdowne, in _Life of Roscoe_, vol. i. p. 124; and _Mem. of Holcroft_, vol. ii. pp. 151, 152: 'Printers and booksellers all over the kingdom were hunted out for prosecution.' See further, _Life of Cartwright_, vol. i. pp. 199, 200; _Adolphus's Hist. of George III._ vol. v. pp. 525, 526; _Mem. of Wakefield_, vol. ii. p. 69.

[932] In 1793, Dr. Currie, after mentioning the attempts made by government to destroy the liberty of the press, adds: 'For my part, I foresee troubles, and conceive the nation was never in such a dangerous crisis.' _Currie's Mem._ vol. i. p. 186. In 1795, Fox writes (_Russell's Mem. of Fox_, vol. iii. pp. 124, 125): 'There appears to me to be no choice at present, but between an absolute surrender of the liberties of the people and a vigorous exertion, attended, I admit, with considerable hazard, at a time like the present. My view of things is, I own, very gloomy; and I am convinced that, in a very few years, this government will become completely absolute, or that confusion will arise of a nature almost as much to be deprecated as despotism itself.' In the same year, Dr. Raine writes (_Parr's Works_, vol. vii. p. 533): 'The mischievous conduct of men in power has long made this country an uneasy dwelling for the moderate and peaceful man; their present proceedings render our situation alarming, and our prospects dreadful.' See also p. 530. In 1796, the Bishop of Llandaff writes (_Life of Watson_, vol. ii. pp. 36, 37): 'The malady which attacks the constitution (influence of the crown) is without remedy; violent applications might be used; their success would be doubtful, and I, for one, never wish to see them tried.' Compare vol. i. p. 222. And, in 1799, Priestley dreaded a revolution; but, at the same time, thought there was 'no longer any hope of a peaceable and gradual reform.' _Mem. of Priestley_, vol. i. pp. 198, 199.

[933] In this memorable declaration, Fox said, that 'he had a right to hope and expect that these bills, which positively repealed the Bill of Rights, and cut up the whole of the constitution by the roots, by changing our limited monarchy into an absolute despotism, would not be enacted by parliament against the declared sense of a great majority of the people. If, however, ministers were determined, by means of the corrupt influence they possessed in the two houses of parliament, to pass the bills in direct opposition to the declared sense of a great majority of the nation, and they should be put in force with all their rigorous provisions, if his opinion were asked by the people as to their obedience, he should tell them, that it was no longer a question of moral obligation and duty, but of prudence. It would, indeed, be a case of extremity alone which could justify resistance; and the only question would be, whether that resistance was prudent.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxii. p. 383. On this, Windham remarked, and Fox did not deny, that 'the meaning obviously was, that the right hon. gentleman would advise the people, whenever they were strong enough, to resist the execution of the law;' and to this both Sheridan and Grey immediately assented, pp. 385-387.

Nothing, however, could stop the government in its headlong career. The ministers, secure of a majority in both houses of parliament, were able to carry their measures in defiance of the people, who opposed them by every mode short of actual violence.[934] And as the object of these new laws was, to check the spirit of inquiry, and prevent reforms, which the progress of society rendered indispensable, there were also brought into play other means subservient to the same end. It is no exaggeration to say, that for some years England was ruled by a system of absolute terror.[935] The ministers of the day, turning a struggle of party into a war of proscription, filled the prisons with their political opponents, and allowed them, when in confinement, to be treated with shameful severity.[936] If a man was known to be a reformer, he was constantly in danger of being arrested; and if he escaped that, he was watched at every turn, and his private letters were opened as they passed through the post-office.[937] In such cases, no scruples were allowed. Even the confidence of domestic life was violated. No opponent of government was safe under his own roof, against the tales of eavesdroppers and the gossip of servants. Discord was introduced into the bosom of families, and schisms caused between parents and their children.[938] Not only were the most strenuous attempts made to silence the press, but the booksellers were so constantly prosecuted that they did not dare to publish a work if its author were obnoxious to the court.[939] Indeed, whoever opposed the government was proclaimed an enemy to his country.[940] Political associations and public meetings were strictly forbidden. Every popular leader was in personal danger; and every popular assemblage was dispersed, either by threats or by military execution. That hateful machinery, familiar to the worst days of the seventeenth century, was put into motion. Spies were paid; witnesses were suborned; juries were packed.[941] The coffee-houses, the inns, and the clubs, were filled with emissaries of the government, who reported the most hasty expressions of common conversation.[942] If, by these means, no sort of evidence could be collected, there was another resource, which was unsparingly used. For, the habeas-corpus act being constantly suspended, the crown had the power of imprisoning without inquiry, and without limitation, any person offensive to the ministry, but of whose crime no proof was attempted to be brought.[943]

[934] 'Never had there appeared, in the memory of the oldest man, so firm and decided a plurality of adversaries to the ministerial measures, as on this occasion (_i.e._ in 1795): the interest of the public seemed so deeply at stake, that individuals, not only of the decent, but of the most vulgar professions, gave up a considerable portion of their time and occupations in attending the numerous meetings that were called in every part of the kingdom, to the professed intent of counteracting this attempt of the ministry.' _Note in Parl. History_, vol. xxxii. p. 381. It was at this period that Fox made the declaration which I have quoted in the previous note.

[935] It was called at the time the 'Reign of Terror;' and so indeed it was for every opponent of government. See _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. vi. p. 441; _Mem. of Wakefield_, vol. ii. p. 67; and _Trotter's Mem. of Fox_, p. 10.

[936] 'The iniquitous system of secret imprisonment, under which Pitt and Dundas had now filled all the gaols with parliamentary reformers; men who were cast into dungeons without any public accusation, and from whom the habeas-corpus suspension act had taken every hope of redress.' _Cooke's Hist. of Party_, vol. iii. p. 447. On the cruelty with which these political opponents of government were treated when in prison, see _Stephens's Mem. of Tooke_, vol. ii. pp. 121, 125, 423; _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxiv. pp. 112, 113, 126, 129, 170, 515, vol. xxxv. pp. 742, 743; _Cloncurry's Recollections_, pp. 46, 86, 87, 140, 225.

[937] _Life of Currie_, vol. ii. p. 160; _Stephens's Mem. of Tooke_, vol. ii. pp. 118, 119.

[938] In 1793, Roscoe writes: 'Every man is called on to be a spy upon his brother.' _Life of Roscoe_, vol. i. p. 127. Compare Fox's statement (_Parl. Hist._ vol. xxx. p. 21), that what government had done was, 'to erect every man, not merely into an inquisitor, but into a judge, a spy, an informer,--to set father against father, brother against brother; and in this way you expect to maintain the tranquillity of the country.' See also vol. xxx. p. 1529; and a remarkable passage, in _Coleridge's Biog. Lit._ (vol. i. p. 192), on the extent of 'secret defamation,' in and after 1793. For further evidence of this horrible state of society, see _Mem. of Holcroft_, vol. ii. pp. 150, 151; _Stephens's Mem. of Horne Tooke_, vol. ii. pp. 115, 116.

[939] There was even considerable difficulty in finding a printer for Tooke's great philological work, _The Diversions of Purley_. See _Stephens's Mem. of Tooke_, vol. ii. pp. 345-348. In 1798, Fox wrote to Cartwright (_Life of Cartwright_, vol. i. p. 248): 'The decision against Wakefield's publisher appears to me decisive against the liberty of the press; and, indeed, after it, one can hardly conceive how any prudent tradesman can venture to publish anything that can, in any way, be disagreeable to the ministers.'

[940] Those who opposed the slave-trade were called jacobins, and 'enemies to the ministers;' and the celebrated Dr. Currie was pronounced to be a jacobin, and an 'enemy to his country,' because he remonstrated against the shameful manner in which the English government, in 1800, allowed the French prisoners to be treated. _Life of Currie_, vol. i. pp. 330, 332; _Life of Wilberforce_, vol. i. pp. 342-344, vol. ii. pp. 18, 133; _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxx. p. 654, vol. xxxi. p. 467, vol. xxxiii. p. 1387, vol. xxxiv. pp. 1119, 1485.

[941] _Life of Cartwright_, vol. i. p. 209; _Hunt's Hist. of Newspapers_, vol. ii. p. 104; _Belsham's Hist._ vol. ix. p. 227; _Adolphus's Hist._ vol. vi. p. 264; _Annual Register for 1795_, pp. 156, 160; _Stephens's Mem. of Tooke_, vol. ii. p. 118; _Life of Currie_, vol. i. p. 172; _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. vi. p. 316, vol. vii. p. 316; _Life of Wilberforce_, vol. iv. pp. 369, 377; _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxi. pp. 543, 667, 668, 1067, vol. xxxii. pp. 296, 302, 366, 367, 374, 664, vol. xxxv. pp. 1538, 1540; _Holcroft's Memoirs_, vol. ii. p. 190.

[942] In addition to the passages referred to in the preceding note; compare _Hutton's Life of Himself_, p. 209, with _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. vi. p. 441, vol. vii. p. 104, and _Adolphus's Hist. of George III._ vol. vi. p. 45. In 1798, Caldwell wrote to Sir James Smith (_Correspondence of Sir J. E. Smith_, vol. ii. p. 143): 'The power of the crown is become irresistible. The new scheme of inquisition into every man's private circumstances is beyond any attempt I have ever heard of under Louis XIV.'

[943] In 1794, Fox said, in his speech on the habeas-corpus suspension bill: 'Every man who talked freely, every man who detested, as he did from his heart, this war, might be, and would be, in the hands and at the mercy of ministers. Living under such a government, and being subject to insurrection, comparing the two evils, he confessed, he thought the evil they were pretending to remedy, was less than the one they were going to inflict by the remedy itself.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxi. p. 509. In 1800, Lord Holland stated, in the House of Lords, that, of 'the seven years of the war, the habeas-corpus act had been suspended five; and, of the multitudes who had been imprisoned in virtue of that suspension, few had been brought to trial, and only one convicted.' vol. xxxiv. pp. 1486. See also vol. xxxv. pp. 609, 610. On the effect of the suspension of the habeas-corpus act upon literature, see _Life of Currie_, vol. i. p. 506.

Such was the way in which, at the end of the eighteenth century, the rulers of England, under pretence of protecting the institutions of the country, oppressed the people, for whose benefit alone those institutions ought to exist. Nor was even this the whole of the injury they actually inflicted. Their attempts to stop the progress of opinions were intimately connected with that monstrous system of foreign policy, by which there has been entailed upon us a debt of unexampled magnitude. To pay the interest of this, and to meet the current expenses of a profuse and reckless administration, taxes were laid upon nearly every product of industry and of nature. In the vast majority of cases, these taxes fell upon the great body of the people,[944] who were thus placed in a position of singular hardship For the upper classes not only refused to the rest of the nation the reforms which were urgently required, but compelled the country to pay for the precautions which, in consequence of the refusal, it was thought necessary to take. Thus it was that the government diminished the liberties of the people, and wasted the fruit of their industry, in order to protect that very people against opinions which the growth of their knowledge had irresistibly forced upon them.

[944] See decisive evidence of this, in _Porter's Progress of the Nation_, vol. ii. pp. 283-285; and, on the enormous increase of expense and taxation, see _Pellew's Life of Sidmouth_, vol. i. p. 358, vol. ii. p. 47.

It is not surprising that, in the face of these circumstances, some of the ablest observers should have despaired of the liberties of England, and should have believed that, in the course of a few years, a despotic government would be firmly established. Even we, who, looking at these things half a century after they occurred, are able to take a calmer view, and who moreover possess the advantages of a larger knowledge, and a riper experience, must nevertheless allow that, so far as political events were concerned, the danger was more imminent than at any moment since the reign of Charles I. But what was forgotten then, and what is too often forgotten now, is, that political events form only one of the many parts which compose the history of a great country. In the period we have been considering, the political movement was, no doubt, more threatening than it had been for several generations. On the other hand, the intellectual movement was, as we have seen, highly favourable, and its influence was rapidly spreading. Hence it was that, while the government of the country tended in one direction, the knowledge of the country tended in another; and while political events kept us back, intellectual events urged us forward. In this way, the despotic principles that were enforced were, in some degree, neutralized; and although it was impossible to prevent them from causing great suffering, still the effect of that suffering was to increase the determination of the people to reform a system under which such evils could be inflicted. For while they felt the evils, the knowledge which they had obtained made them see the remedy. They saw that the men who were at the head of affairs were despotic; but they saw, too, that the system must be wrong, which could secure to such men such authority. This confirmed their dissatisfaction, and justified their resolution to effect some fresh arrangement, which should allow their voices to be heard in the councils of the state.[945] And that resolution, I need hardly add, grew stronger and stronger, until it eventually produced those great legislative reforms which have already signalized the present century, have given a new tone to the character of public men, and changed the structure of the English parliament.

[945] A careful observer of what was going on late in the eighteenth century, expresses what, early in the nineteenth century, was becoming the conviction of most men of plain, sound understanding, who had no interest in the existing corruption: 'Immoderate taxation, the result of the unnecessary wars of the reign of George III., is the cause of our embarrassments; and that immoderate taxation has been occasioned by the House of Commons being composed of men not interested to protect the property of the people.'--_Nicholl's Recollections_, vol. i. p. 213.

It is thus that, in the latter part of the eighteenth century, the increase and diffusion of knowledge were in England, directly antagonistic to the political events which occurred during the same period. The extent and the nature of that antagonism I have endeavoured to explain, as clearly as the complexity of the subject, and the limits of this Introduction, enable me to do. We have seen that, looking at our country as a whole, the obvious tendency of affairs was to abridge the authority of the church, the nobles, and the crown, and thus give greater play to the power of the people. Looking, however, at the country, not as a whole, but looking merely at its political history, we find that the personal peculiarities of George III., and the circumstances under which he came to the throne, enabled him to stop the great progress, and eventually cause a dangerous reaction. Happily for the fortunes of England, those principles of liberty which he and his supporters wished to destroy, had before his reign become so powerful, and so widely diffused, that they not only resisted this political reaction, but seemed to gain fresh strength from the contest. That the struggle was arduous, and at one time extremely critical, it is impossible to deny. Such, however, is the force of liberal opinions, when they have once taken root in the popular mind, that notwithstanding the ordeal to which they were exposed, and notwithstanding the punishments inflicted on their advocates, it was found impossible to stifle them; it was found impossible even to prevent their increase. Doctrines subversive of every principle of freedom were personally favoured by the sovereign, openly avowed by the government, and zealously defended by the most powerful classes; and laws in accordance with these doctrines were placed on our statute-book, and enforced in our courts. All, however, was in vain. In a few years that generation began to pass away; a better one succeeded in its place; and the system of tyranny fell to the ground. And thus it is, that in all countries which are even tolerably free, every system must fall if it opposes the march of opinions, and gives shelter to maxims and institutions repugnant to the spirit of the age. In this sort of contest, the ultimate result is never doubtful. For the vigour of an arbitrary government depends merely on a few individuals, who, whatever their abilities may be, are liable, after their death, to be replaced by timid and incompetent successors. But the vigour of public opinion is not exposed to these casualties; it is unaffected by the laws of mortality; it does not flourish to-day and decline to-morrow; and so far from depending on the lives of individual men, it is governed by large general causes, which, from their very comprehensiveness, are in short periods scarcely seen, but on a comparison of long periods, are found to outweigh all other considerations, and reduce to insignificance those little stratagems by which princes and statesmen think to disturb the order of events, and mould to their will the destinies of a great and civilized people.

These are broad and general truths, which will hardly be questioned by any man who, with a competent knowledge of history, has reflected much on the nature and conditions of modern society. But during the period we have been considering, they were utterly neglected by our political rulers, who not only thought themselves able to check the growth of opinions, but entirely mistook the very end and object of government. In those days, it was believed that government is made for the minority, to whose wishes the majority are bound humbly to submit. It was believed that the power of making laws must always be lodged in the hands of a few privileged classes; that the nation at large has no concern with those laws, except to obey them;[946] and that it is the duty of a wise government to secure the obedience of the people by preventing them from being enlightened by the spread of knowledge.[947] We may surely deem it a remarkable circumstance, that these notions, and the schemes of legislation founded upon them, should, within half a century, have died away so completely, that they are no longer advocated, even by men of the most ordinary abilities. What is still more remarkable is, that this great change should have been effected, not by any external event, nor by a sudden insurrection of the people, but by the unaided action of moral force,--the silent, though overwhelming pressure of public opinion. This has always seemed to me a decisive proof of the natural, and, if I may so say, the healthy march of English civilization. It is a proof of an elasticity, and yet a sobriety of spirit, such as no other nation has ever displayed. No other nation could have escaped from such a crisis, except by passing through a revolution, of which the cost might well have exceeded the gain. The truth, however, is, that in England the course of affairs, which I have endeavoured to trace since the sixteenth century, had diffused among the people a knowledge of their own resources, and a skill and independence in the use of them, imperfect, indeed, but still far superior to that possessed by any other of the great European countries. Besides this, other circumstances, which will be hereafter related,[948] had, so early as the eleventh century, begun to affect our national character, and had assisted in imparting to it that sturdy boldness, and, at the same time, those habits of foresight, and of cautious reserve, to which the English mind owes its leading peculiarities. With us, therefore, the love of liberty has been tempered by a spirit of prudence, which has softened its violence, without impairing its strength. It is this which, more than once, has taught our countrymen to bear even considerable oppression rather than run the risk of rising against their oppressors. It has taught them to stay their hands; it has taught them to husband their force until they can use it with irresistible effect. To this great and valuable habit we owe the safety of England late in the eighteenth century. If the people had risen, they would have staked their all; and what the result of that desperate game would have been, no man can say. Happily for them, and for their posterity, they were content to wait yet a little; they were willing to bide their time, and watch the issue of things. Of this noble conduct their descendants reap the reward. After the lapse of a few years, the political crisis began to subside, and the people re-entered on their former rights. For although their rights had been in abeyance, they were not destroyed, simply because the spirit still existed by which they were originally won. Nor can any one doubt that, if those evil days had been prolonged, that same spirit which had animated their fathers in the reign of Charles I. would have again broken forth, and society have been convulsed by a revolution, the bare idea of which is frightful to contemplate. In the mean time, all this was avoided; and although popular tumults did arise in different parts of the country, and although the measures of government caused a disaffection of the most serious kind,[949] still the people, taken as a whole, remained firm, and patiently reserved their force till a better time, when, for their benefit, a new party was organized in the state, by whom their interests were successfully advocated even within the walls of parliament.

[946] Bishop Horsley, the great champion of the existing state of things, said in the House of Lords, in 1795, that he 'did not know what the mass of the people in any country had to do with the laws, but to obey them.' _Cooke's Hist. of Party_, vol. iii. p. 435. Compare _Godwin on Population_, p. 569.

[947] Lord Cockburn (_Life of Jeffrey_, 1852, vol. i. pp. 67, 68) says: 'If there was any principle that was reverenced as indisputable by almost the whole adherents of the party in power sixty, or even fifty, or perhaps even forty years ago, it was that the ignorance of the people was necessary for their obedience to the law.' One argument was, 'that to extend instruction, would be to multiply the crime of forgery!' _Porter's Progress of the Nation_, vol. iii. p. 205.

[948] See chapters ix. and x., on the history of the protective spirit.

[949] Sir A. Alison notices in his _History_, (vol. iv. p. 213) 'how widely the spirit of discontent was diffused' in 1796; and the only wonder is, that the people were able to keep it in bounds. That, however, is a question which writers of his stamp never consider.

This great and salutary reaction began early in the present century; but the circumstances which accompanied it are so extremely complicated, and have been so little studied, that I cannot pretend in this Introduction to offer even a sketch of them. It is sufficient to say, what must be generally known, that for nearly fifty years the movement has continued with unabated speed. Everything which has been done, has increased the influence of the people. Blow after blow has been directed against those classes which were once the sole depositaries of power. The Reform Bill, the Emancipation of the Catholics, and the Repeal of the Corn-laws, are admitted to be the three greatest political achievements of the present generation. Each of these vast measures has depressed a powerful party. The extension of the suffrage has lessened the influence of hereditary rank, and has broken up that great oligarchy of landowners, by which the House of Commons had long been ruled. The abolition of Protection has still further enfeebled the territorial aristocracy; while those superstitious feelings by which the ecclesiastical order is mainly upheld, received a severe shock, first by the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and afterwards by the admission of Catholics into the legislature; steps which are with reason regarded as supplying precedents of mischievous import for the interests of the Established Church.[950] These measures, and others which are now obviously inevitable, have taken, and will continue to take, power from particular sections of society, in order to confer it upon the people at large. Indeed, the rapid progress of democratic opinions is a fact which no one in the present day ventures to deny. Timid and ignorant men are alarmed at the movement; but that there is such a movement is notorious to all the world. No one now dares to talk of bridling the people, or of resisting their united wishes. The utmost that is said is, that efforts should be made to inform them as to their real interests, and enlighten public opinion; but every one allows that, so soon as public opinion is formed, it can no longer be withstood. On this point all are agreed; and this new power, which is gradually superseding every other, is now obeyed by those very statesmen who, had they lived sixty years ago, would have been the first to deny its authority, ridicule its pretensions, and, if possible, extinguish its liberty.

[950] Bishop Burgess, in a letter to Lord Melbourne, bitterly complained that Catholic emancipation was 'the extinction of the purely Protestant character of the British legislature.' _Harford's Life of Burgess_, p. 506: see also pp. 238, 239, 369, 370. There can be no doubt that the bishop rightly estimated the danger to his own party; and as to the Corporation and Test Acts, which, says another bishop (_Tomline's Life of Pitt_, vol. ii. p. 604), 'were justly regarded as the firmest bulwarks of the British constitution,' the feeling was so strong, that at an episcopal meeting in 1787, there were only two members who were willing to repeal these persecuting laws. See _Bishop Watson's Life of Himself_, vol. i. p. 262. Lord Eldon, who to the last stood up for the church, pronounced the bill for repealing these acts to be a 'revolutionary bill.' _Twiss's Life of Eldon_, vol. ii. p. 202.

Such is the great gap which separates the public men of our time from those who nourished under that bad system which George III. sought to perpetuate. And it is evident, that this vast progress was brought about rather by destroying the system, than by improving the men. It is also evident, that the system perished because it was unsuited to the age; in other words, because a progressive people will never tolerate an unprogressive government. But it is a mere matter of history, that our legislators, even to the last moment, were so terrified by the idea of innovation, that they refused every reform until the voice of the people rose high enough to awe them into submission, and forced them to grant what, without such pressure, they would by no means have conceded.

These things ought to serve as a lesson to our political rulers. They ought also to moderate the presumption of legislators, and teach them that their best measures are but temporary expedients, which it will be the business of a later and riper age to efface. It would be well if such considerations were to check the confidence, and silence the loquacity, of those superficial men, who, raised to temporary power, think themselves bound to guarantee certain institutions, and uphold certain opinions. They ought clearly to understand, that it does not lie within their function thus to anticipate the march of affairs, and provide for distant contingencies. In trifling matters, indeed, this may be done without danger; though, as the constant changes in the laws of every country abundantly prove, it is also done without benefit. But in reference to those large and fundamental measures which bear upon the destiny of a people, such anticipation is worse than useless,--it is highly injurious. In the present state of knowledge, politics, so far from being a science, is one of the most backward of all the arts; and the only safe course for the legislator is, to look upon his craft as consisting in the adaptation of temporary contrivances to temporary emergencies.[951] His business is to follow the age, and not at all to attempt to lead it. He should be satisfied with studying what is passing around him; and should modify his schemes, not according to the notions he has inherited from his fathers, but according to the actual exigencies of his own time. For he may rely upon it, that the movements of society have now become so rapid, that the wants of one generation are no measure of the wants of another; and that men, urged by a sense of their own progress, are growing weary of idle talk about the wisdom of their ancestors, and are fast discarding those trite and sleepy maxims which have hitherto imposed upon them, but by which they will not consent to be much longer troubled.

[951] Sir C. Lewis, though in his learned work he over-estimates the resources possessed by politicians, does nevertheless allow that they are rarely able to anticipate the manner in which their measures will work. _Lewis on the Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics_, 1852, vol. ii. pp. 360-362. A writer of repute, M. Flassan, says (_Hist. de la Diplomatie_, vol. i. p. 19): 'On doit être très-indulgent sur les erreurs de la politique, à cause de la facilité qu'il y a à en commettre, erreurs auxquelles la sagesse même quelquefois entraîne.' The first part of this sentence is true enough; but it conveys a truth which ought to repress that love of interfering with the natural march of affairs which still characterizes politicians, even in the freest countries.

* * * * *

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

LONDON: PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE AND PARLIAMENT STREET

Transcriber's Notes:

The original spelling and minor inconsistencies in the spelling and formatting have been maintained.

Inconsistent hyphenation and accents are as in the original if not marked as a misprint.

Text in italics has been marked with underscores (_text_).

The ligature oe has been marked as [oe].

The sign ^ has been used as a superscript.

The table below lists all corrections applied to the original text.

p. v: -5 -> 4-5 p. vi: 154-156 -> 152-156 p. xi: the authorship -> the authorship. p. xvii: his Life, written by Himself. -> himself. p. xix: edit. Meibomius. Amstel. -> Amstel, p. xxi: Diplomatie Erançaise -> Française p. xxi: London, 1818. 2 vols -> vols. p. xxviii: A Journey though -> through p. xxxvi: of 1569. London, 1840 -> 1840. p. xxxviii: Literature. London, 1849 -> 1849. p. xli: The Journals of. London -> The Journals of London p. xlii: Camd. Soc. 1848 4to -> 1848. 4to. p. 10: lib. ii. segm. 16, vol -> vol. p. 22: not always absolutely, -> absolutely. p. 40: vol. vi. p. 136. -> 136, p. 54: with the greater rapidity. -> rapidity.' p. 57: one and a half per cent. -> cent p. 60: Carus' Comparative Anatomy -> Carus's p. 64: when it is over-supplied -> over-supplied. p. 64: 'Cabanis -> 'Cabanis' p. 64: _Burckhardt's Travels in Arabia_ -> _Arabia_, p. 64: Déscrition -> Description p. 64: Ulloa' -> Ulloa's p. 64: vol. i. pp. 379, 380, 460,; -> 460; p. 66: Phillip's on Scrofula -> Phillips p. 69: So too, in North America -> So, too, in North America p. 70: Theatre of the Indus -> Hindus p. 72: Craufurd's History -> Crawfurd's History p. 72: _Journal of Geograph. Society_, vol -> vol. p. 72: l'AmériqueMéridionale -> l'Amérique Méridionale p. 80: he be divested? -> divested?' p. 84: 170, 213; _Bowditch_ -> _Bowdich_ p. 94: throughout, the laying -> 'throughout p. 97: in nearly 9° north. -> north.' p. 97: p.113. -> p. 113. p. 103: vol. ii. p. 113, -> vol. ii. p. 113; p. 108: was 21°,on the -> was 21°, on the p. 109: of elevation. -> elevation.' p. 111: l.'_Humboldt_ -> l'_Humboldt_ p. 113: belonged to the people. -> people.' p. 119: natural progress -> natural progress. p. 122: _Brit. Assoc. for_ 1850, p. 68; -> p. 68); p. 123: comme Science d' Observation -> d'Observation p. 126: they apprehend danger. -> danger.' p. 126: Garrows or Garrudus. -> Garrudus.' p. 130: vol. i. p. 41; -> 41, p. 130: _Phillips on Scrofula_, p. 255: -> 255; p. 133: _Religiöse Bildung der Hindus_, vol -> vol. p. 135: _Asiatic Researches_ -> _Asiatic Researches_. p. 137: Speculationen über Zahlen -> 'Speculationen p. 143: Müller's Hist -> Müller's Hist. p. 147: Stephen's Central America -> Stephens's p. 148: _Béclard_. -> _Béclard_, p. 150: The views of Liebeg -> Liebig p. 158: can be raised -> can be raised. p. 158: _Locke's Works_, vol. i, -> vol. i. p. 164: generalized _solely_ from from the -> _solely_ from the p. 167: ich mir noch and ere -> andere p. 170: _Asiatic Researches_, vol. iii, -> vol. iii. p. 171: promises the metphysicians -> metaphysicians p. 177: Geoffroy Saint Hilaire -> Saint-Hilaire p. 177: _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. i. p. 380; -> p. 380, p. 183: vol. ii. p. 304 -> 304. p. 193: Ideen zur Gesckichte -> Ideen zur Geschichte p. 197: l'intelligence, la seule q'uon -> qu'on p. 205: and a dagger -> dagger. p. 207: sur ce sujet. -> sujet.' p. 208: became clearly recognied -> recognized p. 211: balancing of trade. -> trade.' p. 212: _Mill's History of India_, vol -> vol. p. 215: pp. 834, 905 -> 905, p. 249: Nichol's Literary Illustrations -> Nichols's p. 256: le plus éclairé. -> éclairé.' p. 267: _Geschichte der Philosophie_, vol. ii, -> vol. ii. p. 293: vol. iii. pp. 383. -> 383, p. 294: [OE]uvresde -> [OE]uvres de p. 295: Poetry, 1840 -> 1840, p. 302: have for upwards of 2000 years -> 2,000 years p. 302: extending back 3000 years -> 3,000 years p. 304: from Madagascar to within 2000 miles -> 2,000 miles p. 304: in Polynesia Proper -> proper p. 310: Troyens, par Pàris -> Paris p. 314: vol. ii. p. 389 -> 389. p. 315: prædicatorem,' p. 360 -> 360. p. 325: progress was unmistakeable -> unmistakable p. 330: of mathematics at Tubingen -> Tübingen p. 332: _Biog. Univ._ -> _Biog. Univ._, p. 342: 'Quodque in illis -> Quodque in illis p. 358: pp. 572, 577 -> 577. p. 375: _Richardson's Travels in the Sahara_, vol. i. p 11 -> p. 11 p. 378: Cudworth's Intellect -> Intellect. p. 379: affected by uncontrolable -> uncontrollable p. 389: In another place, vol -> vol. p. 392: Chalmers' Biographical -> Chalmers's p. 393: Chalmers' Biog. -> Chalmers's Biog. p. 397: vol. ii. pp. 52. -> 52, p. 400: De Foe (_Wilson's -> De Foe _Wilson's p. 404: September 1688 (_Ellis_ -> _Ellis_, p. 409: _Parl. Hist._ vol. v -> vol. v. p. 411: vol. ii. pp. 640. -> p. 640. p. 412: 72 Calamy -> 172 Calamy p. 423: Southey's Wesley, pp -> pp. p. 425: Whateley's Dangers -> Whately's p. 426: Hist.of Moral -> Hist. of Moral p. 429: eighteenth century. Proviously -> Previously p. 434: vol. ii. p. 29), it become -> became p. 437: with plenty of 'parentheses'! -> 'parentheses!' p. 442: such efforts to instil -> instill p. 445: _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. v -> vol. v. p. 447: So too Lord Campbell -> So, too, Lord Campbell p. 449: rectitude of their hearts. -> hearts.' p. 451: Dutens' Mémoires -> Dutens's p. 453: So too Sheridan -> So, too, Sheridan p. 465: the very sound of them. -> them.' p. 467: vol. i. pp. 43. -> 43, p. 468: _Buckingham's Mem. of George III._ 1853. -> 1853, p. 474: the united sovereigns -> 'the united sovereigns p. 475: a _long_ war. -> war.' p. 477: _Bisset's Life of Burke_, vol -> vol. p. 480: 'Without stopping to relate -> Without stopping to relate p. 481: vol. i. p. 352, -> vol. i. p. 352; p. 481: says 139,171,876_l_ -> 139,171,876_l._ p. 487: Stephen's Mem. of -> Stephens's p. 493: immediately assented, p. 385-387. -> pp. 385-387. p. 494: _Stephens's Mem. of Tooke_, vol -> vol. p. 494: Compare Fox's statment -> statement p. 494: to erect every man,not -> man, not p. 494: Mem. of Horne Tooke -> Mem. of Horne Tooke, p. 496: See also vol. xxxv. p. 609, 610. -> pp. 609, 610.