i. Such was the language of the guardians of the LAW, that temple or

sanctuary, as it has been called, whither the subject is to run for shelter and protection. Had not Mr. ST. JOHN then much reason for saying, as he did on that occasion, “We have the fabric of the temple still; but the Gods, the DII TUTELARES, are gone?” There is the more force and propriety in this censure, as it comes from a man who was himself of the profession. And another of the same order, the best and wisest perhaps that frequented the temple of law in those days, proceeds with a just indignation still further—“These men (said Mr. HIDE, in a speech to the lords) have, upon vulgar fears, delivered up the precious forts they were trusted with, almost without assault; and, in a tame easy trance of flattery and servitude, lost and forfeited (shamefully forfeited) that reputation, awe, and reverence, which the wisdom, courage, and gravity of their venerable predecessors had contracted and fastened to their places; and have even rendered that study and profession, which in all ages hath been, and I hope now shall be, of honourable estimation, so contemptible and vile, that, had not this blessed day come [the day of impeachment of the six judges], all men would have had that quarrel to the Law itself, which MARCIUS had to the _Greek_ tongue, who thought it a mockery to learn that language, the masters whereof lived in bondage under others.”—Thus these eloquent apologists for law and liberty. The conclusion is, that though in the great bodies of churchmen and lawyers, some will always be found to dishonour themselves, there have never been wanting others to do justice to the public, and to assert, maintain, and preserve, the dignity of their respective professions.

[33] This appears even from Mr. HUME’S own account of the feudal times; incomparably the best part of his _History of England_. And it is to be presumed that, if so ingenuous a writer had begun his work at the right end, he would have been led, by the evidence of so palpable a truth, to express himself more favourably, indeed more consistently, of the _English_ constitution. But having, by some odd chance, written the history of the STUARTS first, and afterwards of the TUDORS, (in both which he found it for his purpose to adopt the notion of a despotic independent spirit in the _English_ monarchy), he chuses in the last part of his work, which contains the history of _England from_ JULIUS CÆSAR _to_ HENRY VII. to abide by his former fancy; on this pretence, that, in the administration of the feudal government, the liberty of the subject was incomplete and partial; often precarious and uncertain: a way, in which the learned historian might prove, that no nation under heaven ever was, or ever will be, possessed of a FREE CONSTITUTION.

By the FREE CONSTITUTION of the _English_ monarchy, every advocate of liberty, that understands himself, I suppose, means, that limited plan of policy, by which the supreme legislative power (including in this general term the power of levying money) is lodged, not in the prince singly, but jointly in the prince and people; whether the _popular_ part of the constitution be denominated _the king’s_ or _kingdom’s great council_, as it was in the proper feudal times; or _the parliament_, as it came to be called afterwards; or, lastly, _the two houses of parliament_, as the style has now been for several ages.

To tell us, that this constitution has been different at different times, because the regal or popular influence has at different times been more or less predominant, is only playing with a word, and confounding _constitution_ with _administration_. According to this way of speaking, we have not only had _three or four_[34], but possibly three or four score, different constitutions. So long as that great distribution of the supreme authority took place (and it has constantly and invariably taken place, whatever other changes there might be, from the _Norman_ establishment down to our times) the nation was always enabled, at least _authorized_, to regulate all subordinate, or, if you will, supereminent claims and pretensions. This it effectually did at the _Revolution_, and, by so doing, has not created a _new plan of policy_, but perfected the old one. The great MASTER-WHEEL of the _English_ constitution is still the same; only freed from those checks and restraints, by which, under the specious name of _prerogatives_, time and opportunity had taught our kings to obstruct and embarrass its free and regular movements.

On the whole, it is to be lamented that Mr. HUME’s too zealous concern for the honour of the house of STUART, operating uniformly through all the volumes of his history, has brought disgrace on a work, which, in the main, is agreeably written, and is indeed the most readable _general_ account of the ENGLISH affairs, that has yet been given to the public.

[34] Mr. HUME’S Hist. vol. v. p. 472, _n._ ed. 8vo, 1763.

[35] A great lawyer, however, and one of the ornaments of Mr. SOMERS’S own house, is not afraid to indulge in these generous expectations. In a late treatise, in which he explains, with exquisite learning, the genius of the feudal policy, “These principles, says he, are the principles of freedom, of justice, and safety. The _English_ constitution is formed upon them. Their reason will subsist, as long as the frame of it shall stand; and being maintained in purity and vigour, will preserve it from the usual mortality of government.” _Considerations on the Law of Forfeiture_, 3d ed. Lond. 1748.

[36] Account of _Denmark_, as it was in the year 1692.

[37] Such as certain philosophers amused themselves with building, on _Innate Ideas_.

[38] _Ideas of Sensation_—on which principles, indeed, a late writer has constructed, but by no fault of Mr. LOCKE, a material system of the grossest Epicurism. See a work entitled, _De l’Esprit_, in 2 tom. _Amst._ 1759.

[39] “Infidelity is the natural product of restraint and spiritual tyranny—Hence it is we see _France_ and _Italy_ over-run with the worst kind of _Deism_. There our travelling gentry first picked it up for a rarity. And, indeed, at first, without much malice. It was brought home in a cargo of new fashions: and worn, for some time, with that levity, by the importers, and treated with that contempt by the rest, as suited, and was due, to the apishness of foreign manners: till a set, &c.” Bishop of GLOUCESTER’S _Sermon on the Suppression of the late Rebellion_, p. 78.

[40] CHARACT. Vol. iii. Dis. iii.

[41]

Ἃ δ’ ἂν μάθοι τις, ταῦτα σώζεσθαι φιλεῖ Πρὸς γῆρας. οὕτω παῖδας εὖ παιδεύετε. Eurip. ΙΚΕΤΙΔΕΣ.

[42] Of _Ryswick_, in 1697.

[43] _Advice to an Author_, P. II. S. III.

[44] See a discourse at the end of _Love’s Labour Lost_ in WARB. Ed. of SHAKESPEAR; in which the _origin_, _subject_, and _character_ of these books of Chivalry (or _Romances_, properly so called) are explained with an exactness of learning, and penetration, peculiar to that writer—

In tenui labor, at tenuis non gloria—

[45] The late right honourable CHARLES YORKE; who to all the learning of his own profession had joined an exact taste, and very extensive knowledge, of polite literature. What follows is an extract from a long letter which this excellent person did me the honour to write to me on the subject of these letters, when he had read them in the first edition.

[46] See the _Memoir_, just quoted.

[47] Mr. WARTON’S Observations on SPENSER, vol. i. p. 175.

[48] Don QUIXOTE, b. iv. c. 22.

[49] Mr. WARTON, _Obs. on the F. Q._ p. 7. vol. i. _Lond._ 1762.

[50] Lord SHAFTESBURY, _Adv. to an Author_.

[51] _Adv. to an Author_, Part III. S. II.

[52] _Spectator_, vol. i. N^{o} 5. vol. v. N^{o} 369.

[53] For an account of some other wonders in Romance, such as _enchanted arms_, _invulnerable bodies_, _flying horses_, &c. see _L’Esprit des Loix_, l. xxviii. c. 22.

[54] VOLTAIRE, _Essai sur la Poësie Epique_, ch. vii.

[55] A celebrated writer, whose good sense, or whose perverseness, would not suffer him to be the dupe of French prejudices, declares himself roundly of this opinion: “On a voulu mettre en _representation_ (says he, speaking of the absurd magnificence of the _French_ Opera) le MERVEILLEUX, qui, n’etant fait que pour être imaginé, EST AUSSI BIEN PLACE DANS UN POEME EPIQUE que ridiculement sur un theatre.” [_Nouv. Heloise_, p. II. l. xxiii.]

[56] Sir W. DAVENANT’S Preface.

[57] Θεῖος ὄνειρος. HOMER.

[58] Mr. HOBBES’S Letter.

[Transcriber’s Note:

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.]