moved in the Lords to make the like order, without excepting the Commons. But this motion was successfully opposed by the Duke of Argyle, who said, very much in the style of a courtier, "It is for the honour of this august assembly to show that they are better bred and have more complaisance than the Commons!" A strange argument for legislators! Still less was there at this period any publication of the lists of the divisions. In 1696, the printing and circulating the names of a minority in the House of Commons had been unanimously voted a breach of privilege, and "destructive of the freedom and liberties of Parliament."* It may, however, be doubted whether the just responsibility of members to their constituents was thereby at all impaired; since, on any doubtful point, the electors would of course address an inquiry to their representative as to the vote he had given; and if even he were so utterly base as to wish to deceive them, still he could not answer falsely whilst there were many hundred witnesses to the real fact. To suppose a question not calling for any such inquiries from constituents, is to suppose a question of very little public importance, or constituents of very little public spirit. We may, therefore, perhaps, infer that the modern practice of lists in the daily papers is more useful for the gratification of curiosity than for the maintenance of principle; and we may regret that so many hours should be wasted in the House of Commons by explanatory speeches, when the same object might be attained by explanatory letters. At present more members speak to satisfy their supporters out of doors, than to convince their opponents in the House. In Queen Anne's reign, the place of daily reports of the debates was in a great measure supplied by frequent party pamphlets.' It was through these that the people were sometimes instructed and restrained, and more often spurred and goaded, in the politics of the day. Never before had England seen this paper warfare waged with such fierce and deadly rancour. Never before had it been con 1 • Commons' Journals, vol. xi. p. 572. [The memory of a remarkable partisan pamphleteer--John Asgill-was revived a few years ago by Coleridge, after the name had been lost sight of in the celebrity of such party writers as Swift, Addison, and Steele. He was, during his day, noted not only for his many political tracts, (among them one asserting "the Jus Divinum of the House of Hanover,") but also for an Argument to prove that "man may be translated without passing through death." "He was expelled," said Mr. Coleridge, "from two Houses of Commons for blasphemy and atheism, as was pretended;--I suspect, really, because he was a staunch Hanoverian. I expected to find the ravings of an enthusiast, or the sullen snarlings of an infidel, whereas I found the very soul of Swift-an intense half-deceived humourism. I scarcely remember elsewhere such uncommon skill in logic, such lawyer-like acuteness, and yet such a grasp of common sense. Each of his paragraphs is in itself a whole, and yet a link between the preceding and following; so that the entire series forms one argument, and yet each is a diamond in itself."--Table Talk, vol. i. p. 244. Again in vol. ii. p. 48. "I know no genuine Saxon English supeperior to Asgill's. I think his and Defoe's irony often finer than Swift's." See also Coleridge's Literary Remains, vol. ii. pp. 390 and 397. Southey has also devoted two chapters of "The Doctor" (chaps. 172 and 173) to an account of Asgill and his writings.] ducted by such eminent abilities. On the one side, the Whigs could boast of the graceful and easy style, the inimitable humour and the fertile fancy of Addison; of the buoyant spirit, the keen and biting vehemence of Steele. On the other side, the Tories possessed in Swift perhaps the greatest master of satire that ever lived. He was bold, vindictive, and unscrupulous. He was seldom restrained either by delicacy or compassion. He had a thorough knowledge of all the baser parts of human nature: for they were his own. If, indeed, it be possible that an accomplished satirist should ever be an amiable man, Swift at least was not that prodigy; and his life and character appear consumed by the same fiery rancour which glows in his writings. We find him bred as a Whig under Sir William Temple, patronised as a Whig by Lord Somers, boasting of himself as a Whig in his writings,* and then, without a pretence of principle, without the slightest charge against his friends on public grounds, and merely on an allegation of personal neglect, turning round to the Tory leaders at the very moment when those leaders were coming into office, and having evidently no better reason for deserting his cause than that he thought it in danger. We find him instantly single out all his former friends for his libels, and assail them with all the deadly resentment of a renegade. The illustrious Somers, for example, his early friend, so lately held up as "the modern Aristides," becomes "a false, deceitful rascal." We find him in some cases even making a boast of insincerity; and thus saying of Lord Rochester, "Though I said I only talked from my love to him, I told a lie, for I do not care if he were hanged." We find him now urge his greedy claims for reward upon both Bolingbroke and Harley; and at length, in the spring of 1713, extort the Deanery of St. Patrick's from a reluctant Queen and hollow friends. We find him, a beneficed clergyman, indite a sarcastic allegory on the principal sects of Christianity; we find him indulge in the grossest and most unseemly allusions, even when writing to a young, an unmarried, and a virtuous woman, who had become attached to him,§ a woman whom his cold-hearted cruelty afterwards hurried to an early grave. Such is my opinion of his character. I turn to his writings, and my contempt for the man is at once lost in my admiration of the author. What vigour and vivacity of style! How rich is his variety of illustration, how terrible his energy of invective! How powerfully does he cast aside to the right and to the left all extraneous or subordinate topics, grapple at once with the main matters at issue, and give battle to the whole strength of his opponents! Though nearly all written as mere occasional pieces, and to serve an immediate object, his works have been deservedly * Works, vol. iii. p. 240, &c. Journal to Stella, Dec. 30, 1710. † Works, vol. iii. p. 273; and vol. ii. p. 155. § Ibid., Oct. 4, 1710, &c. [See Mr. Lockhart's Life of Sir Walter Scott for some remarks on the opposite esti mates of Swift's personal character by Scott in his Life of Swift, and by Lord Jeffrey in the Edinburgh Review, vol. xvii] classed by posterity as permanent productions, and display more, perhaps, than any other, the whole force of plain and homely language. It has already been mentioned that, in the reign of Queen Anne, party pamphlets and lampoons had attained a new degree of both talent and importance. The great Whig administration had borne. these attacks, for the most part, with inward soreness but ostensible indifference. It was not till a libel was heard from the pulpit, and a nickname applied in a sermon to a minister of state,* that the resentment of Godolphin drew his colleagues into the unfortunate impeachment of Sacheverell. The Tory ministers, on the other hand, who had been, while out of office, the prime movers of these attacks, did not bear the libels to which they in their turn became exposed, with the same patience as their predecessors. In this, as in almost every other matter, they had recourse to the most violent measures. In one day, Secretary St. John had no less than twelve booksellers and publishers taken up for libels on the administration.† Not satisfied with such activity, he, in January, 1712, brought down a message from her Majesty to the House of Commons, complaining of the "great license which is taken in publishing false and scandalous libels, such as are a reproach to any government;" and declaring that "this evil seems to be grown too strong for the laws now in force." The House of Commons, at that time completely under the control of St. John and his colleagues, in their answer went even beyond the Royal message, and lamented that, "not only are false and scandalous libels printed and published against your Majesty's government, but the most horrid blasphemies against God and religion. And we beg leave humbly to assure your Majesty that we will do our utmost to find out a remedy equal to this mischief." Accordingly, in March, 1712, the House having resolved itself into committee, Sir Gilbert Dolben moved the following resolutions: "1. That the liberty taken in printing and publishing scandalous and impious libels creates divisions among her Majesty's subjects, tends to the disturbance of the public peace, is highly prejudicial to her Majesty's government, and is occasioned for want of due regulating the press. "2. That all printing presses be registered with the names of the owners and places of abode; and that the author, printer, and publisher of every book set his name and place of abode thereto." A bill founded upon these two resolutions was ordered by the House to be brought in; but it was dropped in the course of the session, several members having, as they believed, found a more Volpone to Lord Godolphin. Another nickname applied at the time to the same nobleman, from his ungainly looks, was Baconface. Journal to Stella, Oct. 24, 1711. St. John says himself, in one of his letters, "My Lord Marlborough's stupid chaplain continues to spoil paper. They had best, for their patron's sake as well as their own, be quiet. I know how to set them in the pillory, and how to revive fellows that will write them to death." To Mr. Harrison, Sept. 21, 1711. Corresp., vol. i. p. 226. effectual method for suppressing the evil in question by laying a heavy duty on all newspapers and pamphlets. This was done; and the tax, according to Swift, exceeded the intrinsic value of both the materials and the work; yet, considered as a party measure, it failed in its effect: for the zeal of the opposition, which must at all times be keener than that of the party in power, speedily found funds to continue its attacks, while the Tory writers did not always enjoy the same advantage; so that, as their chief libeller afterwards complained, this impost was "to open the mouths of our enemy and shut our own. In fact, no point of modern legislation seems more perplexing than that of the abuses of the public press. Their grievance, which is, in fact, power without responsibility, is great and undoubted; but a despotic remedy for them would be a greater grievance still. Under the benignant influence of a free constitution, libellers, like vermin in summer, will naturally grow and thrive. It is a matter well worthy the inquiry of an enlightened age, whether we must needs bear the lesser evil for the sake of the greater good, or whether it be possible to check the licentiousness of the press without impairing the liberty out of which it springs. In considering this question, we must measure the mischief of libels, first, by the false opinions or inflamed resentments which they may raise amongst the people; and, secondly, by their effects on the illustrious objects of their venom. In the latter respect it is true that the very extent of the evil happily works out its own cure. So common and unscrupulous are now the attacks on every one engaged in public life, or even filling an elevated rank, that few men can fail to become completely callous and unmoved by them. But the case, I may observe, was very different in less turbulent times, or with more sensitive tempers. How often have not such malignant falsehoods damped the brightest energies, and discouraged the most active patriotism! They have quelled spirits which had not shrunk before embattled armies, which had confronted the terrors of a parliamentary impeachment-the Tower and the block. Of all the leading statesmen at the time of Anne, the two who appear to have possessed the greatest mastery of temper and powers of selfcontrol are Marlborough and Somers. The former, in the opinion of Adam Smith, even surpassed in these qualities all other great public characters of modern times. Yet we find both Somers and Marlborough writhing and embittered by the sting of even the most insignificant literary insects. The private letters of the Duke are filled with complaints against "the villanous way of printing, which stabs me to the heart."-"I find," says Lord Somers, "that in any reign, and with any success, there will be little cause to envy any one who has a share of the ministry in England." Are these, *Swift, Four last Years of the Queen, Works, vol. v. p. 301. I may observe, however, that a foreign ambassador writes in 1716, "Printers run great risks in printing anything that displeases the Government." Count Gyllenborg to Gortz. London, Oct. 23, 1716. (Papers laid before Parliament.) To the Duchess, April 16, 1711; and several others. ‡ Letter to the Duke of Shrewsbury, December, 1704. we may be allowed to ask, the feelings with which a generous country should desire its great men to regard it? Is it not also to be feared that the country may thus have lost the advantage of much enterprise and genius which would otherwise have been exerted for its service? And, above all, have we any ground to hope that the very excess of the evil, which undoubtedly works out its own cure so far as private feelings are concerned, has at all the same effect with regard to public delusion or exasperation? From this long, but I hope not superfluous digression, I return to the schemes and proceedings of the British administration. In the period between the dissolution of the old Parliament and the meeting of the new one, in February, 1714, the party of Bolingbroke in the cabinet appears to have exerted a decided preponderance over that of Oxford. In the same proportion as his influence increased, the tendency of every measure grew more and more in favour of the Pretender and his partisans. We have now laid open to public view, in Macpherson's and Lockhart's volumes, the most confidential correspondence of that period, secret reports from the agents both of Hanover and of St. Germains; and it is very remarkable that, widely as these letters differ in all their views and wishes, and sources of information, they yet perfectly agree as to the fact of the new counsels of England being for the interests of the latter. The Hanoverians write with bitterness and alarm; the Jacobites in a most confident and joyous tone. "The changes," says the Jesuit Plunkett,*"go on by degrees to the King's advantage; none but his friends advanced or employed in order to serve the great project. Bolingbroke and Oxford do not set their horses together, because he (Oxford) is so dilatory, and dozes over things, which is the occasion there are so many Whigs chosen this parliament. Though there are four Tories to one, they think it little. The ministry must now sink or swim with France." So strong was, in fact, the Jacobite conviction on this point, that the Pretender wrote with his own hand recommending the ministry to the support of his friends in England; and on the 19th of September, Nairne, his Under Secretary of State, sent a still more specific injunction to the Jacobites that they should assist the Tories at the elections, and promote all the measures of the Court. The new appointments at that Court were likewise nearly all such This Plunkett, under the name of Rogers, was a stirring Jacobite agent, who had previously dipped in a most detestable conspiracy against the Duke of Marlborough. He assured the ministers that Marlborough and the principal Whigs meant to fire the city, seize the Queen, murder Oxford, &c. See Coxe's Life, vol. vi. p. 167. † Letters dated Oct. 7, and 28, 1713. Macpherson, vol. ii. p. 439, and 446. The Queen is always termed Princess Anne, and often mentioned with bitterness on account of her conduct to her father. Several old catches against her and Queen Mary's proceed. ings at that time have been handed down by tradition in old Jacobite families. Here is one that I remember to have heard from a Cornish gentleman: "William and Mary, George and Anne- |