THE character and views of the different parties who possess or aspire to the direction of public affairs, acquire an importance in a free country, which excites the astonishment and ridicule of those who live under a different form of government. It is not difficult to assign the cause of this marked distinction. The proceedings of an arbitrary government have but little interest to an enlightened mind-for as the will of the sovereign, which forms the only law, is seldom guided by principles which can become the ground-work of reasoning, the domestic revolutions to which such governments are exposed, constitute a barren and uninteresting subject of history. Extreme simplicity and endless variety alike exclude conjecture and speculation; the powers of the understanding find their proper employment in the extensive regions which lie between, in which the mind is neither stupified by a tedious uniformity, nor bewildered by a succession of changes which defy all the laws of arrangement and combination. All free governments, and, in a peculiar and eminent degree, the government of this country, exhibit this happy moderation so propitious to study and reflection. The constitution, although

intricate, is not embarrassed by unnecessary complications; it is composed of many powers, each acting as a check on the other; and, above all, the people are accustomed to exercise a great controul over the proceedings of government. Nothing, therefore, of any consequence is done here, no important step, either in foreign or domestic policy, is resolved on, without ample and eager discussion; and no real change can be accomplished for which some plausible reason is not offered. It is true, indeed, that such a government, although liable to continual fluctuations, changes its principles but little in the course of time; and that, although minor alterations are of frequent occurrence, and the public mind is continually agitated with political discussion, yet all the changes which can be ultimately effected by any party, how powerful soever, are confined within narrow limits. Yet the character and views of public men rise in importance in exact proportion to the real security of the constitution against their influence and designs: the popular interest in their proceedings is commensurate to the stability of the institutions of which it is the surest guarantee; so that there is no branch

of the history of a free country which so naturally and universally engages attention as those great contests for power and pre-eminence; which ignorance and malice alone are wont to brand as the mere struggles of faction. It has been supposed by some persons, that the leading public men in a free state are necessarily and inevitably guided by selfish considerations that they are disposed to view the politics, whether domestic or foreign, of their country, chiefly as they may affect the interest of the factions which are struggling for power, and that the semblance, rather than the reality, of patriotism is all that can be expected from them. Were their power greater, or their independence of public opinion more complete, it has been imagined that they would more easily disencumber themselves of the selfish maxims by which their conduct is enslaved, and that, although with occasional frowardness and tyranny, yet with greater boldness and vigour, they would seek the real interest of the country. This, however, seems to be a mistake; for, besides that the blessings of freedom have a tendency to inspire public men with greater nobleness and generosity of mind, the check which, in a free country, is exercised through the medium of the press, and by the vigilance of the people, on the conduct of their leaders, must be infinitely more powerful in insuring the high and honourable fulfilment of duty, than the possession of the most absolute power of which history has left any record. Notwithstanding the calumnies which have been so industriously circulated by persons who wish to bring not only the government, but all public men into contempt, it may be affirmed, that in no age or country has there ever been a race of statesmen of more eminent qualifications, and more unimpeachable integrity, than has flourished in Great Britain for the last

1

century. The pride and arrogance of some, the weakness and obstinący of others, may have deserved censure; but there is not the slightest reason to believe that any considerable man belonging to either of the great leading parties, has, for many years past, been tempted by the pitiful emoluments of office, or by any consideration merely selfish, to sacrifice his integrity or independence. Men who, as individuals, would be wicked enough to make such a sacrifice, could never in a public capacity be expected to sustain the honour of the nation: yet it is a fact, which few will venture to dispute, that how great soever the errors in policy which may have been imputable to ministers, the national honour and good-faith have hitherto been preserved without tarnish or reproach. This is a proof, at least, of honourable views in those who have been entrusted with the conduct of affairs-of principles which would in vain be sought for among the degraded victims of a base and sordid ambition. A

great change is supposed to have taken place in the state of parties since the death of Pitt and Fox, who had so far elevated themselves by their talents above their contemporaries. No person, it is said, now follows either party with that implicit submission which he was wont to pay to the te nets of the one or other of these great leaders; but this opinion also seems to be founded on a very obvious mistake. The mere admiration of talents is not sufficient to insure political attachment; it goes a great way indeed towards preserving personal regard and veneration for the possessor, but in a matter so serious as the choice of a system of political opinions, it will not maintain that united and vigorous cooperation which is necessary to the power and influence of a party. man ever stood higher in the public estimation for talents and virtue than

No

the late Mr Burke; yet he could hardly be said at any period of his life to have commanded a party, or to have insured for his opinions implicit respect or active co-operation. Political attachments in honourable minds arise out of a candid and rational preference for a system of opinions, by which it is supposed that the public safety and honour can be best maintained; uninfluenced by personal regard or affection, they are founded on views far more generous and elevated. As a proof of this, we may refer to the career of those eminent men who have lately brought the public affairs to so glorious an issue. They became the leaders of that party of which Mr Pitt was at one time the head; and they have been uniformly supported with no less zeal and union both in and out of parliament, than that illustrious statesman himself. There have been more numerous defections indeed from the whig, or opposition party; and it is not difficult to give a satisfactory explanation of this circumstance, with out supposing that the genuine followers of that party are defective in a sincere and steady attachment to its principles. It is natural for political adventurers, in the first instance, to engage on the side of opposition; they have there a better field for the display of those qualities on which they value themselves,―a zealous, though narrow, hostility to existing institutions, and a clamorous impatience of all control. But, as such persons are not in general very steady to their principles, and as they are easily seduced by the popular applause, which their arts seldom fail to obtain, they quickly separate themselves from those with whom they were at first accustomed to act, and by an affectation of greater purity and warmer zeal for the public service than either of the great parties possess, they strive to acquire the confidence of the lower

orders. It has thus happened, that, besides the ministerial and opposition parties, another tribe of politicians, of a singular and anomalous character, has made its appearance; and as the two great parties in all their struggles sought the approbation of the higher and more intelligent orders, this new faction seized on the mob as the proper objects of its influence and authority. At the beginning of the present year, there were in this way three par. ties contending for influence, of which it may be proper in this place to give

The ministerial party, of which the late Mr Perceval was at this time the leader, numbered among its supporters many very able men. Its chiefs unanimously concurred in a profound reverence for the principles and opinions of Mr Pitt, in whose school they were bred, and to whose memory they looked with feelings of veneration. It can scarcely be necessary to give any account of the political principles of this great man; they are known to all Europe, and exercised on its destinies for the last thirty years a greater influence than those of any other statesman. The leading maxims of his followers were persevering resistance to the dangerous ambition of France-a wise jealousy of the principles which have been drawn forth in the course of her revolution, and a firm determination in all circumstances to sustain the high rank of Great Britain in the scale of European powers. The principles of their foreign policy, therefore, were vigorous as they were simple; and with regard to domestic affairs, the constant tenor of their conduct proved that although they were favourable to moderate and practical improvement, they entertained a salutary dread of intemperate innovation. They considered the mechanism of such a government as that of England to be a great deal too fine to be

touched with impunity by the rash hand of reform; and they perceived, in the circumstances of modern times, and in the change which had taken place in the habits and intelligence of the people of Europe, the symptoms of a dangerous empiricism, which it was the great object of their policy to counteract and repress. They might be called timid in comparison with some of their opponents, but they were timid only as they were sagacious; and the energy which they displayed in resisting the violence by which every thing sacred in the country was at one time attacked, first saved England from revolution, and, in the issue, raised her to the highest pitch of greatness. If they were mistrustful of the sweeping conclusions which were drawn by weak and ardent minds, from abstract and metaphysical principles, their caution was inspired by the dictates of genuine philosophy; and if they were exposed to the reproach of timidity, they could provoke it from those misguided spirits alone who might have cast the same imputation on the greatest philosopers of modern times, men, who, rejecting idle and vain theories, have, on the basis of experiment, established the beautiful superstructure of true science. They

were no less sensible than their enemies to the difficulties under which the country laboured, and the dangers to which it was exposed; but they considered these dangers as the result of accidents which could not be controlled, and of a state of the world which nothing but the full display of all the energies of England could correct or reform. Hence, regardless of difficulties, they persevered with manly firm ness in a contest, from which Great Britain could not have retired without dishonour; hence they sustained that high tone which she has always been accustomed to hold among the nations f the world; and hence they not only

maintained her honour and integrity, but were enabled, in the issue, to add prodigiously to her ancient stock of glory.

It has been remarked by philosophers, that the distinctions which exist among practical politicians, are rather nominal than real, and that with very slight sacrifices on each side, intelligent men might easily be brought to a good understanding, they would be called upon to give up, not principles, but expressions; and while they would thus exhibit more philosophical precision in defining their views, they would contribute much to tranquillize society, which is so often convulsed by their controversies. The principle on which this observation is founded has been singularly exemplified in English history. The ancient distinctions which divided the different parties of English politicians, have no longer a meaning, those who are now described as Whigs and Tories, no longer profess the sentiments by which their respective parties were formerly distinguished.-The leading principles of those great men, by whom the revolution of 1688 was accomplished, and of their immediate successors, whose measures cast such a lustre around the country, are precisely those on which the ministers of the present day have invariably acted, a firm resistance to the ambition of France, and a jealousy of the tenets of the Roman Catholics.-Their opponents, who still claim for themselves the appellation of Whigs, have not only abandoned the great and salutary principles formerly entertained on these points, but have avowed, as the leading maxims of their creed, opinions of an opposite nature. They demand unqualified concession to the catholics of Ireland, and have in a thousand instances called on the country to make peace with France, in circumstances which the whigs of the reigns of King