Chapter XXXII: Book IV: 34

391. _‘The things themselves,’ etc._,

‘The things we know are neither rich nor rare.’
Pope, _Prologue to the Satires_, 171.

393. _Sir Edward Coke._ The speech selected by Hazlitt was delivered on
a Motion for Supply, Aug. 5, 1625 (_Parl. Hist._ II. 11.). On a
phrase of Coke’s ‘to petition the King rather for a _logique_
than a _rhetorique_ hand,’ Hazlitt has the following note: ‘This
mode of expression seems natural enough to any one who was
familiar with Cicero’s description of the difference between
logic and rhetoric, and who knew that most of his hearers either
were, or would be thought, equally learned. It was a convenient
short-hand language to those who were hardly ever accustomed to
think or speak but in classical allusions, and which no one
could affect to misunderstand without first exposing his own
ignorance:—it was a sort of _word to the wise_. So that its
being abrupt and far-fetched would be a recommendation of it,
and would even give it an air of simplicity with men of deep
learning, as being more in the way of their habitual and
favourite train of ideas. But this stile, which may be called
the abstruse or pedantic, is soon exploded when knowledge
becomes more generally diffused, and the pretension to it
universal: when there are few persons who profess to be very
learned, and none are contented to be thought entirely ignorant;
when every one who can read is a critic; when the reputation of
taste and good sense is not confined to an acquaintance with the
Greek and Latin authors, and it is not thought necessary to a
man’s understanding an eloquent discourse, or even to his making
one, that he should ever have read a definition either of logic
or rhetoric.’

393. _Mr. Burke’s famous Bill._ For the better security of the
independence of Parliament and the economical reformation of the
civil and other establishments. Hazlitt included in his
selections Burke’s great speech (Feb. 11, 1780) introducing the
Bill.

393. _Sir Robert Cotton._ The speech was delivered on Aug. 6, 1825
(_Parl. Hist._, II. 14).

394. _Dr. John Williams._ Speech on opening Parliament, Feb. 26, 1626
(_Parl. Hist._, II. 39).

_Sir Heneage Finch._ Speech on Feb. 6, 1626 (_Parl. Hist._, II.
41).

_Sir Dudley Carleton._ Speech on May 12, 1626 (_Parl. Hist._, II.
120).

395. _Mr. Creskeld._ Speech on the Detention of some Members of the
House, March 25, 1627 (_Parl. Hist._, II. 240).

_Sir Francis Rouse._ Speech on June 3, 1628 (_Parl. Hist._, II.
377).

_Sir John Elliott._ Speech on Public Affairs, June 3, 1628 (_Parl.
Hist._, II. 380).

_A certain political writer._ Cobbett presumably.

_Sir Benjamin Rudyard._ Speech on the State of Religion, June 3,
1628 (_Parl. Hist._, II. 385).

_Edmund Waller._ The speech referred to in the first paragraph was
a speech on the Supply, April 22, 1640 (_Parl. Hist._, II. 555);
that referred to in the second paragraph a speech praying for a
mitigation of the sentence passed upon him by Parliament, July
4, 1643 (_Parl. Hist._, III. 140).

397. _Dr. Joseph Hall._ The speech which shews that ‘passion makes men
eloquent’ was a speech in defence of the Church and Clergy, 1641
(_Parl. Hist._, II. 987).

_Bulstrode Whitlocke._ The speech referred to in the second
paragraph was a speech on changing the old Law style, Feb. 1641
(_Parl. Hist._, II. 1078).

398. _William Lenthall._ Speech on Nov. 13, 1646 (_Parl. Hist._, III.
530).

_Oliver Cromwell._ Hazlitt gave the brief speech in the House of
Commons on Dec. 9, 1644, another small fragment, and Cromwell’s
speech dissolving the second Protectorate Parliament (Feb. 4,
1658).

_John Thurloe._ Speech in vindication of the Bill to tax Royalists
(1656).

399. _Richard Cromwell._ Speech on the Meeting of Parliament (1658).

_Charles II._ Speech on the second Meeting of Parliament, May 8,
1661 (_Parl. Hist._, IV. 178).

_Lord Bristol._ Speech on the Test Act, March 15, 1672 (_Parl.
Hist._, IV. 564).

400. _Earl of Caernarvon._ Speech on the impeachment of Lord Danby,
Dec. 23, 1678 (_Parl. Hist._, IV. 1074).

_Henry Booth._ Speech on putting certain Justices out of
commission (1681).

401. _John, Lord Somers._ Hazlitt gives the speeches of Somers, Lord
Nottingham, Sir George Treby and Sir Robert Howard on the
Abdication of James II. (1688).

‘_In contempt of the people_.’ See _ante_, note to p. 175.

402. _Sir John Knight._ Speech against the proposal for naturalising
foreign protestants, March 1694 (_Parl. Hist._, V. 851). Knight
concluded his speech with the motion ‘that the serjeant be
commanded to open the doors, and let us first kick this Bill out
of the house, and then foreigners out of the kingdom.’ Knight
was member for Bristol 1692–1695, plotted for the restoration of
James and died in obscurity in 1718.

403. ‘_Metaphysical aid._’ _Macbeth_, Act I. Scene 5.

_‘Non bene,’ etc._ Ovid, _Metamorphoses_, II. 846.

‘_Reason panders will._’ _Hamlet_, Act III. Scene 4.

_‘The downright violence,’ etc._ ‘My downright violence and storm
of fortunes.’ _Othello_, Act I. Scene 3.

_Lord Belhaven._ Speech in the Scottish Convention, against the
Union, printed in Appendix to Vol. VI. of _Parl. Hist._, p.
cxlii.

404. _‘The melancholy madness,’ etc._ Junius, Letter VII.

405. _George I._ Speech on his accession.

_Sir Thomas Hanmer._ The first speech referred to was the
Speaker’s address to the Throne (1715), the second a speech on
the Reduction of the Army (1717).

_‘Threads’ etc._ Cowper, _The Task_, III. 147.

_Sir Richard Steele._ Speech on annual parliaments (1716).

406. _The following speech._ Speech on the Triennial Bill, March 13,
1734 (_Parl. Hist._, IX. 471). Walpole having referred to some
inconveniences of the democratical form of government, Hazlitt
makes the following remarks in a note:—

‘Sir Robert here, by entirely leaving out the consideration of the
other parts of our constitution which are intended to operate as
checks and correctives of the democratic part, very ingeniously
models the house of commons according to his own wishes, and at
the same time in such a manner as to answer the purposes of all
the other parts, and in fact to render them unnecessary. It has
always been pretended that the house of commons was but one
branch of the legislative—the representative of the people; and
that an antidote to any evils that might arise from this part of
the system was wisely provided in the other branches, which were
to represent property and power; but care has been taken to make
sure of the remedy in the first instance, namely by inoculating
the patient before the disease was caught, and making the house
of commons itself never anything more than the representative of
property and power.’

_‘The popular harangue,’ etc._ Cowper, _The Task_, IV. 31–32.

408. _A niche in one of his satires._ _Moral Essays_, I. 174–209.

409. _Earl of Strafford._ Speech on the Mutiny Bill, Feb. 22, 1732
(_Parl. Hist._, VIII. 1008). Thomas Wentworth, third Earl of
Strafford, ambassador extraordinary at the Hague during the
critical years 1711–1714 (see Swift’s _History of the last four
years of Queen Anne_) was a great-nephew of ‘the great lord
Strafford.’

_‘The worse appear,’ etc._ _Paradise Lost_, II. 113–114.

410. To Heathcote’s speech, which was on the Establishment of
Excise Officers, Hazlitt has the following note: ‘The
introduction of the excise laws excited an immense ferment
through the kingdom about this time. It was called by Pulteney,
‘that monster, the Excise.’ And Walpole had more difficulty in
weathering the storm of opposition that rose on this occasion,
than on any other. How tame are we grown! How familiar with that
slavery and ruin, threatened us by so many succeeding prophets
and politicians! We play with the bugbears, and handle them, and
do not find that they hurt us. We look back and smile at the
disproportionate resistance of our inexperienced forefathers to
petty vexations and imaginary grievances, and are like the old
horse in the fable, who wondered at the folly of the young
horse, who refused even to be saddled, while he crouched
patiently under the heaviest burthens.’

411. _Mr. Campbell._ Speech against a bill to prevent officers of
Government from sitting in Parliament, commonly called the Place
Bill, Feb. 26, 1734 (_Parl. Hist._, IX. 367).

_‘’Twas mine,’ etc._ _Othello_, Act III. Scene 3.

_Samuel Sandys._ Speech in reply to Campbell. Sandys’s
‘principles’ consisted of hostility to Walpole, after whose fall
he became Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Sandys. In 1742
he opposed the introduction of his own Place Bill.

412. _See his speech on the theatres._ Hazlitt included Chesterfield’s
speech on the Play-house Bill (1737—_Parl. Hist._, X. 319) among
his selections.

413. _Sir John St. Aubin._ Speech on the Triennial Bill, March 13, 1734
(_Parl. Hist._, IX. 400).

_Sir Watkin William Wynne._ Speech on the same.

414. _The following Speech on abolishing, etc._ April, 1747.

415. _Honourable Edward Coke._ Speech on the Address, Dec. 1, 1743
(_Parl. Hist._, XIII. 135).

_Sir Dudley Rider._ Speech on the Attainder Bill, May 3, 1744
(_Parl. Hist._, XIII. 859).

416. _Mr. Grenville._ Speech on the Stamp Act, January 1766 (_Parl.
Hist._, XVI. 101).

418. _‘As dry,’ etc._ _As You Like It_, Act II. Scene 7.

419. _Junius says._ Letter LIX. Isaac Barré (1726–1802), son of a
French refugee, served under Wolfe at Quebec and sat in
Parliament under Lord Shelburne’s patronage from 1761 to 1790.
He is one of the many to whom the authorship of Junius has been
attributed. He was author of the phrase ‘sons of liberty’
applied to the American colonists.

_Garrit aniles._ Horace, _Satires_, II. 6. 77–8.

_Courteney._ Hazlitt seems to refer to Boswell’s friend, John
Courtenay (1741–1816), member for Tamworth (1780–1796), who is
described by Wraxall (_Posthumous Memoirs_, V. 4) as ‘eccentric,
fearless, sarcastic, highly informed, always present to himself,
dealing his blows on every side regardless on whom they fell.’

420. _The Barrés, etc._ In the _Dictionary of National Biography_, the
latest of the ‘motley lists of fame,’ Hazlitt would have found
not only the Dyches, the Fennings, the Lillys, and the Laxtons,
but also ‘characters on whom a dazzling splendour has been
shed.’

_The following masterly character._ Burke, _Letter to a Noble
Lord_ (_Works_, Bohn, V. 117).

_The following speech._ On the Bill for doubling the Militia, June
22, 1779 (_Parl. Hist._, XX. 947).

Hazlitt has the two following notes on Burke’s speech on American
Taxation (April 19, 1774—_Works_, Bohn, I. 383 _et seq._):—

‘The following arguments towards the conclusion of this speech are
so sensible, so moderate, so wise and beautiful, that I cannot
resist the temptation of copying them out, though I did not at
first intend it. Burke’s speeches are to me, in this my
parliamentary progress, what the Duke’s castle was to Sancho: I
could be content to stay there longer than I am able. I have no
inclination to leave the stately palaces, the verdant lawns, the
sumptuous entertainments, the grave discourse, and pleasing
sounds of music, to sally forth in search of bad roads, meagre
fare, and barren adventures. Charles Fox is indeed to come; but
he is but the Knight of the Green Surtout. Pitt is the brazen
head, that delivers mysterious answers; and Sheridan, Master
Peter with his puppet-show. _Mais allons._’

‘Thus was this great man, merely for disclaiming metaphysical
distinctions and shewing their inapplicability to practical
questions, considered as an unintelligible reasoner; as if you
were chargeable with the very folly of which you convict others.
Burke understood metaphysics, and knew their true boundaries:
when he saw others venturing blindly upon this treacherous
ground, and called out to them to stop, shewing them where they
were, they said, this man is a metaphysician. General
unqualified assertions, universal axioms, and abstract rules
serve to embody our prejudices; they are the watch-words of
party, the strong-holds of the passions. It is therefore
dangerous to meddle with them. Solid reason means nothing more
than being carried away by our passions, and solid sense is that
which requires no reflection to understand it.’

421. _The following boyish rhapsody._ For an account of this matter see
Trevelyan’s _Early History of Charles James Fox_, pp. 414 _et
seq._

_In the Louvre._ In 1802. See _Memoirs of William Hazlitt_, I. 91.

422. _Sir W. Meredith._ Speech on the Lord Mayor and Oliver being
committed to the Tower.

_Junius praises._ Letter LIX.

_Servetur ad imum, etc._ Horace, _Ars Poetica_, 126–7.

_Hon. Temple Luttrell._ Speech on Mr. Buller’s Motion that 2000
additional seamen be employed for the year 1775, to enforce the
measures of Government in America, Feb. 13, 1775 (_Parl. Hist._,
XVIII. 308).

_Mr. Wilkes._ Speech on the Motion for expunging the Resolution
respecting his Expulsion, Feb. 22, 1775 (_Parl. Hist._, XVIII.
358).

423. _Mr. Dunning._ Speech on the Bill for punishing Persons suspected
of being Pirates, Feb. 7, 1777 (_Parl. Hist._, XIX. 24).

‘_Good set terms._’ _As You Like It_, Act II. Scene 7.

_William Pitt._ It is strange that Hazlitt mentions only Pitt’s
office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not the fact that he
was Prime Minister from 1783 to 1801, and from 1804 till his
death in 1806.

424. _‘The wine of life,’ etc._ _Macbeth_, Act II. Scene 3.

_The following speech._ Sheridan’s speech in reply to Lord
Mornington on the war with France, Jan. 21, 1794.

_Mr. Grattan._ Speech on moving an Address to the Throne,
containing a Declaration of Rights, April 16, 1782.

425. _‘Where each alley,’ etc._ Pope, _Moral Essays_, IV. 117–8.

_Non omnia possumus omnes._ Virgil, _Eclogues_, VIII. 63.

_Mr. Horne Tooke._ Speech on the eligibility of clergymen to sit
in Parliament (1801).

-----

Footnote 1:

As to the _real_ grounds and views on which the former coalitions were
begun and carried on, see Burke’s Regicide Peace, Second Part.

Footnote 2:

One instance may serve as an example for all the rest:—When Mr. Fox
last summer predicted the failure of the new confederacy against
France, from a consideration of the circumstances and relative
situation of both parties, that is, from an exact knowledge of the
actual state of the case, Mr. Pitt contented himself with
answering—and, as in the blindness of his infatuation he seemed to
think quite satisfactorily,—‘That he could not assent to the
honourable gentleman’s reasoning, for that it went to this, that we
were never to attempt to mend the situation of our affairs, because in
so doing we might possibly make them worse.’ No; it was not on account
of this abstract possibility in human affairs, or because we were not
absolutely sure of succeeding (for that any child might know), but
because it was in the highest degree probable, or _morally_ certain
that the scheme would fail, and leave us in a worse situation than we
were before, that Mr. Fox disapproved of the attempt. There is in this
a degree of weakness and imbecility, a defect of understanding
bordering on idiotism, a fundamental ignorance of the first principles
of human reason and prudence, that in a great minister is utterly
astonishing, and almost incredible. Nothing could ever drive him out
of his dull forms, and naked generalities; which as they are
susceptible neither of degree nor variation, are therefore equally
applicable to every emergency that can happen: and in the most
critical aspect of affairs he saw nothing but the same flimsy web of
remote possibilities and metaphysical uncertainty. In his mind the
wholesome pulp of practical wisdom and salutary advice was immediately
converted into the dry chaff and husks of a miserable logic.

Footnote 3:

I would recommend to the reader a masterly and unanswerable essay on
this subject in the Morning Post, by Mr. Coleridge, in February 1800,
from which, and the conversation of the author, most of the above
remarks are taken. I will only add, that it is the property of true
genius to force the admiration even of enemies. No one was ever hated
or envied for his powers of mind, if others were convinced of their
real excellence. The jealousy and uneasiness produced in the mind by
the display of superior talents almost always arises from a suspicion
that there is some trick or deception in the case, and that we are
imposed on by an appearance of what is not really there. True warmth
and vigour communicate warmth and vigour; and we are no longer
inclined to dispute the inspiration of the oracle, when we feel the
‘presens Divus’ in our own bosoms. But when, without gaining any new
light or heat, we only find our ideas thrown into perplexity and
confusion by an art that we cannot comprehend, this is a kind of
superiority which must always be painful, and can never be cordially
admitted. For this reason the extraordinary talents of Mr. Pitt were
always viewed, except by those of his own party, with a sort of
jealousy, and _grudgingly_ acknowledged; while those of his rivals
were admitted by all parties in the most unreserved manner, and
carried by acclamation.

Footnote 4:

Mr. Burke pretends in this Jesuitical Appeal, that a nation has a
right to insist upon and revert to old establishments and prescriptive
privileges, but not to lay claim to new ones; in a word, to change its
governors, if refractory, but not its form of government, however bad.
Thus he says we had a right to cashier James II., because he wished to
alter the laws and religion as they were then established. By what
right did we emancipate ourselves from popery and arbitrary power a
century before? He defends his consistency in advocating the American
Revolution, though the rebels, in getting rid of the reigning branch
of the Royal Family, did not send for the next of kin to rule over
them ‘in contempt of their choice,’ but prevented all such
equivocations by passing at once from a viceroyalty to a republic. He
also extols the Polish Revolution as a monument of wisdom and virtue
(I suppose because it had not succeeded), though this also was a total
and absolute change in the frame and principles of the government, to
which the people were in this case bound by no feudal tenure or divine
right. But he insists that the French Revolution was stark-naught,
because the people here did the same thing, passed from slavery to
liberty, from an arbitrary to a constitutional government, to which
they had, it seems, no prescriptive right, and therefore, according to
the appellant, no right at all. Oh nice professor of humanity! We had
a right to turn off James II. because he broke a compact with the
people. The French had no right to turn off Louis XVI. because he
broke no compact with them, for he had none to break; in other words,
because he was an arbitrary despot, tied to no laws, and they a herd
of slaves, and therefore they were bound, by every law divine and
human, always to remain so, in perpetuity and by the grace of God! Oh
unanswerable logician!

Footnote 5:

There is none of this perplexity and jarring of different objects in
the tools of power. Their jealousies, heart-burnings, love of
precedence, or scruples of conscience, are made subservient to the
great cause in which they are embarked; they leave the amicable
division of the spoil to the powers that be; all angry disputes are
hushed in the presence of the throne, and the corrosive, fretful
particles of human nature fly off, and are softened by the influence
of a court atmosphere. Courtiers hang together like a swarm of bees
about a honeycomb. Not so the Reformers; for they have no honeycomb to
attract them. It has been said that Reformers are often indifferent
characters. The reason is, that the ties which bind most men to their
duties—habit, example, regard to appearances—are relaxed in them; and
other and better principles are, as yet, weak and unconfirmed.

Footnote 6:

The above criticism first appeared in the _Courier_ newspaper, and was
copied the next day in the _Chronicle_ with the following
remarks:—‘The treasury journals complain of the harsh treatment shewn
to ministers,—let us see how they treat their opponents. If the
following does not come from the poetical pen of the Admiralty
_Croaker_, it is a close imitation of his style.’

‘Strange that such difference should be
’Twixt Tweedledum and Tweedledee!’

Whether it was from the fear of this supposed formidable critic, the
noble Marquis ceased from this time nightly to ‘fillip the ears of his
auditors with a three-man beetle!‘

Footnote 7:

As he is fond of the good old times before the Revolution, the writer
might go still farther back to that magnanimous undertaking, concerted
and executed by the same persons of honour, the partition of Poland.

Footnote 8:

See remarks on Judge Eyre’s Charge to the Jury, 1794, by W. Godwin.

Footnote 9:

Observe that these critically destructive terms of peace are not
strictly called for by Bonaparte’s persevering and atrocious outrages,
but are at all times rendered necessary by the everlasting enmity of
France.

Footnote 10:

‘In heaven they neither marry nor are given in marriage.’ There is
nothing so provoking as these matter-of-fact Utopia-mongers.

Footnote 11:

The style of Vetus bears the same relation to eloquence that gilded
lead does to gold;—it glitters, and is heavy.

Footnote 12:

He who speaks two languages has no country. The French, when they made
their language the common language of the courts of Europe, gained
more than by all their other conquests put together.

Footnote 13:

See Mr. Canning’s speech on the Jaggernaut.—They manage these things
better in the East (it is to be hoped we shall do so in time here);
otherwise, if there had been any occasion, what pretty Anti-Jacobin
sonnets might not Mr. Canning have written in praise of this
Jaggernaut? Or Mr. Southey, after in vain attempting its overthrow,
might have ‘spun his brains’ into a CARMEN ANNUUM to celebrate his own
defeat. Or Vetus might play off his discovery of the identity of the
strumpet and the goddess Reason, against any disposition to disarm its
power or arrest its progress.

Footnote 14:

Of the facility of realising this devout aspiration of the writer in
_The Times_, we have no exact means of judging by his own statements,
for he one day tells us that ‘there is _nothing_ to hinder Lord
Wellington from marching to Paris, and bringing the Usurper to the
block,’ and the next endeavours to excite the panic fears of his
readers, by telling them, in a tone of equal horror and dismay, ‘That
the _monster_ wields at will the force of forty millions of men.’ The
assertions of these writers have no connection with the real state of
things, but depend entirely on their variable passions, and the
purpose they have in view.

Footnote 15:

We only wish to add one thing, which is, to protest against the
self-importance of such expressions as the following, which occur
often in Vetus’s letters:—‘_The men I speak of were_’ those, &c. ‘This
sentiment never prevailed with _the better sort_.’ This is an
affectation of the worst part of Burke’s style, his assumption of a
parliamentary tone, and of the representation of the voice of some
corporate body. It was bad enough in him; in Vetus it is intolerable.

Footnote 16:

Written originally for the Morning Chronicle.

Footnote 17:

The ignorant will suppose that these are two proper names.

Footnote 18:

‘Carnage is her daughter.’—_Mr. Wordsworth’s Thanksgiving Ode._

Footnote 19:

This article falls somewhat short of its original destination, by our
having been forced to omit two topics, the praise of Bonaparte, and
the abuse of poetry. The former we leave to history: the latter we
have been induced to omit from our regard to two poets of our
acquaintance. We must say they have spoiled sport. One of them has
tropical blood in his veins, which gives a gay, cordial, vinous spirit
to his whole character. The other is a mad wag,—who ought to have
lived at the Court of Horwendillus, with Yorick and Hamlet,—equally
desperate in his mirth and his gravity, who would laugh at a funeral
and weep at a wedding, who talks nonsense to prevent the headache, who
would wag his finger at a skeleton, whose jests scald like tears, who
makes a joke of a great man, and a hero of a cat’s paw. The last is
more than Mr. Garrard or Mr. Turnerelli can do. The busts which these
gentlemen have made of a celebrated General are very bad. His head is
worth nothing unless it is put on his men’s shoulders.

Footnote 20:

See an article on this subject in Mr. Coleridge’s _Friend_.

Footnote 21:

We are somewhat in the situation of _Captain Macheath_ in the
‘Beggar’s Opera.’ ‘The road had done the Captain justice, but the
gaming-table had been his ruin.’ We have been pretty successful on the
high seas; but the Bank have swallowed it all up. The taxes have
outlived the war, trade, and commerce. _They_ are the soul, the
immortal part of the Pitt system.

Footnote 22:

It may be proper to notice, that this article was written before the
Discourse which it professes to criticise had appeared in print, or
probably existed any where, but in repeated newspaper advertisements.

Footnote 23:

This work is so obscure, that it has been supposed to be written in
cypher, and that it is necessary to read it upwards and downwards, or
backwards and forwards, as it happens, to make head or tail of it. The
effect is exceedingly like the qualms produced by the heaving of a
ship becalmed at sea; the motion is so tedious, improgressive, and
sickening.

Footnote 24:

Does this verse come under Mr. C.’s version of _Jus Divinum_?

Footnote 25:

That is, in a sense not used and without any intelligible meaning.

Footnote 26:

If these are the worst passions, there is plenty of them in this
Lay-Sermon.

Footnote 27:

A paper set up at this time by Dr. Stoddart.

Footnote 28:

When this work was first published, the King had copies of it bound in
Morocco, and gave them away to his favourite courtiers, saying, ‘It
was a book which every gentleman ought to read.’

Footnote 29:

Our loyal Editor used to bluster a great deal some time ago about
putting down James Madison, and ‘the last example of democratic
rebellion in America.’ In this he was consistent and logical. Could he
not, however, find out another example of this same principle, by
going a little farther back in history, and coming a little nearer
home? If he has forgotten this chapter in our history, others who have
profited more by it have not. He may understand what we mean, by
turning to the story of the two elder Blifils in _Tom Jones_.

Footnote 30:

_Simon Lee, the old Huntsman_, a tale by Mr. Wordsworth, of which he
himself says,

‘It is no tale, but if you think,
Perhaps a tale you’ll make it.’

In this view it is a tale indeed, not ‘of other times,’ but of these.

Footnote 31:

During the retreat, the king was ever seen where the danger was
greatest. Foremost in the ranks, he continually charged the Austrians
in person. When his affairs grew desperate, it became evident that he
sought for death in the field. At the head of a few of his cavalry,
whom he constantly preceded, he often charged the enemy to their very
cannons’ mouth. How he escaped amidst so many dangers appears
miraculous. He might well say that ‘he had sought death, but had not
been able to find it.’

Footnote 32:

Let no country go about to enslave another with impunity. For out of
the very dregs of rottenness and debasement will arise a low creeping
fog of servility, a stench of corruption to choak the life of liberty,
wherever it comes—a race of fortune-hunting, dastard, busy, hungry,
heartless slaves and blood-suckers, eager to fawn upon power and
trample upon weakness, with no other pretensions than want of
principle, and a hatred of those who possess what they want. Ireland
has given us Castlereagh, Wellington, Burke. Is she not even with us?
Let her smile now from her hundred hills, let her shake with laughter
through her thousand bogs! Ireland, last of the nations, repose in
peace upon thy green western wave! Thou and the world are quits.

Footnote 33:

Here the reader may, if he pleases, read over again the last note.

Footnote 34:

_Encore un coup._ This Duke is an Irishman. Pray, suppose the Allies
were to declare the Protestant succession illegitimate, and the King
of Sardinia, not the Prince Regent, the hereditary proprietor of the
English throne and people in perpetuity and in a right line, would
this annul the validity of his Grace’s grants?

Footnote 35:

Of the three persons that Mr. Coleridge, by a most preposterous
anachronism, has selected to compose his asinine auditory, Mr. Hunt
was at the time in question a boy at school, not _a stripling bard_ of
nineteen or nine and twenty, but a real school-boy ‘declaiming on the
patriotism of Brutus.’ As to Mr. Cobbett, he would at that time, had
they come in his way, with one kick of his hard hoofs, have made a
terrible crash among ‘the green corn’ of Mr. Southey’s Jacobin
Pan’s-pipe, and gone near to knock out the musician’s brains into the
bargain. The second person in this absurd trinity, who certainly
thinks it ‘a robbery to be made equal to the other two,’ was the only
hearer present at the rehearsal of Mr. Southey’s overtures to Liberty
and Equality, and to that ‘long-continued asinine bravura,’ which
rings in Mr. Coleridge’s ears, but which certainly was not
unaccompanied, for he himself was present; and those who know this
gentleman, know that on these occasions he plays the part of a whole
chorus.

Footnote 36:

A sarcastic writer, like Mr. Southey, might here ask, whether it was a
disappointment in sharing the estate of some rich landed proprietor
that made Mr. Southey turn short round to a defence of sinecures and
pensions? We do not know, but here follows a passage, which ‘some
skulking scoundrel’ in the _Quarterly Review_ appears to have aimed at
Mr. Southey’s early opinions and character:—‘As long as the smatterer
in philosophy confines himself to private practice, the mischief does
not extend beyond his private circle—his neighbour’s wife may be in
some danger, and his neighbour’s property also; if the distinctions
between _meum_ and _tuum_ should be practically inconvenient to the
man of free opinions. But when he commences professor of moral and
political philosophy for the benefit of the public—the fables of old
credulity are then verified, his very breath becomes venomous, and
every page which he sends abroad carries with it poison to the
unsuspicious reader.’ Such is the interpretation given by the
anonymous writer to the motives of smatterers in philosophy; this
writer could not be Mr. Southey, for ‘_he_ never imputes evil motives
to men merely for holding the opinions he formerly held,’ such as the
evils of the inequality of property, &c.

Footnote 37:

Not the Editor of this Paper, but the writer of this Article.

Footnote 38:

Perhaps Mr. Southey will inform us some time or other, whether in
Italy also it is the people, and not the Pope, who wants reforming.

Footnote 39:

_Dues_ of Office, we suppose.

Footnote 40:

It is the making light of the distresses and complaints of our
victims, because we have them in our power, that is the principle of
all cruelty and tyranny. Our pride takes a pleasure in the sufferings
our malice has inflicted; every aggravation of their case is a
provocation to new injuries and insults; and their pretensions to
justice or mercy become ridiculous in proportion to their hopelessness
of redress. It was thus that Mother Brownrigg whipped her prentices to
death; and in the same manner our facetious Editor would work himself
up to apply the thumb-screw to any one who was unable to resist the
application, with a few ‘forsooths,’ and other such ‘comfit-makers
wives’ oaths.’

Footnote 41:

That he might be deemed so no longer, Mr. COLERIDGE soon after became
_passionate for war_ himself; and ‘swell’d the war-whoop’ in the
Morning Post. ‘I am not indeed silly enough,’ he says, ‘to take as any
thing more than a violent hyperbole of party debate, Mr. FOX‘s
assertion that _the late war_ (1802) _was a war produced by the_
MORNING POST; or I should be proud to have the words inscribed on my
tomb.’—_Biographia Literaria_, vol. i. p. 212.

Footnote 42:

We never knew but one instance to contradict this opinion. A person
who had only fourpence left in the world, which his wife had put by to
pay for the baking of some meat and a pudding, went and laid it out in
purchasing a new string for a guitar. Some on this occasion quoted the
lines,

‘And ever against _eating_ cares,
Wrap me in soft Lydian airs.’

Footnote 43:

We hope Mr. Southey has not found the truth of the latter part of the
passage. ‘Rich gifts wax poor, when givers prove unkind.’

Footnote 44:

‘And for the Bishops (in Edward VI.‘s days), they were so far from any
such worthy attempts, as that they suffered themselves to be the
common stales to countenance, with their prostituted gravities, every
politick fetch that was then on foot, as oft as the potent Statists
pleased to employ them. Never do we read that they made use of their
authority, and high place of access, to bring the jarring nobility to
Christian peace, or to withstand their disloyal projects: but if a
toleration for Mass were to be begged of the King for his sister Mary,
lest Charles the Fifth should be angry, who but the grave prelates,
_Cranmer_ and _Ridley_, must be sent to extort it from the young King!
But out of the mouth of that godly and royal child, Christ himself
returned such an awful repulse to those halting and time-serving
Prelates, that, after much importunity they went their way, not
without shame and tears.’—_Milton_—_Of Reformation in England, and the
Causes that have hitherto hindered it._

Footnote 45:

This passage is nearly a repetition of what was said before; but as it
contains the sum and substance of all I have ever said on such
subjects, I have let it stand.

Footnote 46:

What is the amount of this right of Mr. Coke’s? It is not greater than
that of the Lords Balmerino and Lovatt to their estates in Scotland,
or to the heads upon their shoulders, the one of which however were
forfeited, and the other stuck upon Temple Bar, for maintaining, in
theory and practice, that James II. had the same right to the throne
of these realms, independently of his merits or conduct, that Mr. Coke
has to his estate at Holkham. So thought they. So did not think George
II.

Footnote 47:

See the description of Gargantua in Rabelais.

Footnote 48:

The Government of Ovando, a Spanish Grandee and Knight of Alcantara,
who had been sent over to Mexico soon after its conquest, exceeded in
treachery, cruelty, wanton bloodshed, and deliberate extortion, that
of all those who had preceded him; and the complaints became so loud,
that Queen Isabel on her death-bed requested that he might be
recalled; but Ferdinand found that Ovando had sent home _much gold_,
and he retained him in his situation.—_See Capt. Burney’s History of
the Buccaneers._

Footnote 49:

See Coleridge’s ‘Friend,’ No. 15.

Footnote 50:

‘I look down towards his feet;
But that’s a fable.’—OTHELLO.

Footnote 51:

‘I have thought it prudent to omit some parts of Mr. Phelim Connor’s
letter. He is evidently an intemperate young man, and has associated
with his cousins, the Fudges, to very little purpose.’

Footnote 52:

‘Somebody (Fontenelle, I believe) has said, that if he had his hand
full of truths, he would open but one finger at a time; and I find it
necessary to use the same sort of reserve with respect to Mr. Phelim
Connor’s very plain-spoken letters. The remainder of this Epistle is
so full of unsafe matter of fact, that it must, for the present at
least, be withheld from the public.’

Footnote 53:

‘To commemorate the landing of Louis le Desiré from England, the
impression of his foot is marked out upon the pier at Calais, and a
pillar with an inscription raised opposite to the spot.’

Footnote 54:

This character was written in a fit of extravagant candour, at a time
when I thought I could do justice, or more than justice, to an enemy,
without betraying a cause.

Footnote 55:

For instance: he produced less effect on the mob that compose the
English House of Commons than Chatham or Fox, or even Pitt.

Footnote 56:

As in the comparison of the British Constitution to the ‘proud keep of
Windsor,’ &c. the most splendid passage in his works.

Footnote 57:

If I had to write a character of Mr. Fox at present, the praise here
bestowed on him would be ‘craftily qualified.’ His life was deficient
in the three principal points, the beginning, the middle, and the end.
He began a violent Tory, and became a flaming patriot out of private
picque; he afterwards coalesced with Lord North, and died an
accomplice with Lord Grenville. But—_what I have written, I have
written_. So let it pass.

Footnote 58:

See an excellent character of Fox by a celebrated and admirable
writer, which appeared in the _Morning Chronicle_, November, 1806,
from which this passage is taken as nearly as I could recollect it.

Footnote 59:

There is an admirable, judicious, and truly useful remark in the
preface to Spenser (not by Dr. Johnson, for he left Spenser out of his
poets, but by _one_ Upton,) that the question was not whether a better
poem might not have been written on a different plan, but whether
Spenser would have written a better one on a different plan. I wish to
apply this to Fox’s _ungainly_ manner. I do not mean to say, that his
manner was the best possible, (for that would be to say that he was
the greatest man conceivable), but that it was the best for him.

Footnote 60:

This may seem to contradict what I have before said of Chatham—that he
spoke like a man who was discharging a duty, &c. but I there spoke of
the tone he assumed, or his immediate feelings at the time, rather
than of the real motives by which he was actuated.

Footnote 61:

To this character none of those who could be compared with him in
talents had the least pretensions, as Chatham, Burke, Pitt, &c. They
would _blackguard_ and bully any man upon the slightest provocation,
or difference of opinion.

Footnote 62:

One instance may serve as an example for all the rest:—When Mr. Fox
last summer (1805) predicted the failure of the new confederacy
against France, from a consideration of the circumstances and relative
situation of both parties, that is, from an exact knowledge of the
actual state of things, Mr. Pitt contented himself with answering—and,
as in the blindness of his infatuation, he seemed to think quite
satisfactorily,—‘That he could not assent to the honourable
gentleman’s reasoning, for that it went to this, that we were never to
attempt to mend the situation of our affairs, because in so doing we
might possibly make them worse.’ No; it was not on account of this
abstract possibility in human affairs, or because we were not
absolutely sure of succeeding (for that any child might know), but
because it was in the highest degree probable, or _morally_ certain,
that the scheme would fail, and leave us in a worse situation than we
were before, that Mr. Fox disapproved of the attempt. There is in this
a degree of weakness and imbecility, a defect of understanding
bordering on idiotism, a fundamental ignorance of the first principles
of human reason and prudence, that in a great minister is utterly
astonishing, and almost incredible. Nothing could ever drive him out
of his dull forms, and naked generalities; which, as they are
susceptible neither of degree nor variation, are therefore equally
applicable to every emergency that can happen: and in the most
critical aspect of affairs, he saw nothing but the same flimsy web of
remote possibilities and metaphysical uncertainty. In his mind the
wholesome pulp of practical wisdom and salutary advice was immediately
converted into the dry chaff and husks of a miserable logic.

Footnote 63:

I do remember one passage which has some meaning in it. At the time of
the Regency Bill, speaking of the proposal to take the King’s servants
from him, he says, ‘What must that great personage feel when he waked
from the trance of his faculties, and asked for his attendants, if he
were told that his subjects had taken advantage of his momentary
absence of mind, and stripped him of the symbols of his personal
elevation.’ There is some grandeur in this. His admirers should have
it inscribed in letters of gold; for they will not find another
instance of the same kind.

Footnote 64:

I would recommend to the reader a masterly and unanswerable essay on
the subject, in the Morning Post, by Mr. Coleridge, (see above) from
which most of the above remarks are taken. See also Dr. Beddoes’s
Letter on the public merits of Mr. Pitt. I will only add, that it is
the property of true genius, to force the admiration even of enemies.
No one was ever hated or envied for his powers of mind, if others were
convinced of their real excellence. The jealousy and uneasiness
produced in the mind by the display of superior talents almost always
arises from a suspicion that there is some trick or deception in the
case, and that we are imposed on by an appearance of what is not
really there. True warmth and vigour communicate warmth and vigour;
and we are no longer inclined to dispute the inspiration of the
oracle, when we feel the ‘_presens Divus_’ in our own bosoms. But
when, without gaining any new light or heat, we only find our ideas
thrown into perplexity and confusion by an art that we cannot
comprehend, this is a kind of superiority which must always be
painful, and can never be cordially admitted. For this reason the
extraordinary talents of Mr. Pitt were always viewed, except by those
of his own party, with a sort of jealousy, and _grudgingly_
acknowledged; while those of his rivals were admitted by all parties
in the most unreserved manner, and carried by acclamation.

Footnote 65:

The prevalence of this check may be estimated _by the general
proportion_ of virtue and happiness in the world, for if there were no
such check, there could be nothing but vice and misery.

Footnote 66:

Written in 1807, at a time when Mr. Whitbread’s scheme was in
agitation in the House of Commons, and Mr. Malthus used to wait in the
lobbies with his essay in his hand, for the instruction and
compliments of Honourable Members. The above article is taken from a
Reply to Mr. Malthus, one of my very early Essays, the style of which
is, I confess, a little exuberant, but of the arguments I see no
reason to be ashamed.

Footnote 67:

Altered in the last edition, to ‘suffer.’

Footnote 68:

Daughter of Marie Antoinette. Burke’s ‘romantic episode’ is in
‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’ (_Select Works_, ed. Payne,
II. 89).

Footnote 69:

From _L’Allegro_, 139.

Footnote 70:

Birch’s, No. 15 Cornhill. Samuel Birch (1757–1841), the proprietor,
was Lord Mayor 1814–15. The shop (now famous for turtle soup) still
retains some old features.

Footnote 71:

_Othello._ Act IV. Scene 2.

Footnote 72:

_Hamlet_, Act IV. Scene 2.

Footnote 73:

Cowper, _The Task_ III. 113.

Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, (late) Printers to Her Majesty at the
Edinburgh University Press

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. P. 423, changed “as this is a subject which I do not not understand, I must leave it to the lawyers” to “as this is a subject which I do not understand, I must leave it to the lawyers”. 2. P. 441, changed “rifacciamento” to “rifacimento”. 3. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling. 4. Retained anachronistic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed. 5. Footnotes have been re-indexed using numbers and collected together at the end of the last chapter. 6. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.