265 , 



languish for some accommodating, entertaining, and devoted com- 

 panion, with whom he may open his heart, indulge his peculiarities, 

 and even exhibit his follies and failings without offence or reproach ; 

 soothing the irritation of public contention, and the humiliation of 

 dissimulation, with the obsequiousness of a flattering favourite, de- 

 voted wholly to his interest and amusement! When Sir James 

 Melvil proposed to take Elizabeth in; disguise to see Mary Queen of 

 Scots, she sighed and said : " Alas ! that I might do it thus !" 



Notwithstanding this apology, I confess, that favouritism was 

 not only a great fault, and the chief blemish in the character of 

 James, but, connected with his reckless profusion, became the cause 

 of the worst acts of his reign. I admit too, that this vice may be 

 charged wholly on himself; while many of his measures may be 

 fairly imputed to the circumstances of the times. In general, kings 

 should have credit for their good actions ; and their misdeeds of a 

 public nature should be imputed to their ministers, and the state of 

 parties. The former are either their own suggestions, or adopted at 

 the suggestion of others. In both cases they are subjects of praise. 

 The latter may be the result of irresistible influence or political ne. 

 cessity. To this view of their conduct we should incline in reading 

 the history of former ages. As to living monarchs, encroachments 

 should be resisted, and abuses corrected, on their first appearance, 

 from whatever motive, individual, or party, they may arise. This 

 duty we owe to our contemporaries, to posterity, and to kings 

 themselves.* 



* I regret that I am obliged to part with these papers without having seen Disraeli's Inquiry 

 into the Literary and Political Character of James I. 



