36 CHARLES II. 



and tyrannical expression of the King's, that ' he hoped they were all Englishmen, 

 and not to be friglited with a few hard words.' It is not to give us the history of these 

 events merely to set down the time and circumstances of their occurrence. They 

 evidently require some explanation, in order to be comprehended, and the narrative 

 will be altogether unsatisfactory, as well as totally barren of instruction, unless it 

 give some account of those changes in the general temper and opinion of the 

 nation, by which such contradictory actions become possible." 



Now, Sir, I think that the political phenomena here set forth 

 for our consideration by the Edinburgh Reviewer, have been satis^ 

 factorily elucidated in a paper in my possession, belonging to a 

 deceased friend, and who was deeply read in the constitutional 

 history of our country, and therefore I will transmit to you his 

 remarks on this interesting topic in nearly his own words. 



The writer in the Edinburgh Review supposes that there is an 

 apparent inconsistency in the three events of which he speaks, 

 and he proposes to account for it by the investigation of some 

 alleged but not specified changes in the national character and 

 opinions, such as occur, he says, from age to age. 



The three events are, 1st — the joyful and unanimous and 

 unconditional restoration of Charles the Second; the subsequent 

 acquiescence in his attempts to govern without Parliaments; and 

 the third — the Revolution, accompanied by a change in the suc- 

 cession of the Crown and a limitation of its power. 



All these events took place within a space of 28 years ; and if 

 we carry our examination back to the commencement of the 

 civil wars, even then the whole period included in the inquiry 

 would be less than half a century. 



It is difficult to suppose, that in so very short a space of time 

 as this, a change was originated in the national character sufficient 

 to account for any very glaring inconsistency, if such there was 

 in the transactions of those days. But in truth it does not 

 appear at all out of the course of human affairs, that a nation 

 wearied out by twenty years of civil war, confusion, and military 

 despotism, and menaced with an immediate renewal of those 

 calamities in consequence of the death of the usurper, and the 

 acknowledged weakness of his successor, should fly with some im- 

 patience, or even with inconsiderate haste and confidence, if the 

 fact were so, to the only authority under which they could look 

 for peace. Nor is it surprising, though much less justifiable in 

 sound policy, that when the restored monarch broke his faith and 

 Tiolated the constitution which he was called back to re-establish, 

 the recent memory of the evils consequent on armed resistance, 

 joined to a well grounded distrust in the views of some of his 

 opposers, should have led to a temporary acquiescence in his 

 unconstitutional usurpation of power. It is by no means clear, 

 that this acquiescence would have been prolonged even had he 

 lived. It was quite natural, that when the same or even some 

 much more violent infractions of law were attempted by his 

 successor, a man of far inferior talents, worse judgment, and less 

 popular character, the nation should by an unanimous eflbrt 



