408 
of his abilities. But,” says this writer, 
“ander the appearance of the most 
perfect resignation to his fate, and 
contemning all power, he concealed the 
most malicious resentments, and the 
most ambitious projects, that could rise 
in a human breast. There was in his 
nature no constancy, and consequently 
in his conduct no consistency.” He 
even affirms in the heat of prejudice 
and passion, contrary to all evidence, 
“that they who knew him best hated 
him the worst.”—TInpDAL, vol. ix. 
451-379. 
An attack equally violent, but far 
more laboured, has at a recent period 
been made upon this nobleman by Mr. 
Archdeacon Coxe, in his Memoirs of 
Sir Robert Walpole, a work in many 
respects of great value. ‘In drawing 
the character of Walpole,” we are told 
by the rey. biographer, “that Boling- 
broke is guilty of the. grossest misre- 
presentation, and exaggerated malice.” 
Such a charge, unaccompanied by spe- 
cific evidence, does not admit. of a 
Specific answer; but, whatever might 
be the malice of Bolingbroke, it cer- 
tainly was not without provocation. 
Walpole would willingly have pursued 
his rival to the scaffold; and, in his 
pamphlet on the Peerage Bill, (A.D. 
1719,) when the then ministers, Sun- 
derland and Stanhope, inclined to the 
restoration of Bolingbroke, the ex-mi- 
nister says, after the mention of Ox- 
ford, ‘“‘ His rival in guilt and power 
even now presumes to expect an Act 
of the Legislature to indemnify him 
and qualify his villany !” 
Unquestionably on his return to 
power, Walpole opposed the restora- 
tion of Bolingbroke as long and as 
firmly as hedurst. ‘* We have his own 
authority that this restoration was the 
work of the Duchess of Kendal; and 
that, in obedience to the express com- 
mands of the king, he supported the 
Act. Lord Harcourt, who had be- 
come a favourite at court, powerfully 
co-operated with the duchess, who was 
gained by a present of 11,000]. Far 
from acknowledging any obligation to 
Walpole, Bolingbroke always imputed 
to that minister his exclusion from the 
House of Lords, and he even wrote a 
letter to the king on his return io Eng- 
land, “claiming the fulfilment of the 
promise that had been made of a full 
restitution, laying the blame of the 
failure on the minister, whom he ac- 
cused of meanness and treachery un- 
der the mask of good will.” And itis 
On the Character of Lord Bolingbroke. 
[June 1, 
certain that the king, previous to his 
last continental journey, had resolved 
fully to re-instate him.—Mem. of Sir 
R. W. ii. 141-52. 
What pretext then had the adhe- 
rents of Walpole to bring bitter accu- 
sations of ingratitude against Boling- 
broke? Or to complain that, after 
being restored to the liberty of breath- 
ing the air of his native country, and 
the enjoyment of his fortune by the in- 
dulgence, favour, and assistance of the 
minister, he used that indulgence, and 
requited that favour, by labouring for 
the destructionof bis benefactor?”— Ib. 
“From the versatility of Boling- 
broke’s political life,” continues the 
biographer, ‘‘no fundamental princi- 
ple of action could be expected; for 
where is that principle which at some 
period he had not violated? Where 
was the party to which he had notren- 
dered himself obnoxious? Nothing 
then remained for him but to form a 
political creed as versatile as his life ; 
and which, Proteus-like, adapted itself 
to all times, situations, and circum- 
stances.” This is an imposing speci- 
men of that rhetorical declamation 
which is so often substituted for sober 
argument. The simple fact is, that 
only one remarkable change occurred 
during the entire, active, and long 
protracted life of Bolingbroke, achange 
which has nobly raised and redeemed 
his character !—Ib. p. 157. 
“His doctrinesy’ as we are further 
told, ‘are principally reduced under 
three heads,—lst. A government by 
prerogative rather than by influence. 
2nd. Coalition of parties. 3rd. The 
supposed perfection of the human spe- 
cies in particular instances.—In en- 
forcing the first, Bolingbroke betrays 
his aversion to the revolution, while he 
affects to praise it, by an assertion no 
less remarkable for its audacity than 
its untruth ; namely, that the rights of 
the subject were more endangered by 
the system of influence which had 
taken place since, than by that of arbi- 
trary power which was pursued before 
that era. That the crown had ‘ac- 
quired more sources of power by the 
establishment of the funds, and nomi- 
nation of revenue-oflicers; and enjoyed 
the means of invading liberty more ef- 
fectually by the constitution of the 
revenue, than it ever had been invaded 
by the prerogative. From these pre- 
mises he draws the obvious conclu- 
sion, that it becomes highly necessary 
to prevent the ruin of the Conran 
y 
