1822.] - 
by reducing the power [influence] of 
the king by means of an independent 
House of Commons; and declares, 
that the only methed of effecting this 
was to lessen the means of corruption, 
to revive frequent parliaments, and to 
ensure their purity by introducing self- 
denying ordinances.” — Jb. 
This call for reform in the state, first 
insisted upon by this celebrated noble- 
man, has now become loud and gene- 
ral. From the undisguised attacks of 
prerogative the spirit and courage of 
Englishmen were always able to de- 
fend themselves; but, in the reigns 
succeeding the revolution, prerogative 
was by Lord Bolingbroke justly cha- 
racterized “as a chimera, and influ- 
ence as a new and undefinable mon- 
ster far more dangerous to our liber- 
ties.’ This is surely a proposition 
which, under the present aspect of 
things, it requires infinitely more auda- 
city to deny than to assert; and the 
sagacity of the first warning voice few 
will now dispute. Souniversal indeed 
has this axiom become, that scarcely 
a wish has been expressed by the 
boldest speculatists of these times for 
the reduction of the royal prerogative, 
Even the predominance of regal in- 
fluence in the House of Peers is not the 
subject of complaint. That assembly 
ig recognized as the constitutional 
barrier against popular encroachments. 
But it is seen and felt with overwhelm- 
ing conviction, that the House of Com- 
mons has lost its appropriate distinc- 
tion as the representatives of the peo- 
ple. ‘The glory has departed from 
them,” and they are now regarded in 
no higher light in their corporate capa- 
city, for the merits of indviduals are 
above all praise, than as constituting a 
court for enregistering the royal edicts. 
The causes of this enormous in- 
erease of influence are obvious. Since 
the beginning of the last century the 
National Debt has risen from 20 to 800 
millions; the taxes from 5 to 50 mil- 
lions, the dire result of seven long and 
bloody continental wars, and a military 
peace establishment of 100,000 men. 
‘To these may be added the chances 
which haye thrown the great commer- 
cial companies into the hands of go- 
vernment, and transferred the patron- 
age of India to the crown. In fine, our 
fatal foreign possessions and con- 
quests have afforded an inexhaustible 
fund of reward and remuneration to 
the immense crowd of courtexpectants. 
Can we hope that the dignity of le- 
Montuty Mac. No. 368. 
Defence of the Character of Lord Bolingbroke. 
409 
gislative independence will be main- 
tained inviolable under such tempta- 
tions? Were the Constitution to be 
openly attacked by the uplifted arm of 
power, the spirit of resistance would 
doubtless burst forth, and the monarch 
who dared to rouse the sleeping lion, 
would repent his rashness.. But it is 
not prerogative, it is influence that we 
have reason to fear. This is the malady 
which has infected the heart’s-blood of 
the Constitution, and its true euthana- 
sia has been long since predicted. 
The system of influence, though the 
result of the revolution, did not alarm- 
ingly operate till the accession of the 
German dynasty. In the reigns of 
King William and Queen Anne two 
violent and equal factions divided the 
nation, and Whigs and Tories alter- 
nately bore sway. The regal influence 
was merely employed in balancing 
parties, or in favouring the one or the 
other as was deemed expedient. But 
no measure was carried through par- 
liament by the weight of influence in 
contrariety to the general sense of the 
people, and much less to that of the 
very persons who gave it effect! Nor 
was it supposed possible, previously to 
the secession of Townshend and Wal- 
pole in 1717, thatthe sanction of parlia- 
ment couldeverbe obtained tothe Hano- 
veriansystem of politics. This isdemon- 
strable from the whole tenor of the 
correspondence between Townshend 
and Stanhope, during the residence of 
the king, (George I.) in Germany, in 
the autumn of 1716. And the admi- 
nistration of Sunderland was a new 
era in parliamentary history. 
The second charge brought by the 
rev. biographer against Lord Boling- 
broke is, ‘‘ that he enforced the doc- 
trine of the coalition of parties. In 
attempting to explode all former dis- 
linctions, to unite them of all denomi- 
nations, and to change the narrow 
spirit of party into a diffusive spirit of 
public benevolence, he well knew that 
he contradicted the history of past 
ages, and the experience of his own.” 
Can it be necessary to vindicate Lord 
B. from an accusation like this? 
Doubtless that nobleman, in adopting 
a principle so noble, hoped that his 
writings might in some measure con- 
duce to an end above all others de- 
sirable; though he was too deeply 
versed in human nature not to be 
aware, that it was in the full extent 
utterly unattainable. 
The third charge is, “toat Lord B. 
3 F maintained 
