conform our government to the character and circumstances of the several people who composed the mighty and strangely diversified mass. I never was wild enough to conceive, that one method would serve for the whole; that the natives of Hindostan and those of Virginia could be ordered in the same manner; or that the Cutchery court and the grand jury of Salem could be regulated on a similar plan. I was persuaded that government was a practical thing, made for the happiness of mankind; and not to furnish out a spectacle of uniformity, to gratify the schemes of visionary politicians.'

In speaking of the tendency of ministerial counsels to arbitrary power, he attacks Hume as too friendly to unlimited monarchy. He quotes an observation from his essays in support of this assertion- Mr. Hume,' he says, will not be singular in telling us, that the felicity of mankind is no more disturbed by it (absolute power) than by earthquakes or thunder, or the other more unusual accidents of Nature.'

*

Burke was prejudiced against Hume.That Hume was friendly to despotism, is an opinion more consistent with a cursory reading of his works than an accurate perusal. Where our great historian is favourable to the house of Stuart, he appears rather to palliate than justify the conduct of its princes. He contends, that it was natural for them to endeavour to re

tain the powers which their immediate predecessors had enjoyed, not that it was just; although, from the coolness of his temper, and the profoundness of his understanding, he disapproved of the religious fanaticism of the Puritans, he acknowledges that, as friends to liberty, they rendered their country important services. He even commends their exertions, as far as they tended to the restriction of unlimited power, and to the establishment of such a constitution as we now possess. He attacks their political efforts only when they tend to the subversion of the monarchy. Their theolo

* The reason of this prejudice shall be hereafter shewn,

gical absurdities he certainly ridicules, as he also does the high church bigotry. He exposes the superstitious mummeries of Laud, as well as the enthusiastic phrenzy of James Naylor or Praise-God-Barebone. He justifies resistance in cases of great oppression. He approves of Hambden. His philosophical mildness added to his wisdom in reprobating turbulence; but he as severely condemns oppression, and stigmatizes those parliaments which were the tools of despotism. His expanded mind is not particularly anxious to make England appear to have possessed a great share of liberty at very early periods: at the same time he allows, during the Saxon reigns, there was a considerable portion. He does not deem precedent necessary to establish our rights to freedom. The existence of a House of Commons previous to the time of Edward I. was not the antecedent from which such a logician as Hume educed the consequent, that the people ought, by themselves or their delegates, to have a share in the legislature. According to this philosophical

observer and surveyor of the progress of man, rational liberty grew and increased with knowledge and wisdom. If Burke had not been incensed against Hume, it is probable he would have considered the general scope, rather than particular passages of his writings.

In speaking of the effects that civil war would produce on the manners of the people, he draws the following glowing picture:'Civil wars strike deepest of all into the manners of a people. They vitiate their politics, they corrupt their morals, they pervert even the natural taste and relish of equity and justice. By teaching us to consider our fellow-citizens in an hostile light, the whole body of our nation becomes gradually less dear to us: the very names of affection and kindred, which were the bond of charity whilst we agreed, become new incentives to hatred and rage, when the communion of our country is dissolved. We flatter ourselves that we shall not fall

may into this misfortune, but we have no charter

of exemption, that I know of, from the ordinary frailties of our nature.'

The Earl of Abingdon wrote a pamphlet of considerable ability and merit, in reply to Burke's letter, at least to that part of it which apologized for his secession from Parliament. There was also another respondent. The very celebrated letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol, one of the ablest performances of Edmund Burke, was answered by Edward Topham, Esq.!

Johnson disapproved very much of this letter of Burke; he particularly ridiculed his definition of liberty. That,' said Burke, is freedom to every practical purpose, which the people think so. Johnson said, • I will let the King of France govern me on those conditions, for it is to be governed just as I please.' Whatever it may to a Tory, the definition will not appear ridiculous to a Whig, nor indeed to an impartial neutralist. Liberty is one of the means of happiness. Happiness depends very much