haps, was represented in a worse view to Mr Harley. Neither am I altogether sure, that Mr St John did not entertain some prospect of succeeding as first minister, in case of Mr Harley's death; which, during his illness, was frequently apprehended. And I remember very well, that, upon visiting Mr Harley, as soon as he was in a condition to be seen, I found several of his nearest relations talk very freely of some proceedings of Mr St John; enough to make me apprehend that their friendship would not be of any long continuance.

Mr Harley, soon after his recovery, was made an earl, and lord-treasurer; and the lord-keeper a baron.

THE last years of King William's reign were productive of more 'disappointment and vexation to that monarch than either his phlegm or prudence were able to endure. Not only was he compelled to dismiss his favourite Dutch guards, the companions of all his labours and dangers, but the resumption of those grants of the forfeited lands in Ireland, in which he had rather consulted a wish to reward his favourite adherents, than the genius of the people whom he governed, was made the subject of perpetual motions in parliament. At length, the court lost altogether the manage

ment and control of the House of Commons; but as it retained its influence in the House of Peers, these two branches of the constitution became engaged in distinct and animated opposition to each other. It was in vain that, to appease the Lower House, in which a motion had been made for an address against Lord Somers, the king took the seals from that great and wise statesman; for in the session of parliament 1701, a motion was made and carried, to impeach him, on account of his share in the treaty for a partition of Spain. At the same time, the House impeached Edward Earl of Orford, and Charles Lord Halifax, as advisers of the said treaty, together with William Earl of Portland, by whom it was transacted. And they addressed the king to remove the persons thus accused from his presence and councils. The House of Peers presented a counter address, praying his majesty to suspend any censure upon the impeached lords until the issue of their trial. The subsequent proceedings displayed the same spirit of dissension. On the 5th of May, the Lords sent to remind the House of Commons, that no articles had yet been presented against the impeached nobles; and when such articles were presented, they proceeded with unusual dispatch to communicate the answers of the accused, and to press the Lower House to join issue by replication; repeatedly reminding them of the right of the House of Lords to limit the time of trial, lest parties should suffer by unreasonable delay. The Commons, on the other hand, complained that the course adopted by the Lords was calculated to create disputes, and invited the Peers to accede to the nomination of a committee of both Houses, to settle the proper way and method of proceeding on impeachment, agreeable to the usage of parliament. This course, after discussing the point by message and conference, the Lords positively declined, insisted upon their right of naming a day for peremptorily proceeding upon the trials, and fixed accordingly the 13th May 1701 for going forward to that of Lord SoThe Commons exclaimed against this conduct, as an attempt to favour the accused, by straitening the Lower House in the time necessary to prepare evidence in support of their charge. But, after much angry discussion, the House of Lords persisted in claiming and exercising the right of fixing a peremptory time for the trial; and although the Commons passed a vote, prohibiting any of their members from appearing on the days appointed, yet the Lords proceeded formally to the trial and acquittal of the Earl of

mers.

Orford and Lord Somers, at the time which they had assigned; and on the last day of the session, dismissed by order the impeachment against Lord Portland, because unsupported by specific articles; and that against Lord Halifax, because the Commons had failed to join issue, by replying to his defences. The object of this indecent struggle between the two Houses was less, perhaps, a wish to maintain or extend their peculiar privileges, than that of gaining the advantage of the popular voice in their political measures. The House of Commons was ill prepared to support the impeachment, and the House of Lords was probably determined to dismiss it, howsoever it might be sustained. The accusers, therefore, were not unwilling that the trial should appear to go off through the precipitation of the judges; nor were the judges sorry to have a pretence to lay the blame on the dilatory conduct of the accusers. The contest, however, between the two Houses could not be carried on without allusion to former aggressions, and other causes of jealousy and rivalry; and as the Commons took more than one opportunity of embarrassing the Peers, by tacking favourite resolutions to their money-bills, it was brought into doubt how far the exclusive right of granting supplies might not enable the Lower House to grasp into their own possession the whole powers of legislation.

Whilst this disgraceful contest was at its height, the king, whose mind was bent upon the approaching war with France, beheld it with regret and astonishment, in which the most sound politicians deeply participated. Among others, Swift, educated under Sir William Temple, long conversant in the literature of Greece and Rome, and in politics a Revolution-Whig, expressed his uneasy apprehension, that the same jars which ruined the free states of antiquity, were now about to destroy the liberties of his own country. This idea he expanded in the following pamphlet, which was published in the summer recess of 1701. Its effect may be best estimated from our knowing that it was ascribed for some time to Lord Somers, and afterwards to Bishop Burnet, accounted the most experienced and able politicians among the Whig party. The bishop was even obliged to disown it publicly, in order to prevent the risk of an impeachment by the House of Commons. The treatise had probably some share in bringing the House of Commons to a milder temper at their next session, and in turning their thoughts to great national concerns, from the factions and

petty discussions which had previously engaged them. And when, in 1702, those heats had subsided, which rendered concealment necessary, Swift found that his acknowledging this pamphlet at once introduced him to the friendship and esteem of Somers and Halifax.

The subject on which the essay is written was peculiar to the time, and has not in the present day retained its interest. We have little reason, in modern times, to apprehend that danger will arise to our constitution from a difference between the popular and aristocratic branches of representation: And, perhaps, should such a contest occur, its effects would hardly be appeased by an elaborate set of examples drawn from the history of the states of antiquity, however artfully selected and adapted to the circumstances of modern events. Ancient, and, above all, classical authority, was in Swift's time admitted as unanswerable argument; and what we should now, perhaps, censure as the effusions of a college pedant, was, in the beginning of last century, allowed as serious reference to weighty precedents. The ingenuity, however, of the parallels which Swift has contrived to extract from the history of Greece and Rome, retains its merit, and continues to amuse us, though the political interest of the disquisition is no more. But although we may agree with Lord Orrery, that this whole treatise is full of historical knowledge and excellent reflections, few readers will have the self-denial to rejoice in its not being "mixed with any improper sallies of wit, or any light airs of humour ;" although the aristocratic pride of the noble biographer would probably have deemed these highly improper in a treatise affecting the privileges of the peerage.

One circumstance is worthy of notice ;-six instances are selected from ancient history, to illustrate the four impeachments then under parliamentary discussion. There was, perhaps, danger in making the circumstances tally very closely, for the temper of the Commons was for the time too hot to endure argument. The cases of Miltiades and Themistocles seem both to apply to the Earl of Oxford; those of Pericles and Alcibiades to Halifax.