In precisely the same way Boyle—­perhaps the greatest of our men of science between Bacon and Newton—­perpetually insists on the importance of individual experiments and the comparative unimportance of what we have received from antiquity.

The clergy had lost ground; their temporary alliance with James II. was ended by the Declaration of Indulgence.  But they were half-hearted in their support of the Revolution, and scepticism received a fresh encouragement from the hostility between them and the new government; and the brief rally under Queen Anne was overwhelmed by the rise of Wesleyanism.  Theology was finally severed from the department both of ethics and of government.

The eighteenth century is characterised by a craving after knowledge on the part of those classes from whom knowledge had hitherto been shut out.  With the demand for knowledge came an increased simplicity in the literary form under which it was diffused.  With the spirit of inquiry the desire for reform constantly increased, but the movement was checked by a series of political combinations which demand some attention.

The accession of George III. changed the conditions which had persisted since the accession of George I. The new king was able to head reaction.  The only minister of ability he admitted to his counsels was Pitt, and Pitt retained power only by abandoning his principles.  Nevertheless, a counter-reaction was created, to which England owes her great reforms of the nineteenth century.

III.—­Development of France

In France at the time of the Reformation the clergy were far more powerful than in England, and the theological contest was much more severe.  Toleration began with Henry IV. at the moment when Montaigne appeared as the prophet of scepticism.  The death of King Henry was not followed by the reaction which might have been expected, and the rule of Richelieu was emphatically political in its motives and secular in its effects.  It is curious to see that the Protestants were the illiberal party, while the cardinal remained resolutely liberal.

The difference between the development in France and England is due primarily to the recognition in England of the fact that no country can long remain prosperous or safe in which the people are not gradually extending their power, enlarging their privileges, and, so to say, incorporating themselves with the functions of the state.  France, on the other hand, suffered far more from the spirit of protection, which is so dangerous, and yet so plausible, that it forms the most serious obstacle with which advancing civilisation has to contend.

The great rebellion in England was a war of classes as well as of factions; on the one side the yeomanry and traders, on the other the nobles and the clergy.  The corresponding war of the Fronde in France was not a class war at all; it was purely political, and in no way social.  At bottom the English rebellion was democratic; the leaders of the Fronde were aristocrats, without any democratic leanings.