How feeble was the former French government when assailed with difficulty?  It was at once as if struck motionless, or, the little animation that was left was just sufficient to enable it to go from one blunder to another.  How different has England been on every emergency?  In place of the arm of government seeming to slacken in the day of danger, it has risen superior to it.  We have never seen the same scenes happen here, that have taken place in Poland, Sweden, and so many other places.  In the three attempts to invasion, {202} (Monmouth’s and the two other rebellions,) where foreign influence was used, the event was the most fatal possible to those who made them; they were contemptible in the extreme; and, if it is considered in whose favour they were, it is probable the support from a foreign power rather did injury to the cause.

—–­ {202} Here we must not confound the case of the Stuarts with that of the King of France.  In England, it was the government that was divided, the legislative being against the executive; one part of the government was feeble, but the other was not, and therefore we cannot say that the government was feeble.  In France, the king and ministers governed alone, they were the whole government, and therefore as they were feeble, the government may be taxed with weakness. -=-

[end of page #262]

The form of government has this great advantage in it, that, as abilities are the way to preferment, the higher classes (at least) have a better education than the same rank of persons in any other nation, so far as regards the interest of the public, and the nature of the connection between the different orders of society; ignorance of which, is the surest way to be destroyed.

In all new and rising states the higher orders, even under despotic governments, and where all the distinctions of ranks are completely established, have a proper regard for the importance and welfare of the lower orders of people.  As they increase in wealth and have lost sight of its origin, which is industry, they change their mode of thinking; and, by degrees, the lower classes are considered as only made for the convenience of the rich.  The degradation into which the lower orders themselves fall, by vice and indolence, widens the difference and increases the contempt in which they are held.  This is one of the invariable marks of the decline of nations; but the nature of the English government prevents that, by keeping up a connection and mutual dependence amongst the poor and the rich, which is not found either under absolute monarchies or in republics.  In republics, the people become factious and idle, when they become any way wealthy.  In this country, besides the insular situation, circumstances in general are such as to prevent the lower classes from falling into that sort of idleness, apathy, and contempt, that they do in other countries, even supposing these burthens were done away, that at present necessitate exertion.