Thus every man who then meddled with public affairs took his life in his hand.  The consequence was that men of gentle natures stood aloof from contests in which they could not engage without hazarding their own necks and the fortunes of their children.  This was the course adopted by Sir William Temple, by Evelyn, and by many other men who were, in every respect, admirably qualified to serve the State.  On the other hand, those resolute and enterprising men who put their heads and lands to hazard in the game of politics naturally acquired, from the habit of playing for so deep a stake, a reckless and desperate turn of mind.  It was, we seriously believe, as safe to be a highwayman as to be a distinguished leader of Opposition.  This may serve to explain, and in some degree to excuse, the violence with which the factions of that age are justly reproached.  They were fighting, not merely for office, but for life.  If they reposed for a moment from the work of agitation, if they suffered the public excitement to flag, they were lost men.  Hume, in describing this state of things, has employed an image which seems hardly to suit the general simplicity of his style, but which is by no means too strong for the occasion.  “Thus,” says he, “the two parties actuated by mutual rage, but cooped up within the narrow limits of the law, levelled with poisoned daggers the most deadly blows against each other’s breast, and buried in their factious divisions all, regard to truth, honour, and humanity.”

From this terrible evil the Revolution set us free.  The law which secured to the judges their seats during life or good behaviour did something.  The law subsequently passed for regulating trials in cases of treason did much more.  The provisions of that law show, indeed, very little legislative skill.  It is not framed on the principle of securing the innocent, but on the principle of giving a great chance of escape to the accused, whether innocent or guilty.  This, however, is decidedly a fault on the right side.  The evil produced by the occasional escape of a bad citizen is not to be compared with the evils of that Reign of Terror, for such it was, which preceded the Revolution.  Since the passing of this law scarcely one single person has suffered death in England as a traitor, who had not been convicted on overwhelming evidence, to the satisfaction of all parties, of the highest crime against the State.  Attempts have been made in times of great excitement, to bring in persons guilty of high treason for acts which, though sometimes highly blamable, did not necessarily imply a design falling within the legal definition of treason.  All those attempts have failed.  During a hundred and forty years no statesman, while engaged in constitutional opposition to a government, has had the axe before his eyes.  The smallest minorities, struggling against the most powerful majorities, in the most agitated times, have felt themselves perfectly secure.  Pulteney and Fox wore the two most distinguished leaders of Opposition, since the Revolution.  Both were personally obnoxious to the Court.  But the utmost harm that the utmost anger of the Court could do to them was to strike off the “Right Honourable” from before their names.