d affection, of which Charles the First, Charles the Second,
and James the Second, in spite of the greatest faults, and in the midst
of the greatest misfortunes, received innumerable proofs. Those Whigs
who stood by the new dynasty so manfully with purse and sword did so on
principles independent of, and indeed almost incompatible with, the
sentiment of devoted loyalty. The moderate Tories regarded the foreign
dynasty as a great evil, which must be endured for fear of a greater
evil. In the eyes of the high Tories, the Elector was the most hateful
of robbers and tyrants. The crown of another was on his head; the blood
of the brave and loyal was on his hands. Thus, during many years, the
Kings of England were objects of strong personal aversion to many of
their subjects, and of strong personal attachment to none. They found,
indeed, firm and cordial support against the pretender to their throne;
but this support was given, not at all for their sake, but for the sake
of a religious and political system which would have been endangered by
their fall. This support, too, they were compelled to purchase by
perpetually sacrificing their private inclinations to the party which
had set them on the throne, and which maintained them there.

At the close of the reign of George the Second, the feeling of aversion
with which the House of Brunswick had long been regarded by half the
nation had died away; but no feeling of affection to that house had yet
sprung up. There was little, indeed, in the old King's character to
inspire esteem or tenderness. He was not our countryman. He never set
foot on our soil till he was more than thirty years old. His speech
bewrayed his foreign origin and breeding. His love for his native land,
though the most amiable part of his character, was not likely to endear
him to his British subjects. He was never so happy as when he could
exchange St. James's for Hernhausen. Year after year our fleets were
employed to convoy him to the Continent, and the interests of his
kingdom were as nothing to him when compared with the interests of his
Electorate. As to the rest, he had neither the qualities which make
dulness respectable, nor the qualities which make libertinism
attractive. He had been a bad son and a worse father, an unfaithful
husband and an ungraceful lover. Not one magnanimous or humane action is
recorded of him; but many instances of meanness, and of a harshness
which, but for the strong constitution