by arguing[1] the prodigious disaffection at present; because the same thing has happened before, from the same cause, in our own country, and within the memory of man, although not with the same event.
But such a disaffection could hardly have been raised against an absent prince, who was only in expectation of the throne; and indeed, I cannot but reckon it as a very strong argument, for the good disposition, both in the ministry and kingdom, toward the house of Hanover, that during my lord Oxford's administration, there was never thrown out the least reflection against that illustrious house, in any libel or pamphlet; which would hardly have happened, if the small party writers could have thought, that by such a performance, they would have made their court to those in power; and which would certainly have been a very useful preliminary, if any attempt had been intended toward altering the succession to the crown. But, however, to say the truth, invectives against the absent, and with whom we have nothing to do, although they may render persons little and contemptible, can hardly make them odious: for, hatred is produced by motives of a very different nature, as experience has shown. And although politicians affirm it more eligible for a prince to be hated, than despised, yet that maxim is better calculated for an absolute monarchy, than for the climate of England. But I am sensible this is a digression; therefore I return.
The treaties made by her majesty with France
- ↑ It should be 'by arguing from the,' &c.
