J U N I U S, Scc. 239

themselves the King’s friends, as if the body of thepeople were the King’s enemies; or as if his Ma-jesty looked for a resource or consolation Vin theattachment of a few favorites, against the-generalcontempt and detestation of his subjects. Edward,and Richard the second, made the fame distinction.between the collective body of the people, and acontemptible party who surrounded the throne.The event of their mistaken conduct might have'been a warning to their successors. Yet the errorsof those princes were not without excuse. Theyhad as many false friends, as our present graciousSovereign, and infinitely greater temptations to se-duce them. They were neither sober, religious, nordemure. Intoxicated with pleasure, they wasted theirinheritance in pursuit of it. Their lives were likea rapid torrent, brilliant in prospect, though uselessor dangerous in its course. In the dull, unnnimat-ed existence of other princes, We fee nothing but a .sickly, stagnant water, which taint's the atmosphere

without fertilizing the soil_The morality of a King

is not to be measured by vulgar rules. His situationis singular. There are faults which do him honor,and virtues that disgrace him. A faultless, insipid,equality in his character, is neither capable of vicenor virtue in the extreme; but it secures his sub-mission to those persons, whom he has been accus-tomed to respect, and makes him a dangerous instru-

to flattery, talkers for liberty, but staves to poiverstylingthemselves the court-party, and the prince’s only friends. ”

JJaVintihU