The History of England, Volume I | Page 3

than the unfavourable
side of things; a turn of mind which it is more happy to possess, than to
be born to an estate of ten thousand a year.
In 1751 I removed from the country to the town, the true scene for a
man of letters. In 1752 were published at Edinburgh, where I then lived,
my Political Discourses, the only work of mine that was successful on
the first publication. It was well received at home and abroad. In the
same year was published, in London, my Enquiry concerning the
Principles of Morals; which, in my own opinion, (who ought not to
judge on that subject,) is of all my writings, historical, philosophical, or
literary, incomparably the best. It came unnoticed and unobserved into
the world.
In 1752 the Faculty of Advocates chose me their librarian; an office
from which I received little or no emolument, but which gave me the
command of a large library. I then formed the plan of writing the
History of England; but being frightened with the notion of continuing
a narrative through a period of one thousand seven hundred years, I
commenced with the accession of the house of Stuart, an epoch when, I
thought, the misrepresentations of faction began chiefly to take place. I
was, I own, sanguine in my expectations of the success of this work. I
thought that I was the only historian that had at once neglected present
power, interest, and authority, and the cry of popular prejudices; and as
the subject was suited to every capacity, I expected proportional

applause. But miserable was my disappointment: I was assailed by one
cry of reproach, disapprobation, and even detestation; English, Scotch,
and Irish, whig and tory, churchman and sectary, freethinker and
religionist, patriot and courtier, united in their rage against the man
who had presumed to shed a generous tear for the fate of Charles I. and
the Earl of Strafford; and after the first ebullitions of their fury were
over, what was still more mortifying, the book seemed to sink into
oblivion. Mr. Miller told me, that in a twelvemonth he sold only
forty-five copies of it. I scarcely, indeed, heard of one man in the three
kingdoms, considerable for rank or letters, that could endure the book. I
must only except the primate of England, Dr. Herring, and the primate
of Ireland, Dr. Stone, which seem two odd exceptions. These dignified
prelates separately sent me a message not to be discouraged.
I was, however, I confess, discouraged; and had not the war at that time
been breaking out between France and England, I had certainly retired
to some provincial town of the former kingdom, have changed my
name, and never more have returned to my native country. But as this
scheme was not now practicable, and the subsequent volume was
considerably advanced, I resolved to pick up courage and to persevere.
In this interval I published at London my Natural History of Religion,
along with some other small pieces: its public entry was rather obscure,
except only that Dr. Hurd wrote a pamphlet against it, with all the
illiberal petulance, arrogance, and scurrility, which distinguish the
Warburtonian school. This pamphlet gave me some consolation for the
otherwise indifferent reception of my performance.
In 1756, two years after the fall of the first volume, was published the
second volume of my History, containing the period from the death of
Charles I. till the Revolution. This performance happened to give less
displeasure to the whigs, and was better received. It not only rose itself,
but helped to buoy up its unfortunate brother.
But though I had been taught by experience, that the whig party were in
possession of bestowing all places, both in the state and in literature, I
was so little inclined to yield to their senseless clamour, that in above a
hundred alterations, which farther study, reading, or reflection, engaged
me to make in the reigns of the two first Stuarts, I have made all of
them invariably to the tory side. It is ridiculous to consider the English
constitution before that period as a regular plan of liberty.

In 1759 I published my History of the House of Tudor. The clamour
against this performance was almost equal to that against the History of
the two first Stuarts. The reign of Elizabeth was particularly obnoxious.
But I was now callous against the impressions of public folly, and
continued very peaceably and contentedly in my retreat in Edinburgh,
to finish, in two volumes, the more early part of the English History,
which I gave to the public in 1761, with tolerable, and but tolerable,
success.
But notwithstanding this variety of winds and seasons to which my
writings have been exposed, they had still been making such advances,
that the copy-money