James I, James II; Charles I and Charles II. James I and Charles II were remarkably tenacious; Charles I and James II, somewhat less tenacious.
Englishmen developed a disrelish for the doctrine of passive obedience.
Walpole diffused a languor. He was busied in bribing and securing to himself a party in the House of Commons.
A set of men were brought forward who were qualified to cringe at levies.
No minister had struck so openly and uniformly at the root of all public virtue.
Posterity ought to execrate the memory of that man.
His insatiable thirst for power made corruption constitutional in the nation.
No better than a Machiavel in politics.
Among the most pernicious of the human race.
According to H.T.Dickinson:: "Walpole was one of the greatest politicians in British history. He sustained the Whig party; he safeguarded the Hanoverian succession, he defended the principles of the Glorious Revolution. He taught succeeding ministers how best to establish an effective working relationship between Crown and Parliament."
Rubbish. That's, like, just your opinion, HTD man. Walpole was the ultimate Vicar of Bray, ne plus ultra. The Blair of the 1720s and 1730s. Whig, my wig !
Walpole had many opponents, such as Lord Bolingbroke and William Pulteney, a Whig statesman. Bolingbroke and Pulteney ran a periodical called The Craftsman. Walpole was satirised and parodied extensively; and compared to the criminal Jonathan Wild, as John Gay (and Hogarth) did in his Beggar's Opera. Walpole's other enemies included Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, Henry Fielding, and Samuel Johnson. Wikipedia.
Where exactly does Frederic Hervey fit in among these opponents, and other Herveys ? I wish I knew. Who were those others who wrote The Naval History for publication in 1779 ? Do I smell Johnson ? He was a Tory, of course, who hated Whigs and Americans.
Post-Revolution Whigs turned into the great Whig landlords --- New Tories in other words. Long-term Tories came to adopt the Whig view of history.