26

THE KING LEAVES FOR GERMANY,

[1716.

By the Act of Settlement, the descendant of the princess Sophia of Hanover, who should be called to the throne of Great Britain, was restricted from going out of the kingdom without the consent of Parliament. A Bill was brought in to repeal that clause of the Act; and becoming law without. opposition, the king prepared to set forth to his German dominions. Previous to his majesty's departure there was a creation of eight peers. The king's anxiety to visit Hanover at this juncture was extremely objectionable to his responsible advisers. But their remonstrances were useless. When Addison eulogized what he described as the "uniformity and firmness of mind" of George I.,* he, of course, did not recognize that family characteristic which carried firmness, too often, into obstinacy. "His majesty was bred up from his infancy with a love to this our nation," continues Addison. He did not speak of the greater love which the king, not unnaturally, bore to his own hereditary dominions. "By his succeeding to the dukedom of Zell," writes the political essayist, "he became one of the greatest princes of Germany, and one of the most powerful persons that ever stood next heir to the throne of Great Britain. The duchy of Bremen, and the bishopric of Osnaburg, have considerably strengthened his interests in the empire, and given a great additional weight to the Protestant cause." Happier might it have been if this great prince of Germany, and his successor, could have mitigated their excessive "predilection for their native country, which alone could endanger their English throne." There was a constant suspicion, during their reigns, that continental alliances and wars were in the interest of Hanover rather than in that of Great Britain; and although this belief was in some instances unjust, every minister had to contend against the unpopularity which it threw upon the government. Every minister, from Walpole to Chatham, was, in his turn, obliged to yield, however unwillingly, to the "uniformity and firmness of mind" which governed the continental policy of these princes. Their repeated absences from England were no light interruption to the tranquil progress of English affairs. These absences became a positive danger when each of these kings was known to stand upon the worst terms with his eldest son. Speaking a foreign language, surrounded by foreign mistresses and favourites, and constantly called away to his foreign states, George I. never ceased to be regarded by the English people as a foreigner. He was imperfectly acquainted with the character of the people he had been called upon to govern; and he took no pains to understand their reasonable wishes, or to conciliate their unreasonable prejudices. The government of the kingdom naturally fell into the hands of the ministers who represented the stronger party. It was fortunate that eventually a minister obtained almost exclusive power, who for many years kept the nation quiet, and allowed its growing industry to become the source of great material prosperity. The system of sir Robert Walpole was little fitted to call forth any high political aspirations; to originate any great reforms; to widen and deepen the foundations of freedom and toleration. But it preserved the country from convulsions, if it failed to destroy the bitterness of parties. Walpole was neither tyrannous nor unjust. He governed by corruption, in our present improved view of what is corruption, when a bribe is no longer

1716.]

NEGOTIATIONS FOR A FRENCH ALLIANCE.

27

termed "a consideration;" but having obtained his parliamentary supremacy by unworthy methods, he did not employ his venal instruments to trample upon the liberties of his country. He laughed at the noisy patriots whom he did not care to buy, or was unable to buy; but during the twenty years of his unassailable possession of power, amidst the constant sense of danger from the tendency of Toryism to identify itself with Jacobitism, he proscribed no political enemy. It has been truly said, "Sir Robert Walpole was the minister who gave to our government that character of lenity which it has since generally preserved."* Before Walpole became the supreme director of affairs, there was much complication of foreign policy, which we will endeavour to relate as succinctly as the necessary details will permit.

In the spring of 1716, defensive alliances had been concluded by the British government with the States-General and with the Emperor, to operate in case of aggression on either by France or other powers. The issue, however, of the Rebellion of 1715 had entirely indisposed the government of the Regent of France to any rupture with England. The duke of Orleans was moreover anxious to procure the support of England to his succession to the crown of France, in the event of the death of Louis XV., a sickly boy. The claim to that crown had been renounced by the Bourbon king of Spain; but Philip V. might interpret that renunciation according to the power which he might possess of setting his agreement at nought. Whilst George I. was at Hanover this summer, negotiations were going forward between Stanhope, his Secretary of State, and the Abbé Dubois, the profligate but most able servant of the Regent. The English government desired the expulsion of the Pretender from France and its dependencies; and was anxious to stipulate that a new harbour should be abandoned which Louis XIV. had begun to construct at Mardyke, to serve the same warlike purposes as Dunkirk, which had been demolished according to the terms of the treaty of Utrecht. The agent of the Regent was ready to yield these points, to secure the friendship of the government of king George. Thus the policy of England and France tended towards peace and a more intimate alliance. On the other hand, the continental objects of George I. threatened to involve his island subjects in a war, in which they would certainly not have engaged had their king not also been Elector of Hanover. When Charles XII. of Sweden, in 1714, after those five years of seclusion at Bender which followed the disastrous day of Pultowa, burst upon Europe again, he found a large part of his territories divided among many rapacious neighbours, with whom he would have to fight if Sweden were to regain any semblance of her old power. Frederick IV. of Denmark, in 1712, had conquered Schleswig and Holstein, Bremen and Verden. To strengthen himself against Charles, "the Swedishiron hero "—as Mr. Carlyle calls him,-Frederick bartered away Bremen and Verden to the Elector of Hanover, in 1715, for a hundred and fifty thousand pounds, on condition that George should join a coalition against Sweden. George's son-in-law, Frederick William of Prussia, had gone to war that same year, with his giant grenadiers, to compel Charles to resign his pretensions to Stettin, which Prussia had obtained in pawn for a payment of sixty thousand pounds. The northern war blazed furiously. The Elector of

Macaulay-"Essay on Horace Walpole."

28

THE KING'S JEALOUSY OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.

[1716. Hanover sent a British fleet into the Baltic to coerce Sweden; and with six thousand Hanoverians joined the Prussians, Danes, and Russians, against "the Lion-king." At Stralsund Charles made his last effort. He was overpowered; and getting away to Sweden, meditated schemes of vast import, but thoroughly impracticable. Charles endeavoured to gratify his revenge against England in stirring up another Jacobite insurrection. Northern Europe was now still more agitated; for the Czar Peter had marched with his Muscovites into Mecklenburg, and was threatening Denmark. George was for violent measures against Russia, which his minister Stanhope very wisely discountenanced. This smoke did not burst into flame. In the conduct of the negotiation with France there was a difference of opinion between Stanhope at Hanover, and Townshend at home; and this, with other less dignified causes, produced a partial-breaking-up of king George's first Whig ministry.

The history of the schism which drove Townshend from the helm is given with great minuteness by the excellent descendant of Stanhope; and with a laudable anxiety to acquit his ancestor of any paltry attempt to abuse the confidence of George I., to the prejudice of his honest and able minister at home.* It is scarcely necessary for us to enter generally upon these details. One point, however, connected with this ministerial change is of importance, as a characteristic of the domestic politics of the first, second, and third princes of the House of Brunswick who were kings of England. From the second year of George I. may be dated the manifestation of that national calamity which our country had to endure during three successive reigns,the hateful exhibition of a party in opposition to the government of the actual sovereign gathering round the heir apparent. When king George set out for Hanover in the summer of 1716, he was extremely jealous of entrusting, during his absence, any special power and authority to the prince of Wales. The king wished to join others in commission with the prince. Townshend opposed this. The king so far yielded as to appoint his son Guardian of the Realm and Lieutenant; but he withheld the title of Regent from him, and imposed several restrictions upon his administrative power. The popularity which the prince acquired during the king's absence was looked upon with fear and suspicion at Hanover. He was affable; appeared fond of English customs; spoke our language tolerably well; and went amongst the people in a free and unreserved manner. Party-writers began to contrast the son with the father. The prince was not discreet in a position where discretion was so essential. He manifested an eagerness to open the parliament in person during the king's absence; whilst the king desired that the prorogation might be extended, to enable him to remain longer at Hanover. Townshend, in his communications with Stanhope, had pressed that the king should speedily decide as to his return; intimated the prince's wish to open parliament; and suggested that in certain emergencies a larger discretionary power should be given to the "Guardian of the Realm." The king was enraged; and avowed his determination to dismiss his chief minister from his office of Secretary of State. To soften this dismissal Townshend was offered the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Secretary at first stoutly refused. His colleagues were indignant. Stanhope, from Hanover, tried to

Lord Mahon-"History," vol. i. ch. vii.

1716.] TOWNSHEND DISMISSED-ARREST OF THE SWEDISH AMBASSADOR. 29 persuade them to acquiesce in the king's determination. The Whigs, he wrote to Mr. Methuen, one of the Commissioners of the Treasury, “may possibly unking their master, or (which I do before God think very possible) make him abdicate England; but they will certainly not force him to make my lord Townshend Secretary." * When Townshend was removed from the administration, the public indignation was loudly expressed. He was considered to be sacrificed to the cabal which looked upon Hanover as more important than England. He was known to be hated by the rapacious Mademoiselle de Schulenberg, the king's mistress, who was afterwards created duchess of Kendal. George hastened his return to England; and having probably been made aware of the danger he incurred in breaking with the most important members of the great Whig party, expressed his regret to Townshend for having acted with precipitation. The fallen minister was at last induced to accept the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland; and Methuen was appointed Secretary of State as the colleague of Stanhope. The apparent renewal of the friendly relations of the sovereign and his ministers was not of long duration.

The king opened the Session of Parliament on the 20th of February, 1717. He announced that a Treaty of Alliance had been concluded between Great Britain, France, and the States-General. There were to be no longer apprehensions about Dunkirk and Mardyke; the Pretender was to be removed beyond the Alps. This Treaty, concluded on the 4th of January, 1717, is known as "the Triple Alliance." The king farther notified that he had directed papers to be laid before Parliament, "which contain a certain account of a projected invasion." These papers were "Copies of letters which passed between count Gyllenburg, the barons Gortz, Spaar, and others, relating to the design of raising a rebellion in his majesty's dominions, to be supported by a force from Sweden." The discovery of this scheme had delayed the opening of the Session. In October, some letters between baron Gortz, the bold and intriguing minister of Charles XII., and count Gyllenburg, the Swedish envoy in London, had been intercepted and deciphered by the English government. On the 29th of January, Stanhope, as Secretary of State, laid the information thus obtained before the Council; and it was determined to resort to the extraordinary measure of arresting the Swedish envoy, and of seizing his papers. Gyllenburg, of course, stoutly resisted; and pleaded the protection to which the representatives of foreign governments are entitled by the law of nations. That law, however, does not sanction an ambassador in being the active instrument of plots against the government to which he is accredited. General Wade carried off the contents of the Swede's escrutoire; and put a guard over his prisoner. The contents of the papers fully justified the act of the government. Gortz had organized a scheme for an insurrection in England, and a simultaneous invasion of Scotland by the king of Sweden. Spain had entered into the confederacy. Its prime minister, Alberoni, had remitted a million of French livres to Spaar, the Swedish envoy in Paris, to set the forces of Charles XII. in motion. The Pretender had offered sixty thousand pounds for the same object. The whole affair exploded upon the arrest of Gyllenburg. The king

* Coxe-"Life of Walpole."

80 SCHISM IN THE MINISTRY—TRIAL OF THE EARL OF OXFORD. [1716.

of Sweden did not disown the acts of his ministers, neither did he own them; but he ordered the British resident at his court to be put under arrest. Apprehensions of danger from Sweden were still professed by the English ministry; and on the 3rd of April, Stanhope delivered to the Commons a royal message, asking for an additional supply, "not only to secure his majesty's kingdoms against the present dangers with which they are threatened from Sweden, but likewise to prevent as far as possible the like apprehensions for the future." In the debate which ensued, strong objections were made to the proposition. "It must needs be very surprising to the whole world," said one member, "that a nation, not long ago the terror of France and Spain, should now seem to fear so inconsiderable an enemy as Sweden." The motion for a Supply was only carried by a majority of four votes. It was opposed by many of the Whigs, and coldly supported by others. Walpole, to whom the House looked up on all financial questions, spoke indeed in favour of the motion, but with a reserve that was more significant than censure. It was clear that the most important of the Whig leaders were jealous of the influence of Sunderland, who was now held to be the king's chief adviser. The result of this debate was that the same evening Townshend was dismissed from his office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and that, the next morning, Robert Walpole resignedfirm in his resistance to the entreaties of the king to keep the seals of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Other resignations followed, including that of Methuen. Stanhope now became the head of the government; Sunderland and Addison were appointed Secretaries of State; and James Craggs Secretary at War.

Robert Harley, earl of Oxford, having been two years a prisoner in the Tower, presented a petition to the House of Lords, praying that his confinement might not be prolonged. The day of his trial was therefore fixed for the 24th of June. The Peers were assembled in Westminster Hall; the Commons were in attendance as prosecutors; the prisoner stood at the bar with the axe by his side; one of the managers opened the first article of impeachment regarding the treaty of Utrecht. Lord Harcourt, the ex

chancellor, then moved that the Peers should retire to their own House; and he there proposed a resolution, which was carried by a majority of thirty-two, "that no evidence should be received on the charges for misdemeanour till the charges for high treason were disposed of." It was known that the evidence was insufficient to convict Oxford of the crime that would have affected his life and estate. The Commons were indignant at this proceeding of the Peers, which it is affirmed was suggested by Walpole; and they refused to comply with it, regarding it as an infringement of their privileges. The Lords persevered; and named the 1st of July as the day when the trial should proceed according to the principle they had laid down. The Commons resolved that, justice being denied to the nation, they would abandon the prosecution. The defeat of the government was no doubt fortunate. Oxford was acquitted, as no prosecutor had appeared. The multitude cheered, and the nation generally, as well as the Tories, was not displeased that there should be some oblivion of political offences. The Session of Parliament was concluded by an Act of Grace, from which Oxford and Pricr were excluded; but which released from prison the lords Carnwath, Widdrington, and Nairn, and others who