an effort to attack England without and within. James II., who
had turned to so little advantage the first aid granted by the
King of France saw therefore in preparation a much more
powerful assistance, and obtained what had been refused him
after the days of the Boyne and Beachy-Head,--an army to
invade England. News received from that country explained this
change in the conduct of Louis. The opinion of James at
Versailles was no better than in the past; but England was
believed to be on the eve of counter-revolution, which it
would be sufficient to aid with a vigorous and sudden blow.
... Many eminent personages, among the Whigs as well as among
the Tories, among others the Duke of Marlborough (Churchill),
had opened a secret correspondence with the royal exile at
Saint-Germain. James had secret adherents in the English fleet
which he had so long commanded before reigning, and believed
himself able to count on Rear-Admiral Carter, and even on
Admiral Russell. Louis gave himself up to excessive confidence
in the result of these plots, and arranged his plan of naval
operations accordingly. An army of 30,000 men, with 500
transports, was assembled on the coast of Normandy, the
greater part at La Hogue and Cherbourg, the rest at Havre:
this was composed of all the Irish troops, a number of
Anglo-Scotch refugees, and a corps of French troops. Marshal
de Bellefonds commanded under King James. Tourville was to set
ut from Brest in the middle of April with fifty ships of the
line, enter the Channel, attack the English fleet before it
could be reinforced by the Dutch, and thus secure the
invasion. Express orders were sent to him to engage the enemy
'whatever might be his numbers.' It was believed that half of
the English fleet would go over to the side of the allies of
its king. The landing effected, Tourville was to return to
Brest, to rally there the squadron of Toulon, sixteen vessels
strong, and the rest of our large ships, then to hold the
Channel during the whole campaign. They had reckoned without
the elements, which, hitherto hostile to the enemies of
France, this time turned against her." The French fleets were
detained by contrary winds and by incomplete preparations.
Tourville was not reinforced, as he expected to be, by the
squadrons of Toulon and Rochefort. Before he found it possible
to sail from Brest, the Jacobite plot had been discovered in
England, the government was on its guard, and the Dutch and
English fleets had made their junction. Still, the French
admiral was under orders which left him no discretion, and he
went out to seek the enemy. "May 29, at daybreak, between the
Capes of La Hogue and Barfleur, Tourville found himself in
presence of the allied fleet, the most powerful that had ever
appeared on the sea. He had been joined by seven ships from
the squadron of Rochefort, and numbered 44 vessels against 99,
78 of which carried over 50 guns, and, for the most part, were
much larger than a majority of the French. The English had 63
ships and [4,540] guns; the Dutch, 36 ships and 2,614 guns; in
all, 7,154 guns; the French counted only 3,114. The allied
fleet numbered nearly 42,000 men; the French fleet less than
20,000." Notwithstanding this great inferiority of numbers and
strength, it was the French fleet which made the attack,
bearing down under full sail "on the immense mass of the
enemy." The attempt was almost hopeless; and yet, when night
fell, after a day of tremendous battle, Tourville had not yet
lost a ship; but his line of battle had been broken, and no
chance of success remained. "May 30, at break of day,
Tourville rallied around him 35 vessels. The other nine had
strayed, five towards La Hogue, four towards the English
coast, whence they regained Brest. If there had been a naval
port at La Hogue or at Cherbourg, as Colbert and Vauban had
desired, the French fleet would have preserved its laurels!
There was no place of retreat on all that coast. The fleet of
the enemy advanced in full force. It was impossible to renew
the prodigious effort of the day before." In this emergency,
Tourville made a daring attempt to escape with his fleet
through the dangerous channel called the Race of Alderney,
which separates the Channel Islands from the Normandy coast.
Twenty-two vessels made the passage safely and found a place
of refuge at St. Malo; thirteen were too late for the tide and
failed. Most of these were destroyed, during the next few
days, by the English and Dutch at Cherbourg and in the bay of
La Hogue,--in the presence and under the guns of King James'
army of invasion. "James II. had reason to say that 'his
unlucky star' everywhere shed a malign influence around him;
but this influence was only that of his blindness and
incapacity. Such was that disaster of La Hogue, which has left
among us such a fatal renown, and the name of which resounds in
our history like another Agincourt or Cressy. Historians have
gone so far as to ascribe to this the destruction of the
French navy. ... La Hogue was only a reprisal for Beachy-Head.
The French did not lose in it a vessel more than the allies
had lost two years before, and the 15 vessels destroyed were
soon replaced."
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV:
(translated by M. L. Booth),
volume 2, chapter 2.'_
ALSO IN:
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 18 (volume 4)._
_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 20, chapter 4 (volume 5)._
_Sir J. Dalrymple,
Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
part 2, book 7 (volume 3)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1695.
Expiration of censorship law.
Appearance of first newspapers.
See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1696-1749.
Measures of commercial and industrial restriction
in the American colonies.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1697.
The Peace of Ryswick.
Recognition of William III. by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1698.
The founding of Calcutta.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1698-1700.
The question of the Spanish Succession.
The Treaties of Partition.
The Spanish king's will.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.
The Act of Settlement.
The source of the sovereignty of the
House of Hanover or Brunswick.
"William and Mary had no children; and in 1700 the young Duke
of Gloucester, the only child of Anne that lived beyond
infancy, died. There was now no hope of there being anyone to
inherit the crown by the Bill of Rights after the death of
William and of Anne. In 1701, therefore, Parliament settled
the crown on the Electress Sophia of Hanover, and her heirs.
Sophia was one of the children of that Elizabeth, daughter of
James I., who in 1613 had married the Palsgrave Frederick. She
was chosen to come after William and Anne because she was the
nearest to the Stuart line who was a Protestant. The law that
did this is called the Act of Settlement; it gives Queen
Victoria her title to the throne. Parliament in passing it
tried to make the nation's liberties still safer. It was now
made impossible (1) for any foreigner to sit in Parliament or
to hold an office under the Crown; (2). for the king to go to
war in defence of countries that did not belong to England,
unless Parliament gave him leave; or (3) to pardon anyone so
that the Commons might not be able to impeach him."
_J. Rowley,
The Settlement of the Constitution,
book 1, chapter 5._
{914}
"Though the choice was truly free in the hands of parliament,
and no pretext of absolute right could be advanced on any
side, there was no question that the princess Sophia was the
fittest object of the nation's preference. She was indeed very
far removed from any hereditary title. Besides the pretended
prince of Wales, and his sister, whose legitimacy no one
disputed, there stood in her way the duchess of Savoy,
daughter of Henrietta duchess of Orleans, and several of the
Palatine family. These last had abjured the reformed faith, of
which their ancestors had been the strenuous assertors; but it
seemed not improbable that some one might return to it. ...
According to the tenor and intention of the act of settlement,
all prior claims of inheritance, save that of the issue of
king William and the princess Anne, being set aside and
annulled, the princess Sophia became the source of a new royal
line. The throne of England and Ireland, by virtue of the
paramount will of parliament, stands entailed upon the heirs
of her body, being protestants. In them the right is as truly
hereditary as it ever was in the Plantagenets or the Tudors.
But they derive it not from those ancient families. The blood
indeed of Cerdic and of the Conqueror flows in the veins of
his present majesty [George IV.]. Our Edwards and Henries
illustrate the almost unrivalled splendour and antiquity of
the house of Brunswic. But they have transmitted no more right
to the allegiance of England than Boniface of Este or Henry
the Lion. That rests wholly on the act of settlement, and
resolves itself into the sovereignty of the legislature.
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 15 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_Sir A. Halliday,
Annals of the House of Hanover,
book 10 (volume 2)._
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.
The rousing of the nation to war with France.
When Louis XIV. procured and accepted for his grandson the
bequest of the Spanish crown, throwing over the Partition
Treaty, "William had the intolerable chagrin of discovering
not only that he had been befooled, but that his English
subjects had no sympathy with him or animosity against the
royal swindler who had tricked him. 'The blindness of the
people here,' he writes sadly to the Pensionary Heinsius, 'is
incredible. For though the affair is not public, yet it was no
sooner said that the King of Spain's will was in favour of the
Duke of Anjou, that it was the general opinion that it was
better for England that France should accept the will than
fulfil the Treaty of Partition.' ... William dreaded the idea
of a Bourbon reigning at Madrid, but he saw no very grave
objection, as the two treaties showed, to Naples and Sicily
passing into French hands. With his English subjects the exact
converse was the case. They strongly deprecated the assignment
of the Mediterranean possessions of the Spaniard to the
Dauphin; but they were undisturbed by the sight of the Duke of
Anjou seating himself on the Spanish throne. ... But just as,
under a discharge from an electric battery, two repugnant
chemical compounds will sometimes rush into sudden
combination, so at this juncture the King and the nation were
instantaneously united by the shock of a gross affront. The
hand that liberated the uniting fluid was that of the
Christian king. On the 16th of September 1701 James II.
breathed his last at St. Germains, and, obedient to one of
those impulses, half-chivalrous, half-arrogant, which so often
determined his policy, Louis XIV. declared his recognition of
the Prince of Wales as de jure King of England. No more timely
and effective assistance to the policy of its de facto king
could possibly have been rendered. Its effect upon English
public opinion was instantaneous; and when William returned
from Holland on the 4th of November, he found the country in
the temper in which he could most have wished it to be."
Dissolving the Parliament in which his plans had long been
factiously opposed, he summoned a new one, which met on the
last day of the year 1701. "Opposition in Parliament--in the
country it was already inaudible--was completely silenced. The
two Houses sent up addresses assuring the King of their firm
resolve to defend the succession against the pretended Prince
of Wales and all other pretenders whatsoever. ... Nor did the
goodwill of Parliament expend itself in words. The Commons
accepted without a word of protest the four treaties
constituting the new Grand Alliance. ... The votes of supply
were passed unanimously." But scarcely had the nation and the
King arrived at this agreement with one another than the
latter was snatched from his labors. On the 21st of February,
1702, William received an injury, through the stumbling of his
horse, which his frail and diseased body could not bear. His
death would not have been long delayed in any event, but it
was hastened by this accident, and occurred on the 8th of
March following. He was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his
deceased queen, Mary, and second daughter of the deposed
Stuart king, James II.
_H. D. Traill,
William the Third,
chapters 14-15._
ALSO IN:
_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 21, chapters 7-10 (volume 5)._
See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
Accession of Queen Anne.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
Union of rival East India Companies.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
The War of the Spanish Succession.
Failure at Cadiz.
The treasure ships in Vigo Bay.
Marlborough's first campaigns.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1702;
and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1711.
The War of the Spanish Succession in America
(called "Queen Anne's War").
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
{915}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1714.
The Age of Anne in literature.
"That which was once called the Augustan age of English
literature was specially marked by the growing development of
a distinct literary class. It was a period of transition from
the early system of the patronage of authors to the later
system of their professional independence. Patronage was being
changed into influence. The system of subscription, by which
Pope made his fortune, was a kind of joint-stock patronage.
The noble did not support the poet, but induced his friends to
subscribe. The noble, moreover, made another discovery. He found
that he could dispense a cheaper and more effective patronage
than of old by patronising at the public expense. During the
reign of Queen Anne, the author of a successful poem or an
effective pamphlet might look forward to a comfortable place.
The author had not to wear the livery, but to become the
political follower, of the great man. Gradually a separation
took place. The minister found it better to have a regular
corps of politicians and scribblers in his pay than
occasionally to recruit his ranks by enlisting men of literary
taste. And, on the other hand, authors, by slow degrees,
struggled into a more independent position as their public
increased. In the earlier part of the century, however, we
find a class of fairly cultivated people, sufficiently
numerous to form a literary audience, and yet not so numerous
as to split into entirely distinct fractions. The old
religious and political warfare has softened; the statesman
loses his place, but not his head; and though there is plenty
of bitterness, there is little violence. We have thus a
brilliant society of statesmen, authors, clergymen, and
lawyers, forming social clubs, meeting at coffee-houses,
talking scandal and politics, and intensely interested in the
new social phenomena which emerge as the old order decays;
more excitable, perhaps, than their fathers, but less
desperately in earnest, and waging a constant pamphleteering
warfare upon politics, literature, and theology, which is yet
consistent with a certain degree of friendly intercourse. The
essayist, the critic, and the novelist appear for the first
time in their modern shape; and the journalist is slowly
gaining some authority as the wielder of a political force.
The whole character of contemporary literature, in short, is
moulded by the social conditions of the class for which and by
which it was written, still more distinctly than by the ideas
current in contemporary speculation. ... Pope is the typical
representative of the poetical spirit of the day. He may or
may not be regarded as the intellectual superior of Swift or
Addison; and the most widely differing opinions may be formed
of the intrinsic merits of his poetry. The mere fact, however,
that his poetical dynasty was supreme to the end of the
century proved that, in some sense, he is a most
characteristic product. Nor is it hard to see the main sources
of his power. Pope had at least two great poetical qualities.
He was amongst the most keenly sensitive of men, and he had an
almost unique felicity of expression, which has enabled him to
coin more proverbs than any writer since Shakespeare.
Sensitive, it may be said, is a polite word for morbid, and
his felicity of phrase was more adapted to coin epigrams than
poetry. The controversy is here irrelevant. Pope, whether, as
I should say, a true poet, or, as some have said, only the
most sparkling of rhymesters, reflects the thoughts of his day
with a curious completeness. ... There is, however, another
wide province of literature in which writers of the eighteenth
century did work original in character and of permanent value.
If the seventeenth century is the great age of dramatists and
theologians, the eighteenth century was the age in which the
critic, the essayist, the satirist, the novelist, and the
moralist first appeared, or reached the highest mark.
Criticism, though still in its infancy, first became an
independent art with Addison. Addison and his various
colleagues set the first example of that kind of social essay
which is still popular. Satire had been practised in the
preceding century, and in the hands of Dryden had become a
formidable political weapon; but the social satire of which
Pope was, and remains, the chief master, began with the
century, and may be said to have expired with it, in spite of
the efforts of Byron and Gifford. De Foe, Richardson,
Fielding, and Smollett developed the modern novel out of very
crude rudiments; and two of the greatest men of the century,
Swift and Johnson, may be best described as practical
moralists in a vein peculiar to the time. ... The English
novel, as the word is now understood, begins with De Foe.
Though, like all other products of mind or body, it was
developed out of previously existing material, and is related
to the great family of stories with which men have amused
themselves in all ages, it is, perhaps, as nearly an original
creation as anything can be. The legends of saints which
amused the middle ages, or the chivalrous romances which were
popular throughout the seventeenth century, had become too
unreal to amuse living human beings. De Foe made the discovery
that a history might be equally interesting if the recorded
events had never happened."
_L. Stephen,
History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century,
chapter 12, sections 23-56 (volume 2)._
"This so-called classic age of ours has long ceased to be
regarded with that complacency which led the most flourishing
part of it to adopt the epithet 'Augustan.' It will scarcely
be denied by its greatest admirer, if he be a man of wide
reading, that it cannot be ranked with the poorest of the five
great ages of literature. Deficient in the highest
intellectual beauty, in the qualities which awaken the fullest
critical enthusiasm, the eighteenth century will be enjoyed
more thoroughly by those who make it their special study than
by those who skim the entire surface of literature. It has,
although on the grand scale condemned as second-rate, a
remarkable fulness and sustained richness which endear it to
specialists. If it be compared, for instance, with the real
Augustan age in Rome, or with the Spanish period of literary
supremacy, it may claim to hold its own against these rivals
in spite of their superior rank, because of its more copious
interest. If it has neither a Horace nor a Calderon, it has a
great extent and variety of writers just below these in merit,
and far more numerous than what Rome or Spain can show during
those blossoming periods. It is, moreover, fertile at far more
points than either of these schools. This sustained and
variegated success, at a comparatively low level of effort,
strikes one as characteristic of an age more remarkable for
persistent vitality than for rapid and brilliant growth. The
Elizabethan vivida vis is absent, the Georgian glow has not
yet dawned, but there is a suffused prosaic light of
intelligence, of cultivated form, over the whole picture, and
during the first half of the period, at least, this is bright
enough to be very attractive. Perhaps, in closing, the
distinguishing mark of eighteenth-century literature may be
indicated as its mastery of prose as a vehicle for general
thought."
_E. Gosse,
The Study of Eighteenth-Century Literature
(New Princeton Rev., July, 1888, page 21)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.
The Methuen Treaty with Portugal.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703;
and SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.
{916}
England: A. D. 1703.
The Aylesbury election case.
"Ashby, a burgess of Aylesbury, sued the returning officer for
maliciously refusing his vote. Three judges of the King's
Bench decided, against the opinion of Chief Justice Holt, that
the verdict which a jury had given in favor of Ashby must be
set aside, as the action was not maintainable. The plaintiff
went to the House of Lords upon a writ of error, and there the
judgment was reversed by a large majority of Peers. The Lower
House maintained that 'the qualification of an elector is not
cognizable elsewhere than before the Commons of England'; that
Ashby was guilty of a breach of privilege; and that all
persons who should in future commence such an action, and all
attorneys and counsel conducting the same, are also guilty of
a high breach of privilege. The Lords, led by Somers, then
came to counter-resolutions. ... The prorogation of Parliament
put an end to the quarrel in that Session; but in the next it
was renewed with increased violence. The judgment against the
Returning Officer was followed up by Ashby levying his
damages. Other Aylesbury men brought new actions. The Commons
imprisoned the Aylesbury electors. The Lords took strong
measures that affected, or appeared to affect, the privileges
of the Commons. The Queen finally stopped the contest by a
prorogation; and the quarrel expired when the Parliament
expired under the Triennial Act. Lord Somers 'established the
doctrine which has been acted on ever since, that an action
lies against a Returning Officer for maliciously refusing the
vote of an elector.'"
_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 5, chapter 17._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors: Somers,
chapter. 110 (volume 4)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1704-1707.
Marlborough's campaigns in the War of the Spanish Succession.
Campaigns in Spain.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704, to 1707;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705, and 1706-1707.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1707.
The Union with Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.
Hostility to the Union in Scotland.
Spread of Jacobitism.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1708-1709.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
Oudenarde and Malplaquet.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709;
and SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1709.
The Barrier Treaty with Holland.
"The influence of the Whig party in the affairs of government
in England, always irksome to the Queen, had now began visibly
to decline; and the partiality she was suspected of
entertaining for her brother, with her known dislike of the
house of Hanover, inspired them with alarm, lest the Tories
might seek still further to propitiate her favour, by
altering, in his favour, the line of succession, as at present
established. They had, accordingly, made it one of the
preliminaries of the proposed treaty of peace, that the
Protestant succession, in England, should be secured by a
general guarantee, and now sought to repair, as far as
possible, the failure caused by the unsuccessful termination
of the conferences, by entering into a treaty to that effect
with the States. The Marquis Townshend, accordingly, repaired
for this purpose to the Hague, when the States consented to
enter into an engagement to maintain the present succession to
the crown, with their whole force, and to make the recognition
of that succession, and the expulsion of the Pretender from
France, an indispensable preliminary to any peace with that
kingdom. In return for this important guarantee, England was
to secure to the States a barrier, formed of the towns of
Nieuport, Furnes and the fort of Knokke, Menin, Lille, Ryssel,
Tournay, Conde, and Valenciennes, Maubeuge, Charleroi, Namur,
Lier, Halle, and some forts, besides the citadels of Ghent and
Dendermonde. It was afterwards asserted, in excuse for the
dereliction from that treaty on the part of England, that
Townshend had gone beyond his instructions; but it is quite
certain that it was ratified without hesitation by the queen,
whatever may have been her secret feelings regarding it."
_C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 3, chapter 11 (volume 3 ).
_
ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.
Opposition to the war.
Trial of Sacheverell.
Fall of the Whigs and Marlborough.
"A 'deluge of blood' such as that of Malplaquet increased the
growing weariness of the war, and the rejection of the French
offers was unjustly attributed to a desire on the part of
Marlborough of lengthening out a contest which brought him
profit and power. The expulsion of Harley and St. John
[Bolingbroke] from the Ministry had given the Tories leaders
of a more vigorous stamp, and St. John brought into play a new
engine of political attack whose powers soon made themselves
felt. In the Examiner, and in a crowd of pamphlets and
periodicals which followed in its train, the humor of Prior,
the bitter irony of Swift, and St. John's own brilliant
sophistry spent themselves on the abuse of the war and of its
general. ... A sudden storm of popular passion showed the way
in which public opinion responded to these efforts. A
High-Church divine, Dr. Sacheverell, maintained the doctrine
of non-resistance [the doctrine, that is, of passive obedience
and non-resistance to government, implying a condemnation of
the Revolution of 1688 and of the Revolution settlement], in a
sermon at St. Paul's, with a boldness which deserved
prosecution; but in spite of the warning of Marlborough and of
Somers the Whig Ministers resolved on his impeachment. His
trial in 1710 at once widened into a great party struggle, and
the popular enthusiasm in Sacheverell's favor showed the
gathering hatred of the Whigs and the war. ... A small
majority of the peers found him guilty, but the light sentence
they inflicted was in effect an acquittal, and bonfires and
illuminations over the whole country welcomed it as a Tory
triumph. The turn of popular feeling freed Anne at once from
the pressure beneath which she had bent; and the skill of
Harley, whose cousin, Mrs. Masham, had succeeded the Duchess
of Marlborough in the Queen's favor, was employed in bringing
about the fall both of Marlborough and the Whig Ministers. ...
The return of a Tory House of Commons sealed his
[Marlborough's] fate. His wife was dismissed from court. A
masterly plan for a march into the heart of France in the
opening of 1711 was foiled by the withdrawal of a part of his
forces, and the negotiations which had for some time been
conducted between the French and English Ministers without his
knowledge marched rapidly to a close. ... At the opening of
1712 the Whig majority of the House of Lords was swamped by
the creation of twelve Tory peers. Marlborough was dismissed
from his command, charged with peculation, and condemned as
guilty by a vote of the House of Commons. He at once withdrew
from England, and with his withdrawal all opposition to the
peace was at an end."
_J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
section 9, chapter 9._
{917}
Added to other reasons for opposition to the war, the death of
the Emperor Joseph I., which occurred in April, 1711, had
entirely reversed the situation in Europe out of which the war
proceeded. The Archduke Charles, whom the allies had been
striving to place on the Spanish throne, was now certain to be
elected Emperor. He received the imperial crown, in fact, in
December, 1711. By this change of fortune, therefore, he
became a more objectionable claimant of the Spanish crown than
Louis XIV. 's grandson had been.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.
_Earl Stanhope,
History of England, Reign of Anne,
chapters 12-15._