George the First's reign in which Walpole was Prime Minister,
was easy. ... His political fortunes seemed to be ruined by
George the First's death [1727]. That King's successor had
ransacked a very copious vocabulary of abuse, in order to
stigmatise the minister and his associates. Rogue and rascal,
scoundrel and fool, were his commonest utterances when Robert
Walpole's name was mentioned. ... Walpole bowed meekly to the
coming storm," and an attempt was made to put Sir Spencer
Compton in his place. But Compton himself, as well as the king
and his sagacious queen, soon saw the futility of it, and the
old ministry was retained. "At first, Walpole was associated
with his brother-in-law, Townsend. But they soon disagreed,
and the rupture was total after the death of Walpole's sister,
Townsend's wife. ... After Townsend's dismissal, Walpole
reigned alone, if, indeed, he could be said to exercise sole
functions while Newcastle was tied to him. Long before he was
betrayed by this person, of whom he justly said that his name
was perfidy, he knew how dangerous was the association. But
Newcastle was the largest proprietor of rotten boroughs in the
kingdom, and, fool and knave as he was, he had wit enough to
guess at his own importance, and knavery enough to make his
market. Walpole's chief business lay in managing the King, the
Queen, the Church, the House of Commons, and perhaps the
people. I have already said, that before his accession George
hated Walpole. But there are hatreds and hatreds, equal in
fervency while they last, but different in duration. The King
hated Walpole because he had served his father well. But one
George was gone, and another George was in possession. Then
came before the man in possession the clear vision of
Walpole's consummate usefulness. The vision was made clearer
by the sagacious hints of the Queen. It became clear as
noonday when Walpole contrived to add £115,000 to the civil
list. ... Besides, Walpole was sincerely determined to support
the Hanoverian succession. He constantly insisted to George
that the final settlement of his House on the throne would be
fought out in England. ... Hence he was able to check one of
the King's ruling passions, a longing to engage in war. ...
{921}
It is generally understood that Walpole managed the House of
Commons by bribery; that the secret service money was thus
employed: and that this minister was the father of that
corruption which was reported to have disgraced the House
during the first half of the last century. I suspect that
these influences have been exaggerated. It is a stock story
that Walpole said he knew every man's price. It might have
been generally true, but the foundation of this apothegm is,
in all likelihood, a recorded saying of his about certain
members of the opposition. ... Walpole has been designated,
and with justice, as emphatically a peace minister. He held
'that the most pernicious circumstances in which this country
can be, are those of war, as we must be great losers while the
war lasts, and cannot be great gainers when it ends.' He kept
George the Second at peace, as well as he could, by insisting
on it that the safety of his dynasty lay in avoiding foreign
embroilments. He strove in vain against the war which broke
out in 1739. ... I do not intend to disparage Walpole's
administrative ability when I say that the country prospered
independently of any financial policy which he adopted or
carried out. ... Walpole let matters take their course, for he
understood that the highest merit of a minister consists in
his doing no mischief. But Walpole's praise lies in the fact,
that, with this evident growth of material prosperity, he
steadily set his face against gambling with it. He resolved,
as far as lay in his power, to keep the peace of Europe; and
he was seconded in his efforts by Cardinal Fleury. He
contrived to smooth away the difficulties which arose in 1727;
and on January 13, 1730, negotiated the treaty of Seville [see
SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731], the benefits of which lasted through
ten years of peace, and under which he reduced the army to
5,000 men." But the opposition to Walpole's peace policy
became a growing passion, which overcame him in 1741 and
forced him to resign. On his resignation he was raised to the
peerage, with the title of Earl of Orford, and defeated,
though with great difficulty, the determination of his enemies
to impeach him.
_J. E. T. Rogers,
Historical Gleanings,
volume 1, chapter 2._
"It is impossible, I think, to consider his [Walpole's] career
with adequate attention without recognising in him a great
minister, although the merits of his administration were often
rather negative than positive, and although it exhibits few of
those dramatic incidents, and is but little susceptible of
that rhetorical colouring, on which the reputation of
statesmen largely depends. ... He was eminently true to the
character of his countrymen. He discerned with a rare sagacity
the lines of policy most suited to their genius and to their
needs, and he had a sufficient ascendancy in English politics
to form its traditions, to give a character and a bias to its
institutions. The Whig party, under his guidance, retained,
though with diminished energy, its old love of civil and of
religious liberty, but it lost its foreign sympathies, its
tendency to extravagance, its military restlessness. The
landed gentry, and in a great degree the Church, were
reconciled to the new dynasty. The dangerous fissures which
divided the English nation were filled up. Parliamentary
government lost its old violence, it entered into a period of
normal and pacific action, and the habits of compromise, of
moderation, and of practical good sense, which are most
essential to its success, were greatly strengthened. These
were the great merits of Walpole. His faults were very
manifest, and are to be attributed in part to his own
character, but in a great degree to the moral atmosphere of
his time. He was an honest man in the sense of desiring
sincerely the welfare of his country and serving his sovereign
with fidelity; but he was intensely wedded to power,
exceedingly unscrupulous about the means of grasping or
retaining it, and entirely destitute of that delicacy of
honour which marks a high-minded man. ... His estimate of
political integrity was very similar to his estimate of female
virtue. He governed by means of an assembly which was
saturated with corruption, and he fully acquiesced in its
conditions and resisted every attempt to improve it. ... It is
necessary to speak with much caution on this matter,
remembering that no statesman can emancipate himself from the
conditions of his time. ... The systematic corruption of
Members of Parliament is said to have begun under Charles II.,
in whose reign it was practised to the largest extent. It was
continued under his successor, and the number of scandals
rather increased than diminished after the Revolution. ... And
if corruption did not begin with Walpole, it is equally
certain that it did not end with him. His expenditure of
secret service money, large as it was, never equalled in an
equal space of time the expenditure of Bute. ... The real
charge against him is that in a period of profound peace, when
he exercised an almost unexampled ascendancy in politics, and
when public opinion was strongly in favour of the diminution
of corrupt influence in Parliament, he steadily and
successfully resisted every attempt at reform. ... It was his
settled policy to maintain his Parliamentary majority, not by
attracting to his ministry great orators, great writers, great
financiers, or great statesmen, ... but simply by engrossing
borough influence and extending the patronage of the Crown."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter. 3 (volume 1)._
"But for Sir Robert Walpole, we should have had the Pretender
back again. But for his obstinate love of peace, we should
have had wars, which the nation was not strong enough nor
united enough to endure. But for his resolute counsels and
good-humoured resistance, we might have had German despots
attempting a Hanoverian regimen over us: we should have had
revolt, commotion, want, and tyrannous misrule, in place of a
quarter of a century of peace, freedom and material
prosperity, such as the country never enjoyed, until that
corrupter of parliaments, that dissolute tipsy cynic, that
courageous lover of peace and liberty, that great citizen,
patriot and statesman governed it. ... In private life the old
pagan revelled in the lowest pleasures: he passed his Sundays
tippling at Richmond; and his holidays bawling after dogs, or
boozing at Houghton with Boors over beef and punch. He cared
for letters no more than his master did: he judged human
nature so meanly that one is ashamed to have to own that he
was right, and that men could be corrupted by means so base.
But, with his hireling House of Commons, he defended liberty
for us; with his incredulity he kept Church-craft down. ... He
gave Englishmen no conquests, but he gave them peace, and
ease, and freedom; the Three per Cents. nearly at par; and
wheat at five and six and twenty shillings a quarter."
_W. M. Thackeray,
The Four Georges,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_W. Coxe,
Memoirs of Sir R. Walpole,
chapters 31-59 (volume 1)._
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 15-23 (volumes 2-3)._
_Lord Hervey,
Memoirs of the Reign of George II._
{922}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1731-1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1732.
The grant of Georgia to General Oglethorpe.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1733.
The first Bourbon Family Compact.
Its hostility to Great Britain.
See FRANCE, A. D. 1733.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1733-1787
The great inventions which built up the
Cotton Manufacture.
See COTTON MANUFACTURE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.
The War of Jenkins' Ear.
"In spite of Walpole's love of peace, and determined efforts
to preserve it, in the year 1739 a war broke out with Spain,
which is an illustration of the saying that the occasion of a
war may be trifling, though its real cause be very serious.
The war is often called the War of Jenkins' Ear. The story ran
that eight years before (1731) a certain Captain Jenkins,
skipper of the ship 'Rebecca,' of London, had been maltreated
by the Spaniards. His ship was sailing from Jamaica, and
hanging about the entrance of the Gulf of Florida, when it was
boarded by the Spanish coast guard. The Spaniards could find
no proof that Jenkins was smuggling, though they searched
narrowly, and being angry at their ill-success they hanged him
to the yardarm, lowering him just in time to save his life. At
length they pulled off his ear and told him to take it to his
king. ... Seven years later Captain Jenkins was examined by
the House of Commons, on which occasion some member asked him
how he felt when being maltreated, and Jenkins answered, 'I
recommended my soul to God and my cause to my country.' The
answer, whether made at the time or prepared for use in the
House of Commons, touched a chord of sympathy, and soon was
circulated through the country. 'No need of allies now,' said
one politician; 'the story of Jenkins will raise us
volunteers.' The truth of the matter is that this story from
its somewhat ridiculous aspect has remained in the minds of
men, but that it is only a specimen of many stories then
afloat, all pointing to insolence of Spaniards in insisting
upon what was after all strictly within their rights. But the
legal treaty rights of Spain were growing intolerable to
Englishmen, though not necessarily to the English Government;
and traders and sailors were breaking the international laws
which practically stopped the expansion of England in the New
World. The war arose out of a question of trade, in this as in
so many other cases the English being prepared to fight in
order to force an entrance for their trade, which the
Spaniards wished to shut out from Spanish America. This
question found a place amongst the other matters arranged by
the treaty of Utrecht, when the English obtained almost as
their sole return for their victories what was known as the
Assiento. This is a Spanish word meaning contract, but its use
had been for some time confined to the disgraceful privilege
of providing Spanish America with negroes kidnapped from their
homes in Africa. The Flemings, the Genoese, the Portuguese,
and the French Guinea Company received in turn from Spanish
kings the monopoly in this shameful traffic, which at the
treaty of Utrecht was passed on for a period of thirty years
to England, now becoming mistress of the seas, and with her
numerous merchant ships better able than others to carry on
the business. The English Government committed the contract to
the South Sea Company, and the number of negroes to be
supplied annually was no less than 4,800 'sound, healthy,
merchantable negroes, two-thirds to be male, none under ten or
over forty years old.' In the Assiento Treaty there was also a
provision for the trading of one English ship each year with
Spanish America; but in order to prevent too great advantage
therefrom it was carefully stipulated that the ship should not
exceed 600 tons burden. There is no doubt that this
stipulation was regularly violated by the English sending a
ship of the required number of tons, but with it numerous
tenders and smaller craft. Moreover smuggling, being very
profitable, became common; it was of this smuggling that
Captain Jenkins was accused. ... Walpole, always anxious for
peace, by argument, by negotiation, by delays, resisted the
growing desire for war; at length he could resist no longer.
For the sake of his reputation he should have resigned office,
but he had enjoyed power too long to be ready to yield it, and
most unwisely he allowed himself to be forced into a
declaration of war October 19, 1739. The news was received
throughout England with a perfect frenzy of delight. ... A
year and a day after this declaration of war an event
occurred--the death of the Emperor--which helped to swell the
volume of this war until it was merged into the European war,
called the War of the Austrian Succession, which includes
within itself the First and Second Silesian Wars, between
Austria and Frederick the Great of Prussia. The European war
went on until the general pacification in the treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle, 1748. Within another ten years war broke out
again on somewhat similar grounds, but on a much wider scale
and with the combatants differently arranged, under the title
'Seven Years' War.' The events of this year, whilst the war
was only between Spain and England, were the attacks on
Spanish settlements in America, the capture of Porto Bello,
and the failure before Cartagena, which led to Anson's famous
voyage."
_E. E. Morris,
The Early Hanoverians,
book 2, chapter 3._
"Admiral Vernon, setting sail with the English fleet from
Jamaica, captured Porto Bello, on the Isthmus of Darien,
December 1st--an exploit for which he received the thanks of
both Houses of Parliament. His attempt on Carthagena, in the
spring of 1741, proved, however, a complete failure through
his dissensions, it is said, with General Wentworth, the
commander of the land forces. A squadron, under Commodore
Anson, despatched to the South Sea for the purpose of annoying
the Spanish colonies of Peru and Chili, destroyed the Peruvian
town of Paita, and made several prizes; the most important of
which was one of the great Spanish galleons trading between
Acapulco and Manilla, having a large treasure on board. It was
on this occasion that Anson circumnavigated the globe, having
sailed from England in 1740 and returned to Spithead in 1744."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 3._
{923}
ALSO IN:
_R. Walter,
Voyage around the World of George Anson._
_Sir J. Barrow,
Life of Lord George Anson,
chapter 1-2._
_W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
chapter 43 (volume 3)._
See, also,
FRANCE, A. D. 1733,
and GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1740-1741.
Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1742.
Naval operations in the Mediterranean.
See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.
Ministries of Carteret and the Pelhams,
Pitt's admission to the Cabinet.
"Walpole resigned in the beginning of February, 1742; but his
retirement did not bring Pitt into office. The King had
conceived a violent prejudice against him, not only on account
of the prominent and effective part he had taken in the
general assault upon the late administration, but more
especially in consequence of the strong opinions he had
expressed on the subject of Hanover, and respecting the public
mischiefs arising from George the Second's partiality to the
interests of the Electorate. Lord Wilmington was the nominal
head of the new administration, which was looked on as little
more than a weak continuation of Walpole's. The same character
was generally given to Pelham's ministry, (Pelham succeeded
Wilmington as Premier, on the death of the latter in 1743,)
and Pitt soon appeared in renewed opposition to the Court. It
was about this time that he received a creditable and
convenient addition to his private fortune, which also
attested his celebrity. In 1744, the celebrated Duchess of
Marlborough died, leaving him a legacy' of 10,000 l. on
account of his merit in the noble defence he has made of the
laws of England, to prevent the ruin of his country.' Pitt was
now at the head of a small but determined band of Opposition
statesmen, with whom he was also connected by intermarriages
between members of their respective families and his own.
These were Lord Cobham, the Grenvilles, and his schoolfellow
Lord Lyttelton. The genius of Pitt had made the opposition of
this party so embarrassing to the minister, that Mr. Pelham,
the leader of the House of Commons, and his brother, the Duke
of Newcastle, found it necessary to get rid of Lord Carteret,
who was personally most obnoxious to the attacks of Pitt, on
account of his supposed zeal in favour of the King's
Hanoverian policy. Pitt's friends, Lyttelton and Grenville,
were taken into the ministry [called the Broad-bottomed
Administration], and the undoubted wish of the Pelhams was to
enlist Pitt also among their colleagues. But 'The great Mr.
Pitt,' says old Horace Walpole--using in derision an epithet
soon confirmed by the serious voice of the country--'the great
Mr. Pitt insisted on being Secretary at War';--but it was
found that the King's aversion to him was insurmountable; and
after much reluctance and difficulty, his friends were
persuaded to accept office without him, under an assurance
from the Duke of Newcastle that 'he should at no distant day
be able to remove this prejudice from his Majesty's mind.'
Pitt concurred in the new arrangement, and promised to give
his support to the remodelled administration. ... On the
breaking out of the rebellion of 1745, Pitt energetically
supported the ministry in their measures to protect the
established government. George the Second's prejudices
against him, were, however, as strong as ever. At last a sort
of compromise was effected. Pitt waived for a time his demand
of the War Secretaryship, and on the 22nd of February, 1746,
he was appointed one of the joint Vice-treasurers for Ireland;
and on the 6th of May following he was promoted to the more
lucrative office of Paymaster-General of the Forces. ... In
his office of Paymaster of the Forces Pitt set an example then
rare among statesmen, of personal disinterestedness. He held
what had hitherto been an exceedingly lucrative situation: for
the Paymaster seldom had less than 100,000 l. in his hands,
and was allowed to appropriate the interest of what funds he
held to his own use. In addition to this it had been customary
for foreign princes in the pay of England to allow the
Paymaster of the Forces a per-centage on their subsidies. Pitt
nobly declined to avail himself of these advantages, and would
accept of nothing beyond his legal salary."
_Sir E. Creasy,
Memoirs of Eminent Etonians,
chapter 4._
"From Walpole's death in 1745, when the star of the Stuarts
set for ever among the clouds of Culloden, to 1754, when Henry
Pelham followed his old chief, public life in England was
singularly calm and languid. The temperate and peaceful
disposition of the Minister seemed to pervade Parliament. At
his death the King exclaimed: 'Now I shall have no more
peace'; and the words proved to be prophetic. Both in
Parliament and in the country, as well as beyond its shores,
the elements of discord were swiftly at war. Out of
conflicting ambitions and widely divergent interests a new
type of statesman, very different from Walpole, or from
Bolingbroke, or from Pelham, or from the 'hubble-bubble
Newcastle,' was destined to arise. And along with the new
statesman a new force, of which he was in part the
representative, in part the creator, was to be introduced into
political life. This new force was the unrepresented voice of
the people. The new statesman was an ex-cornet of horse,
William Pitt, better known as Lord Chatham. The
characteristics of William Pitt which mainly influenced his
career were his ambition and his ill-health. Power, and that
conspicuous form of egotism called personal glory, were the
objects of his life. He pursued them with all the ardour of a
strong-willed purpose; but the flesh was in his case painfully
weak. Gout had declared itself his foe while he was still an
Eton boy. His failures, and prolonged withdrawal at intervals
from public affairs, were due to the inroads of this fatal
enemy, from whom he was destined to receive his death-blow.
Walpole had not been slow to recognise the quality of this
'terrible cornet of horse,' as he called him."
_R. B. Brett,
Footprints of Statesmen,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 24-28 (volume 3)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1743.
The British Pragmatic Army.
Battle of Dettingen.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
The second Bourbon Family Compact.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1743-1752.
Struggle of French and English for supremacy in India.
The founding of British empire by Clive.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1744-1745.
War of the Austrian Succession:
Hostilities in America.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744: and 1745.
{924}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1745 (MAY).
War of the Austrian Succession in the Netherlands.
Fontenoy.
See NETHERLANDS (THE AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
The Young Pretender's invasion.
Last rising of the Jacobites.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1747.
War of the Austrian Succession
British incapacity.
Final successes at Sea.
"The extraordinary incapacity of English commanders, both by
land and sea, is one of the most striking facts in the war we
are considering. ... Mismanagement and languor were general.
The battle of Dettingen was truly described as a happy escape
rather than a great victory; the army in Flanders can hardly
be said to have exhibited any military quality except courage,
and the British navy, though it gained some successes, added
little to its reputation. The one brilliant exception was the
expedition of Anson round Cape Horn, for the purpose of
plundering the Spanish merchandise and settlements in the
Pacific. It lasted for nearly four years. ... The overwhelming
superiority of England upon the sea began, however, gradually
to influence the war. The island of Cape Breton, which
commanded the mouth of Gulf St. Lawrence, and protected the
Newfoundland fisheries, was captured in the June of 1745. In
1747 a French squadron was destroyed by a very superior
English fleet off Cape Finisterre. Another was defeated near
Belleisle, and in the same year as many as 644 prizes were
taken. The war on the part of the English, however, was most
efficiently conducted by means of subsidies, which were
enormously multiplied."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1746-1747.
War of the Austrian Succession in Italy.
Siege of Genoa.
See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1748 (OCTOBER).
End and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748;
and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1748-1754.
First movements to dispute possession of the Ohio Valley with
the French.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1749-1755.
Unsettled boundary disputes with France in America.
Preludes of the final contest.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755;
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1751.
Reformation of the Calendar.
See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1753.
The Jewish Naturalization Bill.
See JEWS: A. D. 1662-1753.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1754.
Collision with the French in the Ohio Valley.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.
The Seven Years War.
Its causes and provocations.