Prince George created Prince of Wales--The Regency Bill--Murray’s
case in the King’s Bench--Speech of Lord Bath--His
character--Speeches in the House of Lords on the Regency Bill--It
is brought to the Commons, and opposed by the Speaker--Character
of Speaker Onslow--Debate in the House of Commons on this
Bill--Character of Horace Lord Walpole--Speeches of Pitt and
Fox--The Regency Bill read a third time in the House of Commons,
and passed.
April 25th.--Prince George kissed the King’s hand on being created
Prince of Wales.
26th.--Sir John Phillips moved the King’s Bench for a Habeas Corpus
for Murray, which was granted. Sir John was a man of a worse
character than parts, though they were not shining. He had quitted
Parliament on the desperate situation of the Jacobite cause, after
having attempted during the last Rebellion to get the Subscriptions
and Associations for the King declared illegal; and was now retired
to Oxford, the sanctuary of disaffection.
The King sent a Message to both Houses to desire they would pass
an Act for appointing the Princess Dowager of Wales, Regent, with
proper limitations, in case he died before the Prince was eighteen.
The Duke of Newcastle, seconded by the Duke of Devonshire, opened
it in the House of Lords; Mr. Pelham, and the Chancellor’s eldest
son[110], in the Commons. Both the brothers made awkward and
ill-placed panegyrics on the Duke; and Addresses of Thanks were
voted.
27th.--Murray was brought by Habeas Corpus into the King’s Bench;
but, three Judges allowing the validity of a commitment by the
House of Commons, he was remanded to Newgate.
May 1st.--The Regency Bill was to have been brought into the
House of Lords, but was deferred, to be softened a little, upon
objections made by the Bishop of London to the unprecedented
powers that the Council had given themselves in it. The Chancellor
drew it; and for the honour of his profession had contrived to
show that a legal tyranny might be formed as despotic as the
most usurped authority. And lest it should shock a free people,
and draw an odium on the Government, he had submitted to bear
the greatest share of the envy himself; for, though the Bill was
directed to establish the power of the Pelhams, the Chancellor was
likely to have the amplest share by his own voice, and those of
his creatures, the Archbishop, the Chief Justice Lee, and my Lord
Anson, his son-in-law, whom they designed for first Lord of the
Admiralty, though on the original plan, that Officer was omitted in
the Council of Regency, because they had not then determined to
remove Lord Sandwich.
3rd.--A question was proposed to the House by Sir William Yonge,
whether such members as were named to be servants to the new Prince
of Wales were to vacate their seats, as their appointment was by
the King. Stone and John Selwyn were of the number. It was agreed
in the negative without a Motion.
7th.--The Duke of Newcastle opened the Regency Bill in the House of
Lords, and it was read the first time without opposition.
10th.--The committee in the Lords on the Regency Bill. Earl
Stanhope, whose studies were mathematical, and principles
republican, to the honour of which, though without any parts,
he had acted steadily in Opposition, when Jacobites and
Royalist-Whigs, and men of all other denominations had changed
for every other denomination, opposed the clause that gave the
Regent a Council; an opinion that was rather more consistent with
the effect of his principles, to oppose a Regal Government, than
with his principles themselves; but it was carried by 98 against
him, and the Earls of Thanet, Shaftesbury, Oxford, and Lichfield,
the Viscount Hereford and Townshend, and the Lords Ward, Maynard,
Foley, Romney, and Talbot.
Lord Bath then made as miscellaneous a speech as he used to do
in the House of Commons; objecting to the not leaving the Regent
power to displace any of the inferior Commissioners of Treasury or
Admiralty; and weeping actual tears when he mentioned the possible
event of the King’s death. This duteous dew was followed by a joke
on Harry Vane[111], formerly his tool and spy, now in that office
to the Pelhams, and a wonderful Lord of the Treasury, who, whenever
he was drunk, told all he knew, and when he was sober more than he
knew, and whom Lord Bath said, on seeing there, he did not mean to
propose removing. Then soaring up to a panegyric on the Princess,
he observed, that female reigns in England had not been the least
glorious, and yet the great Princess, who was likely to figure with
the Elizabeths and the Annes, would not be empowered to reward
merit, or to place, if she found such an one, a proper person at
the head of the Treasury: that she even would not have authority to
appoint her own son, Prince Edward, Lord High Admiral, nor to grant
convoys to any merchants who solicited for them: that indeed she
might tell the merchants she would use her interest with Parliament
to get this Bill altered, and then she would protect them. He then
(it is very true he said so) wished that all employments were for
life, or _quam diù_ those who held them _se benè gesserint_; and
professed (it is even true that he professed) having been ashamed
of the struggles he had seen for places, half of which he wished
were to be diminished at the King’s death, and the salaries to be
applied to the Sinking Fund: that, having been lately in France,
he had observed that the weight of their debt is the debts on
employments. He concluded with declaring he liked the Bill, and did
not mean to oppose it.
Lord Bath[112] is so known a character, that it is almost needless
to draw him. Who does not know that Mr. Pulteney was the great
rival of Sir Robert Walpole, whose power he so long opposed, at
last overturned, and was undone with it? Who does not know that
his virtue failed the moment his inveteracy was gratified? Who does
not know that all the patriot’s private vices, which his party
would not see while he led them, were exposed, and, if possible,
magnified by them the instant he deserted them? Who does not know
that he had not judgment or resolution enough to engross the
power, which he had forfeited his credit and character to obtain?
and who does not know that his ambition, treachery, irresolution,
timidity, and want of judgment were baffled[113] and made advantage
of by a man who had all those vices and deficiencies in a stronger
proportion--for who does not know the Duke of Newcastle?
The Chancellor answered Lord Bath upon some points of form that he
had mentioned in the drawing Commissions for the Boards of Treasury
and Admiralty, but owned that it was indifferent to him whether
that clause in the Bill were altered or not. Lord Bath confessed
himself in a mistake, having concluded that a single alteration
vacated the whole Commission. Dr. Maddox, Bishop of Worcester,
who did not want parts, wanted them now, making a bad speech, and
objected that the Princess, who might make a Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland, would not have authority to make a Baron of the Exchequer
there; and he proposed her having the disposal of all offices in
general. The Duke of Newcastle, who had too much good-nature, or
too much jealousy, to let anybody else be eminently ridiculous
where he was present, replied in a tone of raillery, “that the
nomination of Bishops and Judges had been previously excepted,
because the first thoughts of the compilers of the Bill had been
directed to the security of our souls and properties, and had
been taken from the Regent, because she might not know the true
character of such Divines as were recommended to her.” And, lest
even this nonsense should wear the appearance of an argument, his
Grace added, that he could not help remembering what had been
said when the Act of Union passed, that there were already in the
English House of Lords twenty-six immortal Peers, meaning his good
Lords the Bishops, who he hoped would all deserve immortality.
Lord Talbot, a Lord of good parts, only that they had rather
more bias to “extravagance” than sense, opposed the clause for
continuing the Parliament for three years after the King’s death;
talked over the nature of Government, asserted that the contests
arrived in England during minorities had not arisen from new
elections; and said, that “they might make laws with relation to
future Parliaments, but had no power to extend the duration of the
present.” Lord Talbot[114] was a sworn enemy to the Chancellor
from some family jealousies, and soon after his father’s death and
Yorke’s elevation, who had made a speech against some advantages
that were demanded for the Prince of Wales, Lord Talbot said, “He
should certainly submit to such high authority, if he had not in
his hand an opinion directly contrary, which he could not help
thinking of equal weight.” It was expected that he was going to
read a judgment of his father, but it was an opinion which the
present Chancellor himself had given, when he was Attorney-General,
on a parallel case referred to his and Talbot’s judgment in the
late reign, when the present King had figured in the character of a
mutinous Prince of Wales.
Lord Granville replied to Lord Talbot, “That it was the
parliamentary clause that gave stability to the whole Bill, and
hoped we should even have enacted it without a message from the
Throne. That Rebellions were best carried on during elections;
that it had been the policy of Louis the Fourteenth to foment
them here at that season; and that he had had an opportunity, when
last Secretary of State, of knowing, among the secrets which had
not come to light, that it had been an advice given in the Council
of France during the very last Rebellion, to wait for a general
election.” He declared his approbation of the restrictions, not
that they would, he hoped, be necessary in the present case, but
as they would be a precedent for, and of service to posterity. The
Bishop of London made no opposition, and the Bill was committed by
106 to 12, Lord Townshend voting for the latter clauses, and Lord
Folkestone against them.
The Duke of Bedford was laid up with the gout and rheumatism, but
was very eager to have gone to the House and opposed the whole
tenour of the restrictions. His friends apprehending that it would
undo him with the King (who had been made to believe that this
act against his own son was of his own direction), used all their
endeavours to dissuade him, and succeeded pretty easily after
the first division, which had been composed of so few, and those
such insignificant Lords. Lord Sandwich, who was not impatient to
precipitate his own fall, voted, with the Duke’s consent, for every
part of the Bill.
13th.--The Lords read the Regency Bill the third time, and sent it
to the Commons, who read it immediately. Mr. Pelham opened it, and
moved for its being read a second time. Sir Francis Dashwood made
several objections to it, and asked “What was the intent of the
Duke’s being the head of the Council of Regency? a question, he
said, simply of curiosity, for he did not desire he should have any
power. If this Bill was calculated to pare away the prerogative,
he wished the Parliament would set about it roundly, and stickle
for a new Magna Charta. He observed that there was no provision
made, in case the Princess should die before the determination
of her Regency; and he feared her being displeased with these
very strict limitations.” He attended the Bill no more, which he
foresaw would pass by a great majority, after he had satisfied
himself with declaring against it. He was a man of sense without
eloquence, and of humour without good humour: naturally inclined
to adventures, and had early in his life made a voyage to Russia,
dressed like Charles the Twelfth, in hopes of making the Czarina
Anne fall in love with him--an improper hero to copy, when a woman
was to be captivated! Oglethorpe found more faults in the Bill;
Nugent commended it extravagantly. Lord Limerick too approved it,
but observed a want of provision, in case the King died during a
dissolution of Parliament, or before a new-elected one had sat.
The Attorney-General answered him, and the two other opponents,
and declared his opinion, that a new chosen Parliament, even
before a session, would answer the purposes described in the Bill:
but the Solicitor-General thought that it must be the dissolved
Parliament that should re-assemble. The Attorney[115] was a man
of singular goodness and integrity; of the highest reputation
in his profession, of the lowest in the House, where he wearied
the audience by the multiplicity of his arguments; resembling the
Physician who ordered a medicine to be composed of all the simples
in a meadow, as there must be some of them at least that would
be proper. T. Pitt and Sydenham spoke against the Bill; Dr. Lee
in approbation of the Council, as a safeguard to the Regent, and
treated the nomination to offices as a trifle. Henley spoke for the
Bill, but agreeing with Lord Limerick’s observation. Mr. Pelham
then proposed to read it a second time on the morrow. T. Pitt asked
for a longer day, and to have the Bill printed, and was seconded
by Sir John Cotton; but on Mr. Pelham’s opposing it, there was no
division. The House sat till past seven.
14th.--The Regency Bill was read a second time, and opposed only by
Mr. Delaval, in a very absurd speech, which he asked pardon for not
having made the day before, which was the first of his sitting in
Parliament.
16th.--The House went into the Committee on the Regency Bill, when
Mr. Pelham, who had apprehended no considerable opposition, was
in the Chair. T. Pitt moved to refer the King’s Message to the
Committee; Vyner to adjourn till the Bill could be printed; but as
the House generally suffered him to be singular in his opinion,
nobody seconded him now. Prowse, who affected to be in Opposition,
what Mr. Pelham affected to be in power, candid, and who was, like
Mr. Pelham, a man of some sense without parts, said, “That when
this Bill should be passed, he supposed the King would not remove
any of the great Officers who were to compose the Regency, as they
would tacitly have had the approbation of Parliament; indeed, of
what must they be guilty to justify turning them out after this
approbation?” That it would be quoted hereafter by ambitious
subjects, who should want to engraft themselves upon the Regal
Authority, that even this Parliament had strictly tied up the hands
of a Princess, whom they affected so much to commend; that the
Royal Power can’t be divided into many hands; and that if this Bill
passed, the nation ought _indeed_ to pray for the King’s life.
Lord Strange and Sir Roger Newdigate both spoke against the Bill;
and Charles Yorke, second son to the Chancellor, a young lawyer
of good parts, but precise and affected, for it. He said, “That
there were but two instances of a Parliamentary Regency, those
of Richard the Second and Henry the Sixth, and in both those,
Councils had been established by Parliament; that the confusions
of those minorities flowed from the advice of Parliament not being
followed: that the Duke of Gloucester, on his brother’s going to
France, applied to Parliament for directions how to act, and was
told by them, that his power was limited, and accordingly had only
the title of Protector conferred on him: that this clause puts the
Princess under a happy inability of doing wrong; and that it would
quiet jealousies, if there be a subject among us who could create
suspicion.”
Fazakerley made remarks upon the Bill, without directly opposing
it; and then Mr. Onslow (the Speaker) with a solemnity never more
properly assumed, made a noble and affecting speech against it.
“He professed that he would not have begun an opposition to the
Bill, but could not avoid, when once it was opened, to declare
that he thought the regulations dangerous; and that having so
much studied the constitution, as it was his duty to do, he was
obliged to speak his opinion. It was, that the Regal Power must
not be divided; that control is dividing it; that it never ought
to be controlled, except when abused; that instead of one King, we
should have nine; that the Council might put a negative on what
the Regent should propose; that to control, is to give the power
to those who control; that if the Council refuse to make peace
or war, the Regent must submit; that this control is placed in
the hands of those she will not be able to control; that the best
Regent we ever had, the Earl of Pembroke, in Harry the Third’s
time, was a single Regent; a good man, but his virtue was assisted
by his undivided power. That he foresaw there would be dissensions
among themselves; though he had a high opinion of those designed,
yet will they not be men? Power corrupts the best understandings;
factions in the Regency may derive themselves into both Houses,
and those who should correct, may become parties in the grievance.
In Edward the Sixth’s time, though the reformation of religion was
then in question, did it check the animosities in the Council?
Even then, letters-patent were obtained in contradiction to an
Act of Parliament, which had limited the Protector’s authority.
That though any members of the future Council will be removeable
by address to Parliament, how will such address be obtained
against the most turbulent? Nay, Parliament may be under a long
prorogation, and the Regent, all helpless, will see nothing but
factions in the Council that should assist her. How distressed will
be her condition, how distressed the condition of her children,
of the nation! I wish well,” continued he, “to those who will
have the power, a power that nobody will envy them! Though it
has the appearance of establishing that power of which I am the
most apprehensive! I must--I will speak my duty! It may be for
the service of those who procure this Bill. Why, if the power of
peace and war is to be delegated, why is it not entrusted to the
Parliament? I hope we are not to address the Council for either!
Nay, if we should submit to that humiliation, what, if they should
slight, as they may, our application? What a solecism in this
constitution to have Parliament contradicted by nine persons!”
He then made a solemn prayer for the King’s life, as the only
preservative against this plan of power, which, he said, if it ever
took effect, would exceed all the evils that could be foreseen
from a single Regent. For himself, he had nothing to ask, nothing
to fear, and whenever he should cease to serve the House, he knew
whither only he would go. He then entered upon that monstrous
clause, which subjects to the penalties of a præmunire whoever
shall attempt any alteration of this system after it be enacted.
He argued with great weight on the prodigious danger of it, and
mentioned a test proposed in 1675 to oblige members to take an oath
not to attempt any alteration in the State. It held a Debate of
seventeen days, and at last the House of Lords resolved, that such
a test would not affect Debates in Parliament, or restrain them. He
said, that if members should meet privately to concert measures for
the repeal of this law, it might be construed into a præmunire; and
many lives had been taken away by construction. He concluded with
an earnest asseveration of the uprightness of his intention, and a
serious protest against the mischiefs of the Bill.
Mr. Pelham was inexpressibly shocked at this speech, though he had
no reason not to have apprehended it. The Speaker had been at the
private meetings on the Bill, where he disputed warmly with the
Chancellor. Their cabal said that he acquiesced; that when he had
given his reasons and found they had no weight, he had said no
more--was that acquiescing? They even said that he agreed to the
general plan on their softening some points, which at last they did
not soften. On sketching out some correction of the most flagrant
strokes of power, the Duke of Newcastle had said, “Now they had
reduced the Bill to nothing!” The Speaker replied, “I wish it was!
it would be better for you. If it is nothing, it is a reason for
not doing it.” This argument probably struck them, and so they did
all they first intended. He told Mr. Fox, that they might have
softened it with regard to the Duke, by declaring it was the tenour
of the English constitution. Mr. Fox assured him, that the Duke had
said, “My Lord Chancellor told me, no such declaration could be
made, because circumstances might happen to make it inconvenient.
That crisis,” continued the Duke, “must be when I am out of the
question.”
The Speaker was master of an honesty, which though it would
bend very much upon most occasions, especially when its warping
would prop its reputation, was tough and steady when pushed
to an extremity: and he would sometimes see that extremity as
soon in trifles as in materials. His disinterestedness[116] was
remarkable, and he was fond of exerting it. Popularity was his
great aim, impartiality his professed means, universal adulation
and partiality to whatever was popular, his real means of acquiring
it. He was bigoted to the power of the House of Commons; and,
like all zealots, ardent for his own authority, as intimately
connected with the interests of his idol. He had much devotion from
the House, few friends in it, for he was too pompous to be loved,
though too ridiculous to be hated; had too much knowledge not to be
regarded; too much dignity in his appearance not to be admired; and
was too fond of applause not to miss it.
The Speaker was answered in a long deduction by the
Attorney-General, and by Charles Yorke, who said, that on the first
Regency Bill after the Revolution, ten Judges had given their
opinions that the regal power may be both delegated and divided.
Lord Strange asked shrewdly, “If it was probable that there would
be no dissensions in the Council of Regency, which was to be
composed of the present Ministry? Survey them; with what cordiality
have they concurred in all measures for some years! May not it
happen, that if the Regent should refuse[117] to employ some person
recommended by them, the junto may threaten to _resign?_ an insult,
such as within my own time I have almost seen offered to a crowned
head! We shall see all that repeated scramble for power, that I
have two or three times seen acted over. Can the Duke be removed
by address of Parliament? I won’t say that he is most likely to do
mischief, but certainly he is most capable of doing it. As to the
præmunire clause, the person who drew it deserves to incur it.”
Murray, the Solicitor-General, said, “He did not wonder there were
but few precedents to direct them of a Prince thinking thus greatly
of his own death, and providing for emergencies to arise after it:
that the Law of England knows no minority: if the person of the
minor King should be seized by force, his power would accompany
the possession of his person: that this Bill creates a minority,
and provides against the evils of it: that in private cases,
no guardian has the whole power over an estate, that his ward
will have when he comes of age; that no Prince, even in absolute
governments, ever appointed a Regency without control; that all the
members of the future Regency must be thought proper persons by the
King; that the great officers specified must be named by him; and
the four others whom he is to appoint by his will must be entirely
of his own choice; that there are but three acts of legislation
which the Regent and the two Houses cannot perform--altering the
established succession, the established religion in England, and
the Presbyterian church government in Scotland; that members of
Parliament are not restrained from taking measures to get this law
repealed; that the prohibition is levelled against altering what
shall be done by the Regency, not against altering the Bill, and
clause of præmunire. He asked whether it was wished that the Regent
should be made too powerful for the Council and both Houses of
Parliament; and whether even a King ever made a Judge without the
approbation of at least three of his Council? and he added, that it
would be a solecism to say that the Council should be a check upon
the Regent, and yet be removeable by her as easily as she pleased.
That she would have a strong control upon them, as they would not
have power even to make a Judge without her; nor be able to move
anything without her concurrence. With regard to what the Speaker
had urged on the delegation of the power of making peace and war,
he asked, if there was no difference between entrusting it to a
Council of seven hundred men, who take all the inhabitants of this
country to their assistance, and a Council of twelve persons?”
Mr. Fox then declared himself for the Bill though he spoke against
almost every part of it; and being afterwards told by Mr. Pelham
peevishly, that Pitt’s was the finest speech he ever heard, but
that he (Fox) had not spoke like himself; he replied, “I know it;
if I had, I should have said ten times more against the Bill;” but
he objected that the præmunire clause was a little ambiguously
worded, and that if the person who penned it was aware how wrong
it was, he indeed deserved to incur all the weight of it. “Can
fourteen persons[118],” said he, “have power, and not want more
than their share? and if the Regent and her Council should proclaim
the young King major a year before the time specified, would not a
man in the street who hallooed at such proclamation be liable to a
præmunire?” “The crime,” he added, “was too uncertainly described
for such heavy punishment, and of all times a minority is the
worst to subject the people to penal laws.” He would have had the
whole clause omitted, because every man, without being a lawyer,
ought to know what the Regent can or cannot do. He asserted, that
as the Chancellor is named in the Bill to be necessarily of the
Regency, the putting the Great Seal in Commission would violate the
Act. If they would not erase the whole clause, he proposed that
the punishment annexed should be impeachment, as it could only be
meant to come at great persons who should attempt to disturb the
Settlement. Mr. Pelham, from the chair, told him angrily that this
was not the clause then in debate, but the first clause, which
passed without a division about seven o’clock.
Norris Bertie then spoke against the whole Bill, thinking penal
laws dangerous in the hands of ten subjects equal to himself, and
that he was serving his country while he delayed the Bill even by
speaking. Sir John Barnard declared against appointing a Council,
and affirmed that the consideration of the person intended for
Regent ought to have weight in the Debate, though the contrary
was asserted; that while she was controlled, we should have no
kingly authority; the more preposterous, as he could foresee no
inconveniences from the Princess’s enjoying it; that the nation
might want some of its great officers, unless she should always
name such persons as should be agreeable to the junto, who would
have means of inducing the Parliament to pass Acts disagreeable to
her, at the same time, that without them she would not have power
to dissolve or prorogue it. He concluded with desiring it should be
known that he was utterly against the Council. Harding, a sensible
knowing man, but who having been many years clerk to the House,
was not well received as a speaker, said, “that the mischiefs of
former Regencies arose from a neglect of proper restrictions; and
he quoted Chancellor Oxenstiern, who, on the death of Gustavus
Adolphus, had given his advice to the senate of Sweden to compose
a mixed Regency, but not to appoint a sole Regent, or a Council of
Regency without a Regent. He added, that in his opinion even the
Duke might be removed from the Council.” This frank delivery of
his sentiments was the more honest, as he was actually the Duke’s
Attorney.
Nugent made a bombast speech about an angel; and then Lord Cobham
(the only one of the cousin-hood who could not be turned out,
having no place; Lyttelton and George Grenville had both without
doors, like him) declared against the Council. He said, “He could
not figure a weaker government than what they were chalking out;
and as if there were not factions enough in the legislative power,
they were laying a foundation for as many in the executive, and
were destroying a Bill, which, if the Council clause were omitted,
would be the most popular that ever was passed; that he had come
to the House resolving to acquiesce even in this, as he thought it
would be happy if it were universally assented to; but when others
had made objections, he could not suppress his, which was to the
Council, not to the continuance of the Parliament; that the House
of Commons might perhaps address the Regent to remove some of the
Council, while the House of Lords might vote an approbation of the
same persons; at the same time that the Parliament could not be
dissolved but by an irremovable Council, the usual way of putting
a stop to differences between the two Houses. He then turned
absurdly to an apology for himself, as people do who are fearful or
conscious, and hoped his behaviour was free from reproach; that he
did not like cutting the Government out into sippets; but desired
to be understood to have a good opinion of some, of many that were
to compose the Council; and hoped that those (he approved) would
never be removed from her Royal Highness’s ear; at the same time
he believed that those who brought in the Bill did not foresee
all the power of the Council; nor would he himself consent to the
prolongation of the Parliament, if he thought it was calculated for
bad purposes.”
Lord Cobham[119] was the absolute creature of Pitt; vehement
in whatever faction he was engaged, and as mischievous as his
understanding would let him be, which is not saying he was very
bad. He had kept less measures with Mr. Pelham than any of his
connexion, and had not spoke to him above once for the last six
months. He was more a gentleman than his brother George[120], who
was a pedant in politics, but less deceitful. James[121], the
youngest of the three, had all the defects of his brothers, and had
turned them to the best account. All of them were troubled with a
redundancy of words peculiar to their family, though without the
energy of Pitt’s language, or the hyperbole of Lyttelton’s.
Martin spoke for the clause, and said, “the King could not have
a separate interest from his people, the Princess might; witness
Queen Isabella and her[122] minion Mortimer: that if this precedent
were established, it could not hereafter be set aside, if the young
King’s mother should happen to be a bad woman; and that, if the
conduct of the Princess were a foundation for entrusting her with
the sole power, it was so amiable and estimable, that the argument
would go to giving her absolute power.” Sir John Cotton disapproved
of the latitude given to the King, of naming four persons to
be of the Council by a testamentary disposition, and of whom
the House could know nothing. Pitt declared he had no objection
to the Council, as he could find no traces of a Regent without
control; and then (as if all mankind had forgot his ingratitude to
the Prince, as he had his obligations to him) he pronounced the
present case doubly aggravated by the loss of the most _patriot_
Prince that ever lived, to whom he had such infinite obligations,
and such early attachments, which he was proud to transfer to his
family. Then turning to the King, whom he regarded with wonder for
exerting a fortitude which Edward the Third had not been master
of, he blessed the Crown when it was the first to lessen the royal
authority, as it had been in the present case, by pointing out
these limitations, so expedient, as dangers were to be foreseen
from abroad--from at home, if we considered the great person who
might have become sole Regent. What a precedent would that have
been for futurity, if hereafter any ambitious person should think
less of protecting the Crown than of wearing it! With regard to the
Princess, the limitations were of no consequence, for let her but
hint to Parliament at any improper negative given by the Council to
her recommendation, an address would immediately be offered to her
to remove them. He desired, if that event should ever happen, to be
put in mind of what he now said, and he would second the Motion.
Fox replied, “that it was an absurd notion not to give the Princess
the whole power of royalty, because she was not called Queen; and
he hoped that the nation was not only safe from the characters
of the persons who were to compose the Council, but from the
constitution; and if that, and the laws already in force, were not
sufficient to circumscribe the Regent, our liberties would not be
safe; that if those laws would not be efficient under a Regent,
how are they so under a King? That as to the precedents that had
been alleged, they were urged ridiculously; must this be assented
to because it was so in the days of Harry the Third, when the
constitution was totally unlike what it is now? Half of the Regency
nominated by Henry the Eighth were Papists, half Protestants;
was that disposition preferable to a single Regent? No; it was
formed for dissension; nor is there one reason to be drawn from
precedent, or from the nature of our constitution. Should we follow
the example of the Barons? The only reason to imitate them would
be, that the times are unlike. Oxenstiern’s advice too is totally
unapplicable: not,” continued he, “that I believe the Council
will obstruct the Regent’s measures; I believe they will assist
her: but if they should not, whoever should advise her to make a
speech to Parliament to accuse her Ministers, would be guilty of
a præmunire.” Pitt answered, “That the tendency of such a speech
would not be to alter the plan of Regency, but to check a faction;
that what he had said regarded the clause of non-amotion; and
that he was of Mr. Fox’s opinion, who must have mistaken all his
speech, or he all Fox’s, though the latter had said that he would
not be included as agreeing for his reasons. That in any case he
should not be for lodging power where there may be a temptation to
prolong it.” Fox replied again, “That a Regent could not be more
dangerous than a King; and imagined that Pitt had meant that the
Regent’s speech should be intended to prevail on the Parliament to
address her to alter the whole tenour of the Bill.” The House grew
tired of their altercations, and more of General Oglethorpe, who
spoke after them; and divided between nine and ten at night, when
the Council clause was voted by 278 to 90; and then they adjourned
the further consideration of the Bill till next day.
17th.--The Committee on the Regency Bill was resumed. Lord Strange
asked, if being nominated to the Council of Regency would vacate
a seat in Parliament. T. Pitt proposed to leave out such words
as precluded the Princess from disposing of offices. Old Horace
Walpole ridiculed the Speaker, and was glad that with all his pomp
and protestations he had no more influence. He was proceeding to
preach up more regard to the King’s Message, but was called to
order by T. Pitt and Lord Strange, who objected to making such
use of the King’s name in a Debate. Prowse said, “he would appeal
to that great treaty-maker, whether it was proper that fourteen
persons should be entrusted with all the steps of a negotiation?
That for the nomination of Bishops and Judges, he thought it
a trifle; but disapproved extremely of the Council having any
power to dispose of the Treasury, which with so great an army of
revenue-men might be dangerous, if in the opposite scale to the
Crown.” Horace Walpole replied, “That some had carried it so much
beyond him, as to be willing to trust the secret of treaties to
seven hundred persons.”
Horace Walpole[123] was still one of the busiest men in Parliament;
generally bustling for the Ministry to get a Peerage, and even
zealous for them when he could not get so much as their thanks.
With the King he had long been in disgrace, on disputing a point of
German genealogy with him (in which his Majesty’s chief strength
lay) whose the succession of some Principality would be, if eleven
or twelve persons then living should die without issue. He knew
something of everything but how to hold his tongue, or how to
apply his knowledge. As interest was in all his actions, treaties
were in all his speeches. Whatever the subject was, he never lost
sight of the peace of Utrecht, Lord Bolingbroke, and the Norwich
manufactures; but his language and oratory were only adapted to
manufacturers. He was a dead weight on his brother’s Ministry;
the first to take off that load on his brother’s fall;[124] yet
nobody so intemperately abusive on all who connected with his
brother’s enemies; nobody so ready to connect with them for the
least flattery,[125] which he loved next to money--indeed he never
entirely forgave Lord Bath for being richer. His mind was a strange
mixture of sense alloyed by absurdity, wit by mimicry, knowledge
by buffoonery, bravery by meanness, honesty by selfishness,
impertinence by nothing. * * * *
Sydenham, as an old Tory, spoke for the undiminished prerogative,
quoted Greek, and said that subjects had never before attempted to
make Peers; and that the commissions of Judges determine at the
King’s death. Robinson urged that the House can only be adjourned
by itself; but Sir William Yonge gave him precedents to the
contrary; particularly, that the two first sessions of the late
King’s first Parliament had been adjourned by the Crown; and that
nobody is at liberty to speak after the Crown has sent a Message
for adjournment. Sir John Cotton asked, if the Crown had the power
of adjournment, seeing the method is to send to desire the House
would adjourn itself? T. Pitt (who the last summer had held a tin
Parliament in Cornwall, had been baffled by an opposition erected
by the Boscawens, under the auspices of the Ministry) was obliged
from his own case to argue for the prerogative, and said, “That
during his holding that Parliament he had searched for precedents,
and had found that the Crown could adjourn even by proclamation,
or by a message from the Secretary of State.” Robinson acquiesced,
but observed, “That there is no possibility of suspending the power
of the legislature; that if the Regent can repeal this Act, she
may repeal the three that by this she is excepted from the power
of repealing.” The Solicitor-General answered, “That it is only a
direction to her not to give her consent to the repeal of the three
Acts, though, if she should, it would be valid.”
The clause for continuing the sitting Parliament to the end of the
minority, was then read. Lord Limerick, with as much zeal as if he
too had lately held a tin Parliament, made a panegyric on the two
Georges, and on the blessings which the people had enjoyed under
them without tasting them;[126] and hoped the nation would be
in such profound tranquillity as not to need the prolongation of
the Parliament; and that the Ministers then will not act by half
measures, and by expedients from day to day; and in confidence that
they will dissolve the Parliament as soon as they may with safety,
he made a motion of amendment to the clause, that it may be the
last dissolved Parliament that shall assemble on the King’s death,
if another, though chosen, shall not have met and sat. Lord Strange
approved the Motion, except that he liked just the reverse of it;
and would have established the newly elected Parliament. Dr. Lee
answered, “That the act of Queen Anne on a parallel case, prefers
the old Parliament:” and Gybbon assigned the reason, because there
may arise Debates on the new Speaker and double returns.
Mr. Fox asked, “If the prolonged Parliament is not to dissolve
of course as soon as the minor King comes of age?” The
Attorney-General replied, “The general law of the land will then
operate for its dissolution.” But Henley said, “That, as the
new elect might be composed of ignorant persons, he wished the
prolonged Parliament were to last six months after the commencement
of the majority, that the young King might have the same benefit
from that act that an older Prince would have!” Sir William Yonge
approved this opinion, and said, he remembered that on the late
King’s accession, instead of attending the business of the House,
every body ran out of town to secure their re-elections. The
Solicitor-General replied, “That as the prolonging Parliaments
was neither an eligible nor popular measure, he was glad the
regulation extended no further; though it was more necessary now
to continue their duration for some time after a King’s death than
when Parliaments did not give the Revenue.” George Townshend spoke
against the Parliament’s prolonging itself, and said, “There was
nothing so dangerous as to inculcate into a young King, that he
owes his safety to anything unconstitutional.”
Fazakerley made a tedious calculation, which he seemed to intend
for humour, of how long the Parliament might possibly continue if
every one of the late Prince of Wales’s children should happen
to die just at a given time. The Solicitor replied, “That, if
such melancholy accidents should happen, the reasons for the
continuation would increase in proportion.” Morton spoke for,
Dowdswell and Sir John Cotton against the amendment; but it was
voted. Lord Harley[127] then spoke prettily against the whole
clause, and said, “That all the arguments that had been used
would hold good upon all elections, and would tend to make any
Parliament perpetual; and that such groundless apprehensions ought
not to be appeased at the expense of the constitution; that the
people will be cheated who will not have opportunities of changing
such representatives as they dislike; and that upon the whole he
observed, that Parliaments had originally been annual, then were
stretched to triennial, then lengthened out to septennial, and now
were going to be made perpetual.”
Lord Hilsborough said, “That the arguments urged against the clause
were reducible to those of power, right, and expedience. That the
Parliament has power to prolong itself, is plain from the very
debating upon it; that it has a right, appears from the Triennial
and Septennial Acts, and from the Sixth of Queen Anne; and for the
expedience, it is a known maxim, _salus populi suprema lex esto_.
That in the case of a Rebellion, would a Parliament allow of its
own dissolution, which would bring on the tumults of new elections?
or in case of a plague, would any wise Government give occasion to
great and populous assemblies, when it would even be unfit for the
Parliament itself to meet? That the event in question might include
all the others, and probably would some of them; and that the
prolongation now in Debate would not be actual, but discretionary,
while the circumstance of the manner in which it came recommended
must strike the breast of every man.” Bowes, Vyner, and T. Pitt,
spoke against the clause; Charles Yorke for it. Sir John Rushout
observed that T. Pitt had made the King’s Message the foundation
of the Debate, and then had objected to its being pleaded. He was
called to order, and so were some others; Gray and Dowdswell then
spoke against, and Southwell for the clause, which was carried at
half an hour after seven, by 258 to 81.
Then was read the clause to prevent the young King from marrying
before the expiration of his minority, unless with consent of
the Regent, and the major part of the Council; and to annul any
such marriage, and to declare all the persons concerned guilty of
high treason. This clause, which on the very face of it is a flat
contradiction to the established opinion of the Church of England,
which never heard of dissolution of marriage for political reasons,
had passed uncontroverted through the House of Lords, undisputed
by the Bench of Bishops. So obsequiously now did the sages of the
Ecclesiastic Courts bow to temporal power! Fazakerley alone in the
Commons remonstrated against it, and showed “the dangers that may
arise from pronouncing the King’s wife guilty of high treason, and
her children illegitimate; and the mischiefs it may occasion, as he
may marry her again after his majority--unless you will divest the
Crown of the prerogative of pardon, and that in the dearest case,
and will bind the Regency not only to prosecute a new species of
treason, but to enforce the penalty. If this illegal Queen may be
pardoned, and then espoused again, what confusions, what contests
may not spring from the different children she may bear during her
first and second marriage, when one son may plead his birthright
under the new establishment, the other his seniority under all the
known descriptions of legitimacy in the Church of England.”
The Attorney-General made a slight answer, and this new kind of
divorce passed without farther opposition.[128] Schisms and holy
wars have sprung from smaller seeds! But religious animosities were
out of date; the public had no turn for controversy; the Church had
no writers to make them fond of it again. This had lately appeared;
Dr. Middleton,[129] the best writer of the age, had overturned
the Fathers, and exploded some visions of the Bishop of London,
without a tolerable answer being made in defence of either. Of the
prelates, the Archbishop[130] was a harmless good man, inclined to
much moderation, and of little zeal for the tinsel of religion.
Hutton, the other Archbishop, was well bred and devoted to the
Ministry. Honest old Hoadley,[131] who, to the honour of his times,
had, though the champion of Liberty, risen to the rich Bishopric
of Winchester, was in a manner superannuated. Sherlock of London,
almost as able a combatant for the power and doctrines of the
Church, was past his strength, and still fonder of the politics
of the Government than of the honour of the Keys. The Bishop of
Durham[132] had been wafted to that See in a cloud of metaphysics,
and remained absorbed in it. Gooch of Ely, the highest Churchman
in his heart, had risen to his present greatness in the Church by
shifting his politics. The rest were men neither of note nor temper
to give the Ministry any disturbance.
Then the præmunire clause was read. Mr. Fox said, “He was ready
either to wait for the opinions of the lawyers, or to endeavour
to amend the clause himself. That he had several objections to
the wording of it; that _Acts passed_ may be Acts of Parliament;
that _in order to vary the Settlement_ ought never to be words in
a penal Act; by the same rule a person would be guilty of robbery
who went to a gunsmith’s with another to buy pistols _in order_
to rob. That _null and void_ must mean Acts of Parliament, not
letters-patent, for they cannot supersede Acts of Parliament. That
the crimes intended to be punished by this law should be certainly
known, and not subject to constructions. That the door of the house
where the plague was would be marked, and then whoever entered,
let him die!” He then proposed to leave out the word _præmunire_,
and to leave the pursuit of the crime to the common course of
the law of the land; or to make it even high-treason, provided
it was made clear to the subjects, what the crime was to be; as
no man can suffer but for known crimes. That the maxim, _Misera
est servitus ubi lex est inserta_, can only be meant of penal
laws, for all other laws are undoubtedly much too uncertain. Fox
frequently attacked the lawyers; he loved disputing as much as they
do, but as he loved sense and argument, which they make a trade of
perplexing, he could not bear a society who at once inverted the
use of reason and the profession of justice.
He was answered by Murray, the Solicitor-General,[133] a frequent
antagonist of his, who had quickness and eloquence enough to defend
or not to want the knowledge of the Law, of which he was master. He
said, “There could be no hurt in omitting the words that conveyed
any doubtful meaning; that the Bill was calculated against unlawful
acts, such as force and usurpation, upon the foundation of former
examples, particularly the disposition made by Henry the Eighth;
that it was only a clause _in terrorem_; that there must be an
overt act; that the House had already passed a sanction of the same
nature in the marriage clause: but if these words were disliked,
you might insert _unlawfully and without consent of Parliament_;
and that the Regent would certainly not be included within the
words.”
Fox accepted the proposed words, but would have omitted _in order_,
which would still leave the necessity of the overt act in full
force. He insisted “that the clause affects nobody but those who
assist the Regent in endeavouring the repeal of this Act, and
consequently that she is tied up from innovating, while her Council
are at liberty to attempt what farther usurpations they please
upon hers and the royal authority. It is difficult to ascertain
what her accomplices must or must not will and know, to include
them within the penalty; that if she takes out letters-patent
to be sole Regent, are the clerks who draw them to be subject
to the præmunire? That it must be right to omit the words _in
order_, since in the Solicitor’s opinion they were useless; in
his, dangerous: but supposing they were still to remain, he could
not help insisting on being told, what punishment there would be
for him or any man who should attempt to cancel the Regency Bill
without the connivance of the Regent?” The Solicitor replied, “That
such act would be against the King, because he was in her hands;
but that this provides against doing it _with_ her consent. That
the words _in order_ were neither so unheard of, nor so formidable
as was pretended; that the Coventry Act has the equivalent words
_with intent_; and that the Mutiny Bill (brought in by Mr. Fox) has
even the words _in order_. He owned that those words were inserted
to prevent the connivance of the Regent from giving an air of
legality to any attempts of innovation.” The Master of the Rolls
said, “He could not point out words to describe the crime, but he
thought _with intent_ preferable to _in order_.”
Fox asked, “If whether, as it was allowed that it would be lawful
to attempt the repeal of the Act by parliamentary methods, the
attempters would be guilty of a præmunire, if the Parliament should
not concur for the repeal? But that as it was confessed by great
lawyers that the crime could not be described, he desired to have
it considered, whether it would not be more proper, more humane,
and more sensible, to leave the punishment to the Judges?” Sir
Richard Loyd said “That the words _in order_ were not dangerous,
but that _advising_ was too vague, as it may be proper to give
the Regent such advice; that if the word _promoting_ stood, he
should wish to insert _unless to apply to Parliament_.” Fazakerley
approved the addition of _without the consent of Parliament_. The
Attorney said, “That _intent_ could only relate to the person, not
to the concurrence; that he thought the words _Acts passed_ might
be omitted, but that the lowest persons concurring knowingly to
defeat the Act, ought to incur equal punishment.” Lord Strange
said, “It must mean Acts of Parliament, for nothing else could
set aside this:” and then he moved the amendments that had been
proposed.
Pitt said, “He imagined they were already agreed to; that he would
have _Acts passed_ omitted, but liked _in order_: that he approved
the addition of the word _unlawful_, but would omit _without
consent of Parliament_, because it would be inviting applications
to Parliament, and would make men turn their minds to get this
Act repealed, though there was no doubt already, but that the
Parliament could alter this settlement if it should please.” He
then moved to leave out _Acts_, and was seconded by Fox. Fazakerley
asked whether it would not be necessary to have a Commission of
Regency if the Princess should be ill. Pitt then moved to insert
_unlawfully_, and Fox yielded not to mention _without consent of
Parliament_, and to let _in order_ stand. Lord Strange said, if he
were to have the Princess’s ear, he would advise her to get this
Act repealed. Fox moved for leaving out _concurring_. Old Horace
Walpole argued for its remaining; and Sir William Yonge defended it
as meaning no more than the three other words that accompanied it.
Fox ridiculed him on his reverence for the sacredness of tautology,
and said, that if all those words had the same meaning, he would
leave out three of them. Pitt was for retaining the word, because
it had once been inserted, and to omit it now, would be telling the
people that they might concur. Thus at half-an-hour after ten at
night, this inquisition clause, having dwindled into a grammatical
dispute, was voted, with corrections more worthy of grammarians
than a House of Commons, by 126 to 40; a few of Mr. Fox’s and the
Duke of Bedford’s friends insisting upon a division, though the
former would himself have acquiesced.
20th--The Bill was reported, read a third time, and passed, with
nothing material but a long bad speech of Mr. Beckford against
it, and Mr. Pelham’s, who was now got free from the chair, for
it. He said, “He would not observe on what any particular person
had said, but must express his surprise at so much Debate, after
the message had been sent by the King, who had recommended
restrictions, which had been approved by both Houses, and his
Majesty had received Addresses of Thanks from both upon it.” He
said, that notwithstanding this, the Debates had not been upon
any particular restrictions, but against any at all; yet he must
ask, how appointing a Council for the Regent was a breach of the
constitution? That as to precedents, for his part he had never
heard one exactly stated and followed in observations; that in
the present case, what was to be learnt from precedents, was, the
danger of minorities; and that the remedy now to be applied, was
not a breach, but a preservative of the constitution, against it
could operate again. That his motive for approving the Council,
was, that he would not lead the Princess into temptation; that
he was willing to give her all the agreeable part of authority;
and that the Council would be no check, where she was to exert
grace and favour, but only where there should be weighty points
that might introduce difficulties. That it was possible she might
get favourites about her; that a Regent may be subject to them as
well as a King; that it was for her security to have a Council
responsible. That when the settlement of the Crown was made in
favour of the House of Hanover, greater restrictions than those in
question had been proposed, and somewhat stronger than temporary
Regencies. That the Regent would only be limited in those great
acts, where the Crown itself is limited, of peace and war.
Is there, continued he, any person here wise enough to tell me,
who is answerable for the acts of the Regent? She herself is; and
as this provision takes off that subjection from her, it is a
respect to her. I hope I shall not be thought to want respect to
her, if I, who have ventured to speak my mind under the King my
master, am as freely spoken in what regards the Princess. He then
mentioned the clause for prolonging the Parliament, and said, that
ever since the Restoration, there has always been a dissolution or
suspension of Government during general elections; that a contagion
has constantly arisen, which has suspended all connexions of
friendship, all notions of right and wrong; and that many a man
has given his vote for one man, who would leave the care of his
children to that very man’s antagonist. That our constitution gives
sanctions to invasions, to that bad spirit of disaffection, which
makes our enemies lie in wait till they see how elections turn
out. He added, that he should say very little upon the clause of
præmunire, which had been so fully explained and answered by the
lawyers; though it was sufficient that Englishmen wanted no farther
safety, who must be tried by juries, that are not likely to stretch
constructions. One thing he would say, _that the Bill cannot be
too strictly observed_. For the objections, they were not against
the whole Bill; and the Committee had acquiesced in amending
those parts that were most liable to exception. That indeed he
could not but lament that the approbation of the House had not
been more general, as he knew, when differences arise there, what
constructions are made upon them without doors: but that he only
lamented this, did not pretend to blame, as he spoke without
prejudice, passion, or partiality, and that he was persuaded nobody
would suspect him of any prospect to power for himself from this
Bill, as he should be too great a wretch to build views of grandeur
on what he must regard as the greatest misfortune, and what would
shake the foundations of his country. It is observable, that of the
two persons who had framed, and were to glut their own ambition
the most by this Bill, the Chancellor and Mr. Pelham, the former
pronounced any man a fool, the latter stamped him a villain, who
expected or laid a plan of power from it. It passed without a
division. The greater part of the late Prince’s Court voted for the
Bill. Lord Egmont for nothing but prolonging the Parliament.
21st.--The amendments were explained to the Lords by the Duke of
Newcastle and the Chancellor, and agreed to.
FOOTNOTES:
[110] Philip Yorke. He had married the granddaughter and heiress of
the Duke of Kent.
[111] Eldest son of the Lord Barnard, was made Vice-Treasurer of
Ireland by Lord Bath, on the change of the Ministry, in 1742,
from which place he was removed on the coalition, but not long
after placed in the Treasury; and was afterwards created Earl of
Darlington. He died March 6th, 1758.
[112] William Pulteney, Earl of Bath, had been persuaded by Sir
Robert Walpole to apply himself to politics, in which, soon making
a figure, he was appointed Secretary at War, when the Whigs came
into power in the late King’s reign; but towards the end of it
he went into Opposition, at the head of which he continued till
the fall of Sir Robert Walpole. That Minister persuaded the King,
when he took leave of him, to comply with none of Mr. Pulteney’s
demands, unless he would quit the House of Commons and accept a
Peerage, which he imprudently promising to do, though not without
great reluctance, before the patent was passed, and raising his
creatures,--Sandys, Sir John Rushout, Gybbon, Harry Vane, and
Harry Furnese,--who were men of the meanest capacities, to the
chief places, in preference to all the rest of the Opposition who
had acted with him, they refused to follow him in his politics,
and persecuted him in Parliament, and with innumerable libels
and satires. On the death of Lord Wilmington, he asked for
the Treasury, to which Mr. Pelham was preferred, but to which
he was named in the Ministry of three days. From that time he
made no figure; he was immensely rich, from great parsimony and
great successions, and had endeavoured to add another to them:
the Duchess of Buckingham, natural daughter to King James II.,
designing to take a journey to Rome, to promote some Jacobite
measures, and apprehending the consequence, made over her estate
to Lord Bath, by a deed which he afterwards sunk, and pretended to
have lost. On this, the Duchess, after forcing a release from him,
struck him out of her will as one of her Executors; and many years
afterwards, on marrying her grandson to Lord Hervey’s daughter, she
appointed Sir Robert Walpole one of her Executors. This happening
soon after that Minister’s fall, he said to Lord Oxford in the
House of Lords, “So, my Lord, I find I have got my Lord Bath’s
place before he has got mine.”
[113] After the revolution of three days, Lord Bath was going
to print a Diary which he had kept, in order to show all the
falsehoods, treacheries, and breaches of promise of the Duke
of Newcastle and Mr. Pelham, he having minuted down their
conversations with him on the fall of Sir Robert Walpole.
[114] William, Lord Talbot, was eldest son of Charles Talbot, Lord
Chancellor.
[115] Sir Dudley Ryder.
[116] He resigned the beneficial place of Treasurer of the Navy
just after Sir Robert Walpole’s removal, because the Opposition
said that his attachment to the Court arose from interest; yet that
Minister always thought the Speaker not enough attached to him, and
treated him very roughly, especially on his first visit after his
disgrace. However, when the votes for the two last members of the
secret committee were equal on the ballot for two of Sir Robert’s
friends and two of his enemies, the Speaker decided in favour of
the former.
[117] As was the case in 1746, when the King refused to make W.
Pitt Secretary at War, and the whole Ministry resigned upon it.
[118] The different ways of reckoning the Council, as to be
composed of nine, ten, or fourteen persons, arose from including,
or not including the Duke, or the four to be named by the King’s
will.--Vide the Act.
[119] Richard Grenville, Lord Cobham, and since Earl Temple.
[120] Grenville, a Lord of the Treasury.
[121] Grenville, Deputy Paymaster, and one of the Lords of Trade.
[122] It is remarkable that, in the next reign, Martin became a
distinguished tool of the Princess’s minion, Lord Bute.
[123] Brother to Sir Robert Walpole, had been secretary to Earl
Stanhope in Spain, was afterwards made Secretary to the Treasury,
and Auditor of the Plantations, and was several times Ambassador in
Holland and France, then made Cofferer of the Household, and lastly
one of the Tellers of the Exchequer, and was created a Baron in
1756, and died February 5, 1757, aged 79.
[124] He paid the greatest court immediately to Lord Wilmington,
and the instant the secret committee was voted, he set out for his
house in the country, to burn, as he said in the House of Commons,
dangerous papers; after which he professed himself very easy for
what might happen.
[125] This was so much his foible that, when W. Pitt wanted to
reconcile himself to the Whigs, he used to flatter H. Walpole in
his speeches in the grossest manner; and when he was ambitious of
being Secretary of State, he proposed H. Walpole for it as the only
proper person, knowing that would be impossible to be effected, and
hoping it would then come by rebound to himself.
[126] The decency of this censure from Lord Limerick may be
gathered from the long time he had been in Opposition himself, and
from his being the person who made the famous motion for removing
Sir Robert Walpole, as the supposed author of all the calamities of
the present reign.
[127] Eldest son of the Earl of Oxford.
[128] A second instance of the same kind of complaisance from the
Bishops appeared in May, 1753. Lord Bath had brought in a Bill to
prevent clandestine marriages, which being very exceptionable,
a new one was ordered to be brought in by the Judges, and was
accordingly drawn up and warmly patronized by the Chancellor, and
as warmly, though ineffectually, opposed by the Duke of Bedford;
the whole Episcopal Bench consenting to the Act, though there
were several clauses which enjoined dissolution of marriage for
temporal reasons. In the House of Commons it was opposed by Fox
and Nugent; on the other hand, the Attorney-General, who had been
bred a Presbyterian, supported it, and applauded the conduct of
the Bishops, _who_, he said, _had at last reduced Christianity to
common sense_. This sentence occasioning great astonishment, he
softened it by adding, that he only meant that the Bishops had at
last consented to remove a superstructure, raised on the foundation
of the Gospel, which Christ and the Apostles had never projected,
it being only intended by the New Testament that marriages
contracted under the laws of the country should be indissoluble;
and that it was nowhere said that even the intervention of a priest
was essential to the validity of matrimony.
[129] Dr. Conyers Middleton, author of the Life of Cicero, of
the Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers, of an Examination of the
Bishop of London’s Letters on the Use and Intent of Prophecy,
and of several other celebrated works. Much was written against
him--nothing well; yet the University of Oxford bestowed the
degree of Doctor on two of his opponents. He died July 28, 1750;
and it was obvious how much personal prejudice had influenced his
antagonists, for after his death some tracts, which he had held too
offensive for publication, and much stronger against Christianity
than any of those he had published, were printed--and nobody wrote
against them!
[130] Dr. Thomas Herring, Archbishop of Canterbury. He died March
13, 1757.
[131] He died, after an illness of two hours, at his palace
in Chelsea, April 17, 1761. What is here said of his being
superannuated relates to the infirmities of his body, not of his
mind, he retaining his senses perfectly to the last.
[132] Dr. Butler, author of the Divine Analogy, &c. He died in
June, 1752.
[133] William Murray, brother to Lord Stormont, and to the titular
Earl of Dunbar, the Pretender’s first Minister. Pope’s Imitation of
_Nil Admirari_ is addressed to him. He was made Solicitor-General
soon after Sir Robert Walpole’s resignation.