Reflections of the Author on commencing his Memoirs of the
Year 1752--State of Parties--Treaty with Saxony--Duke of
Bedford opposes it--Debates upon it in the Lords--Speeches of
the Duke of Newcastle, Lord Sandwich, Marquis of Halifax, and
Lord Granville--History of the Purchase of Scotch Forfeited
Estates--Debates on the Scotch Forfeiture Bill.
I sit down to resume a task, for which I fear posterity will
condemn the author, at the same time that they feel their curiosity
gratified. On reviewing the first part of these Memoirs, I find
the truth rigidly told. And even since they were written, I have
often been struck with the censures which are passed on such
historians as have fairly displayed the faulty sides of the
characters they exhibit. Theopompus is called a satirist: Timæus
was so severe,[204] as to be nicknamed Epitimæus, the Blamer. Some
of our own annalists, as Wilson, Weldon, Osborn, (though frequently
quoted,) are seldom mentioned without reproach. I defend them not:
if their representations are exaggerated, they not only deserve
reproach, but discredit.
On the other hand, I examined the candid authors. Two of our
own, who deal wonderfully in panegyric, Clarendon and Echard, I
find to have dispensed invectives with a liberal hand on men of
parties opposite to their own--does then the province of praise
and censure depend on the felicity of choosing one’s party? _That_
shall never influence me--I would as soon wish to be rejected for
flattering one party, as for blaming another. Nor can I, on the
strictest consideration, determine to write like biographers and
authors of Peerages and Compendiums, who sink all executions in a
family, all blots in a ’scutcheon, and lay out their personages as
fair as if they wrote epitaphs, not history. Does any noble family
extinguish? One should grieve, on reading their genealogies, that
such a succession of heroes, statesmen, patriots, should ever fail;
if a little knowledge of mankind did not call forth the blemishes,
which these varnishers have slubbered over. If I write, I must
write facts. The times I describe have neither been glorious nor
fortunate. Have our affairs gone ill, and yet were our Governors
wise? Have Parliaments been venal, servile, and yet individuals
upright? If I paint the battle of Dettingen in prosperous colours,
am I an admired historian? If I mention hostages sent to France,
am I an abusive one? Are there no shades, no degrees of vices and
misconduct? Must no Princes be blamed, till they are Neros? Must
Vespasian’s avarice pass unnoticed, because he did not set fire
to the city--because he did not burn the means of gratifying his
exactions?
Suppose I were to comply with this indulgent taste, and write
thus:--George the Second was the most glorious Monarch that ever
sat on the English Throne; his victories over the united arms
of Spain and France[205] will illustrate our annals till time
is no more; and his condescension and generosity will conspire
to raise his private character to a level with his public. The
Duke of Newcastle was a prodigy of sincerity, steadiness, and
abilities. Mr. Pelham was the humblest man, the bravest Minister,
the heartiest friend, the openest enemy. The Earl of Holderness the
most graceful dancer that ever trod the stage of business since the
days of Chancellor Hatton--avaunt, Flattery! tell the truth, my pen!
The miscarriage of the Rebellion had silenced Jacobitism; the death
of the Prince of Wales had quashed opposition; and the removal of
the Duke of Bedford and Lord Sandwich had put an end to factions in
the Ministry. The ascendant of the Pelhams drew the attention of
the disaffected, who began to see a prospect of the restoration,
if not of the Stuarts, at least of absolute power; and this union
was not a little cemented by the harmony of hatred, in which both
the Pelhams and the Jacobites concurred against the Duke and the
Duke of Bedford; neither the one nor the other were disposed at
this juncture to stem the torrent. The Duke was determined not to
give the Pelhams so fair an opportunity of mischief, as by setting
up the standard of opposition during his father’s life; and the
treasures which he expected at the King’s death, and would not risk
losing,[206] he knew would indemnify the delay of his revenge. The
Duke of Bedford, who had been driven into contention, not sought
it himself, did not feel resentment enough for the loss of power,
which he had never much coveted, to make him eager in returning
ill-usage; and as he thought himself distinguished by the King’s
esteem, he affected gratitude to the Master, more than revenge to
the Ministers. Pitt and his little faction were rather unsatisfied,
than in possession of any title to complaint; and yet from that
quarter seemed to lower the first small cloud that might at all
obscure the present halcyon season.
A new subsidiary treaty with Saxony (a strange codicil to a general
peace!) had been lately concluded; the pretence, the purchase of
another Electoral vote for the Archduke Joseph, whom we persisted
in making a candidate for the succession of the Empire, though his
father and his mother were equally averse to see him King of the
Romans. As he was immediate heir to his mother’s vast dominions,
the Emperor could not but foresee, that, if the estates of the
House of Austria fell to his son, it might even become difficult
for himself to retain the empty diadem, when the means of grandeur
should be devolved on his child; and the Empress-queen, who had not
ceded a jot of power to a husband whose person she loved, was not
desirous of calling her son Emperor, who might be less tractable,
and more impatient to reign in earnest. Yet the dread the King felt
of a new war in Germany, his jealousy of his nephew of Prussia,
and even the favourite impulse of acting in contradiction to him,
made his Majesty eager to hurry on the election, and profuse of
subsidies, which were not to be issued from his own coffers. Lord
Cobham, who, having no place to forfeit, was always used by Pitt as
the trumpet of their discontents, openly sounded his disapprobation
of the Treaty: and old Horace Walpole, who had waded through, and
transacted so many treaties, without attaining a Peerage, was at
last determined to try if he could not traverse negotiations to
better purpose than he had negotiated.
On January 7th, the Parliament met again after the adjournment;
and on the 16th, Mr. Pelham laid the Treaty before the House. The
Duke of Bedford came to town on the 15th; so far from meditating
opposition, that he was resolved to make use of the remains of
the King’s favour, to ask a pension for the Duchess’s sister,
Lady Elizabeth Waldegrave. The Duchess, who could not bear to
be out of favour as well as out of power, and who always kept a
reconciliation in view, had planned this suit, with at least as
much prospect to tie down the Duke by an obligation to the King,
from reverting to Opposition, as from kindness to her sister; and
there was no doubt but the Pelhams would have pressed the King to
grant so trifling a boon; for what could they wish more, when they
had driven the Duke of Bedford to resign the power of serving all
his friends, than to silence his murmurs, by serving the first
friend of his for whom he should submit to solicit?
The prospect of allies in Opposition was immediately hung out to
the Duke of Bedford, by some[207] who wished to fix him against
the Court, and who wanted to engage him to speak against the
Treaty, which they knew would either prevent him from soliciting
the pension, or by touching so tender a point as a German subsidy,
would provoke the King to refuse his request. This train caught
effectually; and though the Duchess was alarmed, yet not having
time to work back her husband, whose warmth was most impetuous, the
Duke determined at once to oppose the Saxon Treaty.
22nd, Mr. Pelham opened the Treaty in the Committee. Old Horace
Walpole spoke against it in a manner that showed how well he knew
where the weakness of such treaties lay; and however astonishing
such arguments were when coming from him, they were pressed with
such force and weight as stilled their ridicule, had he not
himself done justice upon himself, and concluded his oration with
professing such duty to the King, that, though so averse to the
Treaty, he should yet vote for it. The House burst into laughter
at such absurd pretence for zeal, which could conquer its own
conscience, but had not prevented him from exposing the measures of
a Prince, for whom he expressed such veneration! Murray, Potter,
Sir Harry Erskine, Sir Thomas Robinson, Sir William Yonge, Lord
Hilsborough, Mr. Fox, Sir Peter Warren, Mr. Legge, and Charles
Townshend, spoke for; Sir Walter Blacket, Beckford, Lord Strange,
and Lord Cobham against it; but it was agreed to by 236 to 54.
On the 23rd it was reported to the House. Northey and George
Haldane opposed it again. Nugent was zealous for it. Sydenham,
reflecting on Nugent’s former religion, said, that he seemed not
content with a majority of electors, but would have an Emperor
chosen, _like a Pope_, by two-thirds. Vyner reflected on the King
for bringing such expenses on the nation, after such obligations to
it, and such noble provision made for his children. This Mr. Pelham
answered finely, seriously, and pathetically; a manner in which he
particularly shone. There was no division.
On the 28th the Treaty was debated in the House of Lords. The
Duke of Bedford opened the opposition to it, with professing,
that his greatest difficulty lay in its having been the act of
the King, so good a King, whom he had served seven years, and to
whom he was agitated with the fear of being misrepresented: yet,
that he could neither in conscience acquiesce, nor be content with
silently opposing subsidiary treaties in time of peace; and the
dangerous measures of wasting, when we ought to be saving. That
if you treat after a war, you may obtain conditions certain; but
what advantages can you make, where there is nothing to be given
up or restored? That by paying for votes for the Archduke, we are
purchasing advantages for our Allies, instead of for ourselves;
and at the same time instruct those Princes who take our money,
never to unite with us but for money. That with the people it must
be a measure most unpopular, to tax them for money to be sent
abroad, when they cannot possibly discern how it touches their
own interest. And that in no shape the measure can be right, but
when a war is approaching; whereas, we are but just emerged out
of one. That the preamble is most injurious to the dignity of our
Crown; it speaks us suppliants to that inconsiderable Prince, the
King of Poland, who is most incapable to serve us, not only from
the situation of his country, but from his bad administration.
Besides, he might have been obliged to join us by the two Imperial
Courts, as his ruling passion is to make Poland hereditary in his
family--how great then is his condescension, if he will not take
part against you! If he did, it would be of little consequence: it
is only giving so much for levy-money. If England were attacked,
of what use would Saxons be? That he did not think this country
or Holland should always have such preparatory connexions on the
Continent; and yet that this Treaty did not even stipulate that
his Polish Majesty shall increase his forces. That the fifth
Article was wretchedly drawn! and for that King’s vote--had it been
secured, when it might have been--that Cologne had been lost for
want of proper words to tie him down: a fit example to have made us
more wary! and yet how many evasions open, if this Saxon Prince is
disposed to elude his engagements! That we are not likely to bring
about this election; and that we even keep off two of the electors,
by showing them that they may ask a price for their votes. That
Prussia’s protesting against the election is a new doctrine--and as
new is this opportunity for Lords who love subsidizing! Notify your
intentions, you may have thirty or forty of the College of Princes,
who will take your money. Yet, while we are thus bounteous, Russia
takes no steps, Austria few. But he supposed he should be told,
that Holland is to pay part; he was sorry for it; Holland is still
less able than we to be thus extravagant. But if Holland should not
pay, who is to make good the deficiencies? If this is done with the
consent of France, she only will have the merit: if without her
consent, it will bring on a war.
He then turned to home considerations, and (as this was supposed
to be a sacrifice offered by the Duke of Newcastle to the King’s
German passions, contrary to the inclination of Mr. Pelham), he
said it was extravagant imbecility, if this measure was yielded to
by the Minister against his will. That the tenour was throughout
the same, and parsimony or profusion took their turns, as
individuals took prepossessions. That to please individuals,[208]
the material service, the Navy, had been reduced to 8000 seamen:
that to please individuals,[209] Nova Scotia had been profusely
suckled, and its deficiences always supplied. That the land-tax,
the malt-tax, the reduction of interest, had been carried on with
spirit: yet for what have the public creditors been taxed, if
the savings made at their expense are scandalously lavished? If
measures are not changed, if men are not changed, we must go on _de
mal en pire_. That when we pretend to economy, how judiciously is
it exerted! It is displayed in contracting the rewards for removing
the mortality of the cattle, or for discovering highwaymen! That
our youngest daughter, Nova Scotia, is favoured, while Jamaica
is neglected, by an Administration who neither grant protection
to commerce, nor endeavour at any reformation of morals. The
Duke concluded with a Motion for an Address, to represent that
subsidiary treaties ought never to be concluded in time of peace,
especially after a long war, and that they are neither necessary at
present, nor likely to procure any real advantage.
The Duke of Newcastle replied in a wild, incoherent,
incomprehensible speech of an hour and a quarter, in which he set
out with saying, that he would not answer general heads, because
the Duke of Bedford had descended to particulars; and yet the
greatest deduction of his defence was an account of the three
last wars. That for this, it was a measure of peace and economy,
and that _it is little as it is, because it is so great_. That
he remembered the argument used to blacken the great war was,
that we have no interest on the Continent; and that the Dutch
were reproached then, and are now. That he that is not for us,
is against us: that there are those who would gladly accept the
union of the Dutch. That if he thought this a greater burthen than
England could bear, in proportion to the objections, he should
be against it; but that if it prevents a war, the sooner England
concludes this Treaty the better. That if we do not connect with
the Continent, we shall be obliged to enter into the next, as we
were into the last war. What was the occasion of the three last
wars? Of the first, the succession to the Crown of Spain--_but
that can never happen again_. Everybody knows the zeal of the
present King of Spain. In the second, the war occasioned by the
vacancy of the Throne of Poland, England took no part: if we had,
it would have prevented the last; at least, it would have been
better carried on. The last war was occasioned by the ambition of
Bavaria. _It cost us much, yet glad he was, for we should have
been in a worse condition, if we had not entered into it._ From
the Treaty of Utrecht to that of Aix-la-Chapelle, there have been
no four years without greater expenses than these four last. If
the last war was occasioned by the vacancy of the Imperial Throne,
the treaty in question is calculated to prevent such a vacancy and
such consequences. That Holland, he hoped, would emerge out of her
difficulties _by the prudence of the present conjuncture_--that
his meaning was sufficiently explained, though it might be more
elegantly; that more plainly, would be improper. That we have
received the strongest assurances--what they are: if there should
be any Motion for laying them before the House, he would be the
first to oppose it. Have we never seen Saxony act against its
interest? If any means had been omitted for engaging that Power in
the common cause, the Ministry would have much to answer for. That
the question of the necessity of the unanimity of the electors had
been fully considered, _though there was a time when no elector
would have opposed_. That the election had not hitherto proceeded,
because Cologne did not understand itself obliged to concur. That
we must get six votes, and therefore, whatever is demanded, must
be granted, though Cologne did ask more, and it was not granted.
All arts were tried to engage that elector without a subsidy. He
then proved that the election might have been carried and been
valid with a majority, and yet that we waited till we could secure
two-thirds. That he was told we meddled everywhere; an accusation
he was sometimes surprised to hear from some people. That the Fleet
had repaired the miscarriages of the Army--was it not the duty
of economic Ministers to supply the Sea Service? That for what
had been hinted of the provocation we should give to France, _the
wisdom of that Power will admire us, not be angry, if we do nothing
to hurt her_.
This, and some few preceding harangues of this extraordinary
person, I give merely as a specimen of the rhetoric of a man, who
certainly did not govern his country by his oratoric abilities.
The reader must excuse me, if for the future I omit them, unless
on very particular occasions; for though I have generally given
myself the trouble to minute them down at the delivery, it were
too impertinent to commit them to history. And I must beg so
much indulgence, as when argument, or connexion, or grammar is
observably wanting, that it may be remarked that at least in all
other speeches I have taken care to write true English: in those of
the Duke of Newcastle, the original has been faithfully copied.
Lord Sandwich then, with most ungraceful delivery, which yet was as
powerful as the matter of his speech, lamented his misfortune of
differing with his friend the Duke of Bedford, which he must do,
though he found the reasons preponderate very little on the side of
the Treaty, and though he agreed with his Grace in near half he had
said: that he considered how little regard was paid to economy, and
that nobody was less prepossessed in favour of the Ministry, whom
he should gladly oppose, but where the exigencies of the public
required his concurrence. That he knew their sentiments were to
silence opposition at any rate; that influenced by that motive,
they had last year reduced the Navy: however, he must own that the
event had justified the reduction; that he should not concur now,
if he did not hope that granting this subsidy would stop greater
profusion. And, that the public might at least have this security
even from the badness of the present Ministers, that they will even
wave their own bad purposes, rather than hear disagreeable truths;
which, for his part, he should always be ready to utter, though
he did not approve being actuated by private connexions in public
affairs.
The secret of this speech was, that the Duke of Bedford having
acquainted Lord Sandwich with his intention of opposing the Treaty,
and having desired him to consult the Duke, the latter had approved
the opposition, but would not openly concur, for fear of offending
the King; and as Lord Sandwich was the known creature of the Duke,
it was thought proper that he should act this middle part, of
voting for the Treaty, and censuring the Pelhams. The Duke went so
far as to tell the King, that the Duke of Bedford spoke just better
than the Duke of Newcastle, but that Lord Sandwich alone shone. The
truth was, Lord Sandwich ruined his little remains of character for
abilities; the Duke of Bedford was seen in a new light. The method
with which he went through the Treaty, the great variety of matter
of which through the whole Debate he showed himself master, and
the coolness with which he mastered his own temper too, made him
considered as a very formidable and able speaker.
Lord Halifax then rose and said, “They who disapprove all
treaties, cannot like this: they who are for no connexion with the
Continent--” the Duke of Bedford interrupted him, and said, “That
is not my opinion.” Lord Halifax replied, “But very like it.” The
Duke again interposed, but the Duke of Argyle called him to order,
and with acrimony said, that he had never seen such interruption
given twice in one Debate. Lord Halifax then continued, that if the
peace was not strengthened, it would only be a cessation of arms:
that we must not be parsimonious, while France was dealing out a
million in subsidies (this had been a most exaggerated calculation
of the Solicitor-General[210] in the House of Commons), that she
had offered more to Saxony, who had preferred our alliance with the
lesser sum. That the money granted for Nova Scotia had been given
to establish the settlement, not to carry on a war: that if the
ships had been sent out too late last year, it was the fault of the
Admiralty; and that of all men he least expected opposition from
those two Lords, who had so lately approved these treaties.
This was the accusation for which the Duke of Bedford had waited;
and he embraced it artfully. He said, that this was so far from a
preventive measure, that it was more likely to raise a war; that he
had indeed said nothing hitherto to explain the consistence of his
own conduct, foreseeing that he might be attacked on it. That he
had always wished to detach Bavaria from France, and thought it a
great point gained, though not with a view to engage that vote for
a King of the Romans; but that, while he had acted in the Ministry,
he had disapproved this profusion of subsidies; and that, having
made the most earnest representations against that to Bavaria, he
had received the strongest assurances from _one_,[211] who had
inclination to prevent, and power to hinder, that the subsidy then
granted to the Elector of Bavaria should be the last we would give.
He had then in his pocket a letter from Mr. Pelham, with a solemn
promise of this.
Lord Granville put an end to the debate by a speech of spirit and
humour; that the Motion was full of inflammatory matter, and that
it was drawing the House into declaring against subsidiary treaties
in general: that France can be attacked by no single Power; that
leagues must humble her, subsidies cement leagues. France has no
Pretender to be set up against her. She might say, “I will give no
subsidies,”--and yet she does. That formerly during his Embassies,
he had been asked by a great Prince[212] (the King of Denmark)
what we meant by that magnificent bravado in the Preamble to our
Mutiny Bill, where we say, that we keep up eighteen thousand men
to preserve the balance of Europe. “I told him, my Lords, ‘One
day can make those eighteen fifty thousand.’ If you say you will
pay no more electors, you have erected a bridge without complete
arches--and what kind of policy is that, if this House rejects a
treaty already ratified by King and Commons! The Court of France
does not regard guarantees--or indeed what Powers do? Would Prussia
retain Silesia long, if he had nothing to defend it with but the
guarantee? for, my Lords,” concluded he, laughing, “I must bring
out some of my secrets too.” The Motion was rejected without a
division. The next time the Duke of Bedford went to Court, the King
took no notice of him; nor for some time.
29th.--Lord Harley, seconded by Northey, made a Motion for
declaring against subsidiary treaties in time of peace. It
occasioned a warm Debate; and Prowse, escaping from his usual
plausibility, said, that he could discover no symptoms of economy
in the Administration, though indeed they had enforced it, for by
lowering interest, and by the land-tax of three shillings, both
landed and monied men were reduced to be economists. Beckford,
Fazakerley, Sir Roger Newdigate, Morton, Sydenham, Cooke,
Delaval, and Sir Walter Blacket, spoke for the Motion: Hampden
against it, but with a sneer, said, that he approved _bribing
electors_, as he saw _by other instances_ how it had contributed
to quash opposition. Mitchell taxed old Horace Walpole with his
unparliamentary behaviour, in speaking on one side and voting on
the other. The Solicitor-General, Sir Henry Erskine, Nugent, Ellis,
Tracy, and Sir William Yonge, all opposed the Motion; and lastly,
Mr. Pelham, who seized the opportunity of venting the anguish he
had felt the day before in the House of Lords (which from that
day he never attended more), and of abusing with much bitterness
and ability the Duke of Bedford and Lord Sandwich. The Motion was
rejected by 180 to 52. After the Debate, Mr. Pelham asked Fox, if
he had gone too far in invectives. “No,” answered Fox, “as they
began; though you originally gave the provocation.” “Oh! Fox,”
replied he, “you did not feel for me, as I should for you in the
same circumstances!”
In the beginning of February, Lord Cardigan was appointed Governor
of Windsor Castle, and was succeeded as Chief Justice in Eyre by
the Duke of Somerset.
4th.--Died Sir John Cotton; the last Jacobite of any sensible
activity.
21st.--Sir John Barnard, whose popularity had suffered by the share
he had had in reducing the interest of the public debt to three per
cent., made a proposal to tie down six hundred thousand pounds a
year of the Sinking Fund, from the year 1758, towards discharging
the whole national incumbrance. Beckford supported him; but Mr.
Pelham and the Solicitor-General opposing it, his scheme was
rejected without a division. We shall see him afterwards addressing
himself to his lost popularity with more success, and as it often
happens, on a worse foundation.
25th.--Lord Winchelsea had summoned the Lords to consider an
Admiralty Bill, which had passed the Commons without opposition,
and which was designed to commute the punishment of transportation
into working in the Dockyards. Bills of less invidious appearance
had often raised a flame in combustible seasons: this seemed to
introduce a kind of galley slavery, yet was really converting
a species of disgraceful criminals, who only corrupt our
Plantations, into useful members of society. Could the monthly
shambles at Tyburn (that scene that shocks humanity, and reproaches
our Police!) be exchanged for severe labour in the same way, it
would reflect honour on a Legislature, which ought not to wanton
in such punishment of its members as death and banishment, but to
extract public utility, even from crimes. The Duke of Newcastle,
fearing to be attacked himself, and the Chancellor, as apprehensive
for his silent son-in-law, Lord Anson, the head of the Admiralty
and patron of the Bill, prevailed on Lord Northumberland to rise,
commend the Bill, and then move to have it put off for six weeks.
The Duke of Bedford called him to order for entering upon the Bill
before it was read.
28th.--Lord Tyrawley was sent to Lisbon, to accommodate some
differences which had been occasioned by our Captains openly
running Portugal pieces, which had used to be brought on board our
ships by the _decent_ intervention of the Monks.
The same day was read for the first time a Bill to empower the
Government to purchase, at the rate of about an hundred thousand
pounds, the estates in Scotland forfeited by the late Rebellion,
and which the King was to cede to the public, in order to have
colonies settled on them, especially of Foreign Protestants. The
necessity of the purchase was pretended to arise from mortgages
on them, and which would even consume the property in a few
years, and pass them from the King’s hands into those of the
mortgagees. Grants of money to Scotland have ever been suspicious:
the influence of the Duke of Argyle over the ductility of the
Ministry was most notorious; the claims now erected on these
forfeitures most incredible; and the establishment of Colonies in
parts so barren, so uninviting, of such unpleasant neighbourhood,
most improbable and impracticable. One circumstance alone, of
public notoriety, staggered all credit in the sum demanded. Lord
Lovat, at the bar of the House of Lords, had declared that his
was the best estate in Scotland, for there were no debts upon
it--it now appeared charged with a mortgage of thirty thousand
pounds! Vyner, Northey, Beckford, Sydenham, Fazakerley, Prowse,
and the Whig-General Mordaunt, opposed the Bill. The Scotch Lord
Advocate, Mr. Pelham, Sir William Yonge, and Oswald, with fine
warmth supported it, and it passed that day without a division;
and again on the second reading, March 2d, when it was faintly
opposed by the same people, and defended by the same, and by the
Attorney-General.[213]
March 4th.--The Bill was reported: Vyner observed that no
retribution had been made to any parts of England that had suffered
by the Rebels, though ten thousand pounds had been given to Glasgow
alone, to compensate their damages. Sir John Mordaunt asked with
spirit, whether Englishmen would go to these intended settlements
for twenty pounds a year, only to have land a fifth cheaper?
Whether the English Ministry meant to send 28,000 men only to
starve? or whether they would suffer themselves to be sent? He
said, the Scotch were so attached to the individual spots of their
tribes, that when Glenbucket had wanted to transplant his M’Donalds
to the site of the M’Phersons, the colonists had been murdered,
their houses burnt, and Glenbucket himself received several wounds.
That this scheme would set the whole Highlands in a flame--“when
that is done,” said he, “I will congratulate the gentlemen who
brought in the Bill--in the mean time, let me tell them, that so
impotent or so supine is the Government in that part of the island,
that there is now a person, a man of five hundred pounds a year,
who forced three or four hundred Drummonds into the Rebellion, and
has sons in Lord John Drummond’s regiment in France, who lives
tranquilly, securely, on his own estate in Scotland, and triumphs
over the well-affected and loyal.”
General Campbell maintained the probability of establishing the
Colony in question, and instanced in one at Strontean, where mines
are carried on by a company from hence, who are well received
there, who have polished the country, and where three to one
are well-affected. Legge said, that this system will have more
effect than all that had been done about dress and jurisdictions,
because those regulations were imposed by force; but this was to be
purchased: that the economy of the measure could not be questioned,
as, by buying mortgaged estates, you may prevent future Rebellions,
and consequently avoid the heavy charges which Rebellion occasions.
That the Colony must be sent armed; and that for some time the
Army must be used as a succedaneum to this measure, though force
produces only artificial loyalty in breasts, that will still
be waiting for opportunities of revenge; but that nest-egg of
Rebellion must be crushed in time of peace; that if this measure is
not adopted, the remaining alternatives were, to acquiesce under
incidental Rebellions, or to exterminate the disaffected by fire
and sword; that what is loyalty or disloyalty here, is there food
or starving. Feed the clans, they will obey; starve them they must
rebel: that the means, therefore, of eradicating this spirit in
the common people are obvious; polish them, introduce the arts of
peace amongst them--the disloyalty of the gentlemen is with more
difficulty to be subdued.
Lord Coke spoke with animosity[214] against the measure, as being
a Scotch measure; Lord Hilsborough with approbation of it, as
resembling what, he said, he had experienced in Ireland, where he
had seen mountains of Papists settled at last by Protestants, after
two or three colonies had been successively driven off; and he said
sensibly, “have we 6000 men who keep all Scotland in order, and
will they not be able to protect this little colony?”
Northey objected to the economy of a measure which was pretended
[to be] calculated to save the expense of an Army, and yet must be
put in execution by an Army! and he stated the collusive manner in
which the calculation was drawn up, and observed that the claims
erected were 270,000_l._; that the estates to be purchased are
16,000_l._ a year; that it is allowed, that there is personal
estate sequestered to the amount of 19,000_l._; and yet that that
sum was not allotted towards the purchase. The Report was agreed to
by 171 to 34. Lord Gower’s sons[215] were in the minority: none of
the Duke’s servants were present but Felton Hervey, and he too was
against the Bill.
7th.--Prince Edward, the young Prince of Orange, and the Earls of
Lincoln, Winchelsea, and Cardigan, were declared Knights of the
Garter: the Scotch Earl of Dumfries had the Green Ribband, and Lord
Onslow the Red.
Some differences happened upon a ship of ours taking sailors out
of an Embden vessel; and a Bill was brought in to prevent insuring
Embden ships.
9th.--The Scotch Bill was passed in the Commons, on a division of
134 to 39.
FOOTNOTES:
[204] One of the reasons for reckoning him severe was, his laughing
at those who wrote on Phalaris’s bull.
[205] This was written before the last war in the reign of George
the Second, in which, he really triumphed over both France and
Spain, but it was by the Ministry of Mr. Pitt.
[206] The Duke of Cumberland’s subsequent patience on his father’s
unjust ill-treatment of him after the battle of Hastenbeck, and his
Royal Highness’s total indifference to money, fully vindicate him
from this suspicion.
[207] Particularly by the Author of these Memoirs.
[208] Pitt and the Grenvilles. See the preceding year.
[209] Lord Halifax.
[210] Mr. Murray.
[211] Mr. Pelham.
[212] Very probable that a King of Denmark should have seen
a Preamble to a Mutiny Bill!--but there was no hyperbole too
extravagant for Lord Granville to use.
[213] Sir Dudley Rider.
[214] He was much hated by the Scotch, since his quarrel with and
separation from his wife, Lady Mary, youngest daughter of John,
Duke of Argyle.
[215] Earl Gower stuck to the Pelhams: his sons, Lord Trentham
and Richard Leveson, acted with their brother-in-law, the Duke of
Bedford.