CHAPTER IX.

The Scotch Bill--Speeches of the Duke of Bedford and the Lord

Chancellor, Lord Bath, the Duke of Argyle, and the Duke of

Newcastle--Character of Archibald Duke of Argyle--The King

goes to Hanover--History of the Factions in Ireland--Divisions

among the Instructors of the Prince of Wales--Account

of the Pretender’s Family and Court at Rome--German

Alliances unlucky--Dissensions in the Prince of Wales’s

Household--Appointment of Lord Waldegrave as Governor, and Dr.

Thomas as Preceptor, to his Royal Highness.

March 10.--Lord Bath moved for an account of the produce of the

Window-tax in Scotland. It had not, since first laid, brought in

one shilling.

The Scotch Bill had hitherto only raised some warmth in particular

men, who either did not love that nation from prejudice, or from

resentments contracted against them during the late Rebellion.

It now took a more serious turn. The Duke, who had conquered

the Scotch like an able General, who had punished them like an

offended Prince, and whose resentments were not softened by the

implacability of their hatred to him, was not a little disgusted

at seeing measures of favour to them adopted, and himself totally

unconsulted upon those measures. Yet he could not, as they were

concerted by the King’s Ministers, openly oppose them. It was

almost as difficult for him to blow up any opposition against them

underhand. The discontented in the House of Commons were either

the refuse of the late Prince’s party, or the Jacobites; and even

these latter could not be supposed heartily eager against favours

being showered on their never-failing allies, the Scotch. In the

other House, the only phantom of opposition consisted in half a

dozen Jacobite Lords, and in the person of the Duke of Bedford,

between whom and his Royal Highness a coldness had arisen, as has

been mentioned. In this dilemma the Duke lighted upon a measure,

which had ample effect. Lord Sandwich was too much connected with

him, and too much detached from the Duke of Bedford, to make it

expedient to offer any overtures directly through him: but the Duke

sent him to a person[216] who had private connexions with the Duke

of Bedford, and who he knew would not be sorry to traverse Mr.

Pelham’s measures, to offer him very extraordinary anecdotes on the

Scotch affairs, which he might impart to the Duke of Bedford. It is

strange how this train caught! That person persuaded the Duke of

Bedford to accept and make use of the information, without knowing

from whom it came; and it must appear amazing, that a man who could

make so distinguished a figure as his Grace did, by the management

of the materials, should have submitted to be put in motion so

blindly!--but that was his character; when he shone in public with

most energy, he perhaps acted the least upon his own motives--but

it is proper to enter into a deduction of the Debate.

17th.--The Bill was read in the House of Lords. The Duke of Bedford

began with showing the impracticability of the measure, from

the difficulties both of maintaining a colony on the forfeited

estates, and of procuring people to settle on them. Troops can

be of no service to support them in winter, unless forts are

built; an expense that would far exceed the views of this Bill.

English would not go thither; Irish cannot be spared, for you

must not weaken the Protestant interest in that island; Scotch

Highlanders will not remove thither from their own fastnesses;

_Germans_ indeed will migrate--but not to _worse_ countries. But,

he asked, had the Ministry permitted the disloyal inhabitants to

remain upon these estates for six years since the Rebellion, and

did they now propose to banish them? Would they engraft cruelty

upon their negligence? and that in a case which decides the

inhumanity, as it would punish the oppressed, yet not derive any

benefit to the public,--the only justifiable pretence for national

severities: for what benefit will the public reap from the change

of Lords, under whom these Highlanders are to be placed by this

Bill? Indeed, he said, he feared such encouragement was given

to that country, by this and some other Bills, as would, even in

our time, produce a new Rebellion--Glasgow--the great Lords, have

received such sums, such means of new commotions, as they could

have obtained no other way--and though particular towns and persons

are pretended to be relieved, money is, through their channels,

circulated over the whole country, and we deprive ourselves of

the advantages that might accrue even from treason, when the

disaffected have contributed to despoil and impoverish their own

country. He feared Rebellion would grow a national malady! Danger

is even to be apprehended from the method of putting this Bill in

execution: should the Commissioners not act, it is a needless,

an useless Bill--if they do, what is to encourage them? power

and interest? and into what hands are you going to trust those

formidable enemies? Are you not taking the same method you took

with Lord Lovat? Will you empower more Lord Lovats to nurse up more

Rebellions? He was a single instance, and the subsidy to him a

trifle in comparison: this is a plan for the most formidable power

ever attempted hitherto to be established in that country.

He then told the House, that he was but too well founded in his

apprehensions of new commotions, both from the countenance showed

to the disaffected, and the discouragement given to the loyal. He

told them that he had in his hands a long and crying catalogue of

facts, which would prove both his assertions, and which facts

he was ready to prove. As a sample, he mentioned two cases; the

first of one John Cummings, who at the time of the late Rebellion,

being Collector at Montrose, assisted the Rebels in seizing

the Hazard sloop, for which service the titular Duke of Perth

appointed him Collector for the Pretender. This Cummings, on the

Duke’s arrival in Scotland, was imprisoned by his Royal Highness’s

command, and carried into Inverness; from thence he escaped, was

again imprisoned, but at the desire of Lord Milton was released

by Mr. Bruce, who had a power at that time to continue or to

release prisoners. This Mr. Cummings is now Collector of Excise at

Aberdeen; a place worth almost double of what he formerly enjoyed

at Montrose!

The other was the case of Hume of Munderson, a man engaged in the

former Rebellion, or, as the Scotch call it, in the _fifteen_. His

brother was executed for the last Rebellion; but he himself has

been made a General Supervisor of Excise. “My Lords,” continued

the Duke, “these are among many flagrant instances of the favour,

I may truly say, of the rewards conferred on Rebels. I can, if I

am called upon, produce many more equally striking, and of what

perhaps is still more alarming, of punishments inflicted, or

permitted to be inflicted on the well-affected to his Majesty’s

government and person. I will not now recapitulate them, nor dwell

even on the fate of Mr. Davidson, Minister of Navar, above Brechin

in the Braes of Angus, who with sixty of his parishioners was

persecuted after the Rebellion, for making bonfires on the Duke’s

birth-day, under the pretence of wilful fire-raising!”

After a pause, he said: “My Lords, these, and facts like these,

call for inquiry: what I have more to say, strikes directly at the

Bill itself, which various circumstances concur to evince, is but

a more extensive job. Such is the impropriety of the time, the end

of a session, to offer a Bill of this nature, when, so far from

having leisure to examine it, we have barely time to pass it; and

that this must have been the effect of design is evident, since the

Report of the Barons of the Exchequer, who were to examine into the

nature and state of these forfeitures, was given in so long ago as

December, 1749. The money to be raised is a most unjust burthen

upon England: the Commissioners at least, who ought to see this

Act put in execution, ought to be English. If they are not, we are

grounded to suspect that this money will be as much perverted as

other taxes have been fallaciously collected. Let us cast our eyes

but on the produce of the coach-tax in that part of the United

Kingdom; to what does it amount? for the first year to one thousand

pounds!--for the second, to what? to nothing. Must we suppose that

this burthen was so heavily felt, that the whole Nobility and

Gentry of Scotland at once concurred to lay down their equipages?

In those years England paid on the same account 60,000_l._,

58,000_l._ If such are their partialities, is it not allowable for

Englishmen to have some? Be that as it may, my Lords, let us know

what grounds there are for these complaints, for these accusations.

I move your Lordships to put off the farther consideration of this

Bill, till we have had time to inquire into facts.”

It required more art than the Chancellor possessed, to efface

the impression made by this speech. To dispute the facts would

be admitting that they ought to be examined. He thought the most

prudent method was to admit their authenticity, but to endeavour

to show that the previous examination of them was not necessary,

either in that place, or before the conclusion of the Bill. This

method he followed; it served to palliate the resolutions of a

majority of which he was secure; but had that bad effect for the

Ministry, that the Duke of Bedford’s assertion of the facts, and

the Chancellor’s admission of them, or at least his not disputing

them, left the world persuaded of their reality, and of the

timidity, indolence, or wickedness of the Administration.

The Chancellor, therefore, in a very long and elaborate speech,

said, that if what had been advanced against the Bill was true, it

was one of the worst Bills on the best plan that ever was formed.

That indeed the Bill was only a part of the plan formerly concerted

of buying the jurisdictions of the great Lords into the hands of

the Crown; and that it fell in naturally enough to that plan, as

these estates must necessarily be sold. That the only blame he

should have expected was that this Bill had not been brought in

sooner. Formerly the complaint had been that forfeited estates

were restored and given back from the Crown. That indeed he did

believe many of the claims upon these estates were fictitious:

however, they must be determined in Scotland; here is the last

place where they must be examined. That this Bill alone can

enable you to have fair purchasers; and that if the claims are

fraudulent, it is an additional reason for passing such a Bill;

otherwise, the original proprietors might re-acquire their estates

for nothing. That the great view of the Government was to destroy

clanships; his own great wish, to see the King a great Highland

landlord: that one of the chief benefits to arise from this scheme,

secondarily to the extension of loyalty, is the improvement of

the linen manufactures, an establishment at once so useful to our

trade, and so inconsistent with arbitrary principles, that there

had been but three single men of those manufacturers engaged in

the last Rebellion. That with regard to the difficulty of finding

colonists, he did not doubt but some English might be prevailed on

to settle there, probably some Lowlanders too, nay, some Irish,

if they can be spared. He believed, indeed, that the greater part

of the old inhabitants must remain at first; but that some of the

well-affected clans might be induced to transmigrate to those

settlements; and that he did not despair of reclaiming even the

present tenants, at least in the next generation of them, if they

were once emancipated from dependence on their chiefs. That the

danger from distributing money among the disaffected, formerly so

impolitic a measure of King William, must not be considered here

in that light; this is not money to bribe traitors, but to pay

lawful creditors; and that he had rather even fraudulent creditors

should enjoy this money than have the estates revert to their old

proprietors. That even the position laid down of encouragement

given to Rebellions by largesses to that country, was not true; it

was the restitution of forfeited estates which had hardened them to

attempt new commotions; but that if we were still to see repeated

insurrections, every Rebellion cuts off so much strength from the

faction. That indeed, as to the article of the Commissioners,

he wished those words, _without fee or reward_, were not in the

Bill; that he must own he saw many just grounds of complaint,

but could not approve national reflections. That to the honour

of that country he must say, the linen manufactures were carried

on by Directors who received no salary. If these Commissioners

should prove less meritorious, or more blameable, they are not for

life; they are removable. That now he must take a little notice of

the heavy accusations enforced by the noble Duke; but previously

he must observe, that it is not proper in a Debate, to raise

objections from particular facts, which people cannot be prepared

to answer. That Cummings’s case was so flagrant, that if it was

inquired into, he did not doubt but it would be remedied. But what

did this and the other instances prove, but the want of the Bill?

That another view of the Bill was, to raise towns and villages and

stations _for_ troops; not that it would take away the want _of_

troops: that the money, supposing it a large sum, was but little in

comparison of the benefits it was calculated to purchase: is it not

a little sum, if it prevents only one Rebellion?

If it was true, as the Duke of Bedford had asserted, and as he

believed it was, that the Lowland share of the forfeited estates

was not mortgaged to the full value, and that therefore they ought

to be sold altogether, and the overplus go towards the purchase,

for his part he believed nobody would advise his Majesty to sell

those estates. That he did not believe the claims would be allowed

to the extent given in; that the King, of his grace, may give the

overplus towards the purchase, but that he should not advise it: he

should rather advise that the distribution should be made to reward

loyalty; for instance, could a nobler use be made of it, than in

rewarding Sir Harry Monroe, who and whose family had done and had

suffered so much for the service of the Crown? That the last thing

of which he should take notice, was the insufficient manner in

which the taxes had been collected in that northern quarter of the

Kingdom: some method, to be sure, should be taken to make Scotland

pay her taxes; but could any Ministry ever hit upon that method?

it is not _vitium temporis_ that the Ministers have not done the

impossible thing. One good effect the very proposal of this will

have, if it points out, or leads to a remedy for the nonpayment of

these taxes.

The young Marquis of Rockingham entered into a Debate so much above

his force, and pertly applied the trite old apologue of Menenius

Agrippa, and the sillier old story of the Fellow of a College, who

asked why we should do anything for Posterity, who had never done

anything for us!

Lord Bath then joined the Duke of Bedford’s opposition, after

first reflecting on that Duke himself, who he said had entered

his complaint both ways, that the Bill had not been brought in

soon enough, and had been brought in too late. That for himself,

he could not but think the proposal of examining the claims first

very material. Should he, would any man, purchase an estate, before

he had examined the nature and validity of the incumbrances? That

on the first face of the account, he could descry false claims

and misprision. On one little estate of thirty pounds a year he

observed a mortgage of four thousand pounds. Who, he asked, had

been in possession of these 16,000_l._ per annum since they had

been forfeited? If the Government, where is the receipt? who

accounts for it? If the creditors, why is not so much struck off

from their claims? What must England say, if Scotland pays nothing

towards four million of taxes? What must she say, when the weight

of these taxes has been increased by Rebellions raised in Scotland?

But who is it, must he ask, who takes upon them to remit taxes?

Kings had been driven out for arrogating a dispensing power! where

will these partialities end? He concluded with proposing a Bill to

be enacted for punishing any frauds relative to forfeitures.

The Chancellor replied, that the Bill had been prepared as soon as

possible, and had been brought in soon after Christmas. That the

time for sale would lapse, and the estates fall to the mortgagees,

if the Bill should now be postponed. That the mortgages, though

real, could not extend beyond the value of the estates, which, he

said, was a case frequent enough in Chancery.

Then rose a man, on whom all eyes had turned during the Debate--the

Duke of Argyle. How was every expectation disappointed! As his

power was uncontrolled in Scotland; as partialities could only be

exercised under his influence, or connived at by his intrigues;

as the Bill was known to be a sacrifice made to his ascendant;

as its practicability had been questioned; who but himself was

answerable, for favour to Jacobites, for tyranny to the loyal,

for the necessity, for the utility, or for the feasibility of the

regulation in question? He looked down, seemed abashed, spoke low

and but a few words, then contemptuously, and at last said nothing

to refute the charge of partialities, or in defence of the Bill.

He only said, “What would have happened if any Scotch Lord had

spoken against it? it would have been said, they are for keeping up

their old barbarity and power. Whereas, the clans are to transfer

their allegiance to Commissioners appointed by the King during his

pleasure. If any man suspected him to be so low, as to have private

views in this, God forgive him! That with regard to taxes, such

difficulties there had been on the old tax on houses, that it had

never been paid: few counties had even named their Collectors. That

the window tax, if paid, would raise but 6000_l._, and ninety-nine

Collectors would have but fifteen shillings a piece. That on

the coach tax there was no deficience. For himself, he despised

reports.”

Lord Tweedale spoke after him, and with passion; but as nobody

expected any great lights from him, so he disappointed nobody.

The Duke of Newcastle, _flustered_ by the Duke of Bedford’s

attack, and confounded by the Duke of Argyle’s no defence, seemed

to speak only to mark his own confusion, and to enforce what the

Duke of Bedford had urged. He said he had taken minutes of the

names mentioned by his Grace, and hoped such recommendations would

be taken no more. That he had already sent the King’s orders to

apprehend some Rebels still resident in Scotland; but as yet they

could not be taken.

Thus much effect followed: Cummings and some others in the Duke

of Bedford’s list were removed. The Bill passed; but though one

great argument for driving it on had been the danger of the estates

lapsing, neither English nor Scotch Ministers chose to have it

discussed any further in Parliament. The Duke of Cumberland, who

was present, did not vote. The Court Lords were fourscore; the

minority only twelve: the Dukes of Bedford and Kingston; the Earls

of Bath, Chesterfield, Sandwich, and Macclesfield; with six Tory

Lords, the Duke of Beaufort, the Earls of Lichfield and Oxford,

and the Lords Wentworth, Ward, and Maynard. Mr. Pelham was enraged

beyond measure at the Duke of Argyle; the King charmed with the

Duke of Bedford; and both these sensations were heightened by the

Duke giving his father a list of sixty Jacobites, who had been

preferred in Scotland since the Rebellion.

26th.--The King put an end to the session; and the Speaker, in his

speech to him, launched out in invectives against the management in

Scotland.

I shall conclude the history of this Bill with the character of its

patron, not its defender, the Duke of Argyle.

Archibald Campbell, Earl of Isla, was younger brother of the

admired John, Duke of Argyle, whom he succeeded in the title,

and with whom he had little in common, but the love of command.

The elder brother was graceful in his figure, ostentatious in

his behaviour, impetuous in his passions; prompt to insult, even

where he had wit to wound and eloquence to confound; and what is

seldomer seen, a miser as early as a hero. Lord Isla was slovenly

in his person, mysterious, not to say with an air of guilt in his

deportment, slow, steady where suppleness did not better answer

his purpose, revengeful, and if artful, at least not ingratiating.

He loved power too well to hazard it by ostentation, and money

so little, that he neither spared it to gain friends or to serve

them. He attained the sole authority in Scotland, by making

himself useful to Sir Robert Walpole, and preserved it by being

formidable to the Pelhams. The former had disgusted the zealous

Whigs in Scotland by throwing himself into the arms of a man of

such equivocal principles: the Earl pretended to return it, by

breaking with his brother when that Duke quarrelled with Sir

Robert: yet one chief cause of Walpole’s fall was attributed to

Lord Isla’s betraying to his brother the Scotch boroughs entrusted

to his management in 1741. It must be told, that Sir Robert Walpole

always said, he did not accuse him. Lord Isla’s power received a

little shock by Lord Tweedale’s and Lord Stair’s return to Court

on that Minister’s retreat; but like other of Lord Orford’s chief

associates, Lord Isla soon recovered his share of the spoils of

that Administration. He had been ill with the Queen (of whom he

knew he was sure while he was sure of Sir Robert Walpole) from his

attachment to Lady Suffolk: he connected with Lord Granville,

while Lord Granville had any sway; and as easily united with the

Pelhams, when power was their common pursuit, and the humiliation

of the Duke and the Duke of Bedford the object of their common

resentment; for common it was, though the very cause that naturally

presented them to the Duke of Argyle’s hatred, their zeal and

services, ought at least to have endeared them to the brothers.

By a succession of these intrigues, the Duke of Argyle had risen

to supreme authority in Scotland: the only instance wherein he

declined the full exertion of it was, when it might have been

of service to the master who delegated it; in the time of the

Rebellion: at that juncture he posted to London: the King was to

see that he was not in Rebellion; the Rebels, that he was not

in arms. But when this double conduct was too gross not to be

censured, he urged a Scotch law in force against taking up arms

without legal authority; so scrupulously attached did he pretend

to be to the constitution of his country, that he would not arm

in defence of the essence of its laws against the letter of them.

In his private life, he had more merit, except in the case of his

wife, whom having been deluded into marrying without a fortune, he

punished by rigorous and unrelaxed confinement in Scotland. He had

a great thirst for books; a head admirably turned to mechanics;

was a patron of ingenious men, a promoter of discoveries, and one

of the first great encouragers of planting in England; most of

the curious exotics which have been familiarized to this climate

being introduced by him. But perhaps too much has been said on

the subject of a man, who, though at the head of his country for

several years, had so little great either in himself or in his

views, and consequently contributed so little to any great events,

that posterity will probably interest themselves very slightly in

the history of his fortunes.[217]

31st.--The King set out for Hanover: the Duke of Newcastle, who

attended him, would not venture himself in any yacht but the one in

which Lord Cardigan had lately escaped a great storm.

While the King was absent, a scene was opened in a remote part

of his dominions, which had not been accustomed to figure on the

theatre of politics. Ireland had for many years been profoundly

obedient to the Government. The Roman Catholics were too much

overbalanced by the power of the Protestants to be formidable: the

latter were too certain on any change of Government, to meet with

no quarter from the professors of a religion, by whose plunder

they were enriched, not to be inflexibly attached to the Prince

on the Throne. Yet the insolence or wantonness of two men, new to

power, contrived in a minute to throw that kingdom into a flame,

and to create factions, who soon imbibed all the inveteracy of

party, except disaffection. The internal councils of Ireland were

chiefly guided by Mr. Boyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons,

and Chancellor of the Exchequer, and during the absence of the

Lord-Lieutenants, one of the Lords Justices. He was vain and

popular, and as the idols of the people and of themselves generally

are, a man of moderate capacity. It had been the unvaried practice

of the Lord-Lieutenants to court this man, and to govern the House

of Commons by his interest: the steadiness of his principles was

unquestionable. Lord Harrington, the last Governor, had been much

disliked, but conforming himself to this maxim, some discontented

persons[218] had in vain attempted to give disturbance to the

King’s affairs.

He was succeeded by the Duke of Dorset, who was a man of dignity,

caution, and plausibility, and who had formerly ruled Ireland to

their universal satisfaction. But he then acted from himself; he

was now in the hands of two men most unlike himself, his youngest

son, Lord George Sackville, and Dr. George Stone, the Primate of

Ireland. The former, a man of very sound parts, of distinguished

bravery, and of as honourable eloquence, but hot, haughty,

ambitious, obstinate. The Primate, a man of fair appearance,

of not inferior parts, more insinuating, but by no means less

ambitious, had with no pretensions in the world, but by being

attached to the house of Dorset, and by being brother of Mr.

Stone, been hurried through two or three Irish Bishopricks up to

the very Primacy of the kingdom, not only unwarrantably young, but

without even the graver excuses of learning or sanctimony. Instead

of attempting to conciliate the affections of a nation offended

at his promotion, he thought of nothing but governing by the same

influence by which he had been raised. Lord George, as little

disposed to be controlled, would not stoop to the usual management

for Mr. Boyle; and he was not likely to be persuaded to observe any

attentions by the Primate, who had shaken them off himself. The

Speaker, who had not lost his taste for power by being accustomed

to it, was soon alarmed, and had an opportunity of revenge offered

to him almost as soon as the offence.

The Duke of Dorset had recommended to the Parliament to provide

more barracks for the soldiers, and to inquire into the

late abuses of the money destined to that service. This was

obliquely aimed at Lord Harrington, and intended, by casting

odium on his Administration, to heighten the popularity of the

new Lord-Lieutenant; but it had different and much further

consequences than the junto had foreseen. The money was voted; but

the Parliament, in prosecution of abuses, fell upon one Neville

Jones, a creature of the Primate, and determined to express

their aversion to that Prelate, by sacrificing his tool. When it

is told that, till the era in question, no Opposition had been

able to unite above eight-and-twenty voices in the Irish House of

Commons against the Government, it will appear surprising that the

contagion of new discontents should in a few weeks have infected

even the majority there. Faction is as capricious as Fortune:

wrongs, oppression, the zeal of real patriots, or the genius

of false ones, may sometimes be employed for years in kindling

substantial opposition to authority; in other seasons, the impulse

of a moment, a ballad, a nickname, a fashion can throw a city into

a tumult, and shake the foundations of a state. Spain, which surely

must sometimes produce some heroic, some patriot natures, has

groaned for centuries under tyranny and the Inquisition: the poor

fisherboy of Naples, Massaniello, could, in the space of two days,

set at defiance, overturn, a haughty, an armed, an established

Government. It is certain that no innovation, no unwonted exertion

of power, had provoked the Irish: but they thought themselves

contemned: they saw the channel of power totally diverted from the

natives: the indiscretion of the rulers presented a colour to the

keenest invectives that a faction could wish to employ.

The Speaker furnished himself as chief to the faction; but they had

wiser heads to direct both them and their chief. Of these were,

Carter, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Richard Cox, and Malone.

Carter had always been a Whig, but had as constantly fomented

every discontent against the Lord-Lieutenants, in order to be

bought off: an able, intriguing man, of slender reputation for

integrity. Sir Richard Cox was a patriot, and the first deviser

of the linen manufactures, which have been of such essential

service to his country. He and Malone were distinguished orators,

and had both been gained by Lord Harrington, but were neglected

by the new Court at the Castle. Malone’s family were Popish, and

his own conversion suspected. But the Speaker was for some time

the only ostensible idol of the party’s adoration: to a confessed

integrity and loyalty he united a romantic readiness for single

combat, so much to the taste of his countrymen. The Castle were

desirous of raising Mr. Ponsonby, a son of Lord Besborough, and

son-in-law of the Duke of Devonshire, to the chair. The Parliament

of Ireland, unless specially dissolved, sits during a whole reign,

and the Speaker’s dignity is of the same duration. Lord George’s

measures were apt to be abrupt: he directly offered the Speaker

a Peerage and a pension of 1500_l._ a year. The Speaker replied,

“If I had a Peerage, I should not think myself greater than now

that I am Mr. Boyle: for t’other thing, I despise it as much as

the person who offers it.” This, and some indirect threats equally

miscarrying, and the Castle finding that their creature Jones

must be the first victim, endeavoured to defer what they could

not prevent. The Speaker’s party moved for a call of the House

for that day three weeks; Lord George Sackville moved to have it

that day six weeks--and was beat! Whoever[219] has seen the tide

first turn in favour of an Opposition, may judge of the riotous

triumphs occasioned by this victory. The ladies made balls, the

mob bonfires, the poets pasquinades--if Pasquin has seen wittier,

he himself never saw more severe or less delicate lampoons. The

Address that was soon after sent over to the King, applied directly

to him, and not as was usual to the Lord-Lieutenant; and they told

his Majesty, in plain terms, that it was from apprehension of being

misrepresented. This was an unpleasant potion for the Duke of

Dorset to swallow--but we must adjourn the further account of these

dissensions to their proper place in order of time, and proceed to

open a new scene of division at home, in which one of the principal

actors was intimately connected with the Court-faction in Ireland.

In the former part of these Memoirs, it has been mentioned, that

the young Prince of Wales, on the death of his father, was placed

by the King under the care of the Earl of Harcourt, as Governor;

of Dr. Hayter, Bishop of Norwich, as Preceptor; and of Mr. Stone

and Mr. Scott, as Sub-governor and Sub-preceptor. The two former

were favourites of Lord Lincoln, the ministerial nephew: Stone

was the bosom-confidant of the Duke of Newcastle: Scott, as well

as the Solicitor-General, Murray, and Cresset, the favourite of

the Princess, were disciples of Lord Bolingbroke, and his bequest

to the late Prince. Stone, in general a cold, mysterious man, of

little plausibility, had always confined his arts, his application,

and probably his views, to one or two great objects. The Princess

could answer to all these lights: with her, he soon ingratiated

himself deeply. Lord Harcourt was minute and strict in trifles; and

thinking that he discharged his trust conscientiously, if on no

account he neglected to make the Prince turn out his toes, he gave

himself little trouble to respect the Princess, or to condescend

to the Sub-governor. The Bishop, thinking himself already Minister

to the future King, expected dependence from, never once thought

of depending upon, the inferior Governors. In the education of the

two Princes, he was sincerely honest and zealous; and soon grew to

thwart the Princess, whenever, as an indulgent, or perhaps a little

as an ambitious mother, (and this happened but too frequently),

she was willing to relax the application of her sons. These jars

appeared soon after the King’s going to Hanover: and by the season

of his return, they were ripe for his interposition.

The English Court at Rome was as little free from intestine

divisions as the Hanoverian Court at London. The Cardinal of York,

whose devotion preserved him from disobedience to his father

as little as his Princely character had preserved him from

devotion, had entirely abandoned himself to the government of an

Abbé, who soon grew displeasing to the old Pretender. Commands,

remonstrances, requests, had no effect on the obstinacy of the

young Cardinal. The father, whose genius never veered towards

compliance, insisted on the dismission of the Abbé. Instead of

parting with his favourite, the young Cardinal with his minion

left Rome abruptly, and with little regard to the dignity of his

Purple. The Holy See, which was sunk to having few more important

negotiations to manage, interested itself in the reconciliation,

and the haughty young Eminence of York was induced to return to his

father, but without being obliged to sacrifice his Abbé. As I shall

not often have occasion to mention this imaginary Court, I will

here give a cursory picture of it.

The Chevalier de St. George is tall, meagre, melancholy in his

aspect. Enthusiasm and disappointment have stamped a solemnity

on his person, which rather creates pity than respect: he seems

the phantom, which good-nature, divested of reflection, conjures

up, when we think on the misfortunes, without the demerits, of

Charles the First. Without the particular features of any Stuart,

the Chevalier has the strong lines and fatality of air peculiar

to them all. From the first moment I saw him, I never doubted

the legitimacy of his birth--a belief not likely to occasion

any scruples in one whose principles directly tend to approve

dethroning the most genuine Prince, whose religion, and whose

maxims of government are incompatible with the liberty of his

country.

He never gave the world very favourable impressions of him: in

Scotland, his behaviour was far from heroic. At Rome, where, to

be a good Roman-catholic, it is by no means necessary to be very

religious, they have little esteem for him: it is not at home

that they are fond of martyrs and confessors. But it was his

ill-treatment of the Princess Sobieski, his wife, that originally

disgusted the Papal Court. She, who to zeal for Popery, had

united all its policy, who was lively, insinuating, agreeable,

and enterprising, was fervently supported by that Court, when she

could no longer endure the mortifications that were offered to her

by Hay and his wife, the titular Counts of Inverness, to whom the

Chevalier had entirely resigned himself. The Pretender retired to

Bologna, but was obliged to sacrifice his favourites, before he

could re-establish himself at Rome. His next Prime Minister was

Murray, nominal Earl of Dunbar, brother of the Viscount Stormont,

and of the celebrated Solicitor-General. He was a man of artful

abilities, graceful in his person and manner, and very attentive to

please. He had distinguished himself before he was of age, in the

last Parliament of Queen Anne, and chose to attach himself to the

unsuccessful party abroad, and for whose re-establishment he had

co-operated. He was, when still very young, appointed Governor to

the young Princes, but growing suspected by the warm Jacobites of

some correspondence with Sir Robert Walpole, and not entering into

the favourite project of Prince Charles’s expedition to Scotland,

he thought fit to leave that Court, and retire to Avignon, where,

while he was regarded as lukewarm to the cause, from his connexion

with the Solicitor-General here, the latter was not at all less

suspected of devotion to a Court where his brother had so long been

First Minister.

The characters of the Pretender’s sons are hitherto imperfectly

known; yet both have sufficiently worn the characteristics of the

house of Stuart--bigotry and obstinacy and want of judgment. The

eldest set out with a resolution of being very resolute, but it

soon terminated in his being only wrong-headed.

The most apparent merit of the Chevalier’s Court is the great

regularity of his finances, and the economy of his exchequer.

His income before the Rebellion was about 23,000_l._ a year,

arising chiefly from pensions from the Pope and from Spain, from

contributions from England, and some irregular donations from other

Courts. Yet his payments were not only most exact, but he had saved

a large sum of money, which was squandered on the unfortunate

attempt in Scotland. Besides the loss of a Crown, to which he

thought he had a just title, besides a series of disappointments

from his birth, besides that mortifying rotation of friends, to

which his situation has constantly exposed him, as often as

faction and piques and baffled ambition have driven the great men

of England to apply to or desert his forlorn hopes, he has, in the

latter part of his life, seen his own little Court and his parental

affections torn to pieces, and tortured by the seeds of faction,

sown by that master-hand of sedition, the famous Bolingbroke,

who insinuated into their councils a project for the Chevalier’s

resigning his pretensions to his eldest son, as more likely to

conciliate the affections of the English to his family. The father,

and the ancient Jacobites, never could be induced to relish this

scheme. The boy and his adherents embraced it as eagerly as if the

father had really a Crown to resign. Slender as their Cabinet was,

these parties divided it; and when I was at Rome, Lord Winton was a

patriot at that Court, and the ragged type of a minority, which was

comprehended in his single person.

In September, the Margrave of Anspach, nephew of the late Queen,

and to whom on that relation the King had given the Order of the

Garter, wrote a circular letter to the Princes of the Empire, to

dissuade them from holding a Diet of Election, till it was declared

necessary to have a King of the Romans. The King was unlucky in

his German alliances. The Landgrave of Hesse, and the Duke of Saxe

Gotha, the one father-in-law of the Princess Mary, the other,

brother of the Princess of Wales, declared themselves against the

election.

With these disappointments, the King returned to England, and

arrived at St. James’s, November 18th. The Princess appeared

again in public, and the King gave her the same honours and place

as the Queen used to have. He was not in the same gracious mood

with others of the Court. The calamity of Lord Holderness, the

Secretary of State, was singular; he was for some days in disgrace,

for having played at blindman’s-buff in the summer at Tunbridge.

To Lord Harcourt, the King said not a word. In the beginning of

December, the Chancellor and the Archbishop sent to Lord Harcourt

that they would wait on him by the King’s command: he prevented

them, and went to the Chancellor, who told him that they had orders

to hear his complaints. He replied, “They were not proper to be

told but to the King himself,” which did not make it a little

suspicious, that even the Princess was included in his disgusts.

The first incident that had directly amounted to a quarrel, was,

the Bishop of Norwich finding the Prince of Wales reading Père

d’Orleans’s _Revolutions d’Angleterre_; a book professedly written

by the direction, and even by the communication, of James the

Second, to justify his measures.

Stone at first peremptorily denied having seen that book in thirty

years, and offered to rest his whole justification upon the truth

or falsehood of that accusation. At last it was confessed that the

Prince had the book, but it was qualified with Prince Edward’s

borrowing it of his sister Augusta. Stone acted mildness, and

professed being willing to continue to act with Lord Harcourt and

the Bishop: but the sore had penetrated too deep, and they, who

had given the wounds, had aggravated them with harsh provocations.

The Bishop was accused of having turned Scott one day out of the

Prince’s chamber, by an imposition of hands, that had at least

as much of the flesh as the spirit in the force of the action.

Cresset, the link of the connexion, had dealt out very ungracious

epithets both on the Governor and Preceptor; and Murray, by an

officious strain of strange imprudence, had, early in the quarrel,

waited on the Bishop, and informed him, that Mr. Stone ought to

have more consideration in the Prince’s family: and repeating the

visit and opinion, the Bishop said, “He believed that Mr. Stone

found all proper regard, but that Lord Harcourt, the chief of the

trust, was generally present.”--Murray interrupted him, and cried,

“Lord Harcourt! pho! he is a cipher, and must be a cipher, and was

put in to be a cipher.” A notification, however understood before

by the world, that could not be agreeable to the person destined

to a situation so insignificant! Accordingly, December 6th, Lord

Harcourt had a private audience in the King’s closet, and resigned.

The Archbishop waited on his Majesty, desiring to know if he would

see the Bishop of Norwich, or accept his resignation from his (the

Archbishop’s) hands. The King chose the latter.

The Junto did not find it so easy to fix new ciphers as to

displace the old. Dr. Johnson, the new Bishop of Gloucester, was

the object of their wishes for Preceptor; but his education with

Murray and Stone, and his principles, which were undoubtedly the

same as theirs (whatever theirs were), proved obstacles they could

not surmount. The Whigs were violently against his promotion; the

Archbishop strongly objected to him. It was still more difficult

to accommodate themselves with a Governor: the post was at once

too exalted, and they had declared it too unsubstantial, to leave

it easy to find a man, who could fill the honour and digest the

dishonour of it. Many were named; some refused it. At last, after

long waving it, Lord Waldegrave, at the earnest request of the

King, accepted it, and after repeated assurances of the submission

and tractability of Stone. The Earl was very averse to it; he was

a man of pleasure, understood the Court, was firm in the King’s

favour, easy in his circumstances, and at once undesirous of

rising, and afraid to fall. He said to a friend, “If I dared, I

would make this excuse to the King; Sir, I am too young to govern,

and too old to be governed.”--But he was forced to submit. A man

of stricter honour, or of more reasonable sense, could not have

been selected for the employment; yet as the Whig zeal had caught

flame, even this choice was severely criticized. Lord Waldegrave’s

grandmother was daughter of King James; his family were all

Papists, and his father had been but the first convert.

The Preceptor was not fixed till the beginning of the new year, but

I shall include his promotion here, not to interrupt the thread

of the narration: it was Dr. Thomas, who during the first civil

war of Leicester-house, had read prayers to the present King: it

was not till within two years of this period that the King had

found an opportunity of preferring him, and then made him Bishop

of Peterborough. He was a man of a fair character, esteemed rather

a Tory in his principles. It may not be unentertaining to mention

another instance of the King’s good fortune in being able to

promote an old friend. General Legonier one day went and offered

his Majesty the nomination to a living in his gift. The King

expressed the greatest joy and gratitude, and said, “There is one I

have long tried to make a Prebendary, but my Ministers never would

give me an opportunity; I am much obliged to you, I will give the

living to him.”

FOOTNOTES:

[216] The Author of these Memoirs.

[217] Archibald Campbell, [Earl of Isla, and, on the death of his

brother,] Duke of Argyle, died suddenly in his chair after dinner,

at his house in Argyle Buildings, London, April 15, 1761.

[218] Headed by one Lucas, an apothecary, who was soon after

banished from that kingdom, and turned physician in London, where

he wrote controversy in his own profession.

[219] The Author could judge a little of this, by what he had seen

himself at the conclusion of his father’s Ministry.

1753, AND PART OF 1754.

_Vernon._

Then for the truth and plainness of the case,

I pluck this pale and maiden blossom here,

Giving _my_ verdict on the _white rose’ side_.

_Lawyer._

Unless my study and my books be false,

The argument you held, was wrong in you;--(_To Somerset_)

In sign whereof _I_ pluck a white rose too.

_Shakesp. first Part of Henry VI._

Memoirs of the Reign of King George the Second, Volume 1 (of 3) · 第 9 / 12 章