Debates in Parliament at the commencement of the year 1753--The
King of Prussia stops the payment of the Silesian Loan--The
fictitious Memorial of several Noblemen and Gentlemen on the
Education of the Prince of Wales--History of Lord Ravensworth
and Fawcett--The latter’s charge of Jacobitism against persons
holding situations under the Crown--Debate in the House of Lords
on Fawcett’s testimony--Speeches of the Duke of Bedford, the Lord
Chancellor, Lord Harcourt, Lord Talbot, the Bishops of Norwich
and Gloucester, and the Duke of Newcastle.
This year, soon made remarkable by some extraordinary occurrences,
opened quietly; at least with events scarcely worth recording. A
few independents of Westminster attempted, on the death of their
representative, Sir Peter Warren, to revive an opposition to the
Court, by again presenting Sir George Vandeput to the mob; but the
idol’s holiday was past; and he himself soon declined the contest.
The Earl of Marchmont, adopted into the Court, moved the Address
in the House of Lords, but coldly and unanimated; the fire and
acrimony which made him shine in Opposition were gone, and no
grace had succeeded. In the other House, Lord Egmont reflected on
the Address, which he said, he expected would have been prudent and
discreet, but found some parts of it improper and vain-glorious:
that he believed the measures were well intended, but would prove
unsuccessful; that the College of Princes had objected to an
election of a King of the Romans; that the new memorial of the King
of Prussia, outwardly relative to the Silesian loan, was founded,
he believed, on that Prince’s dissatisfaction with our conduct in
the affair of the election; that he desired to avoid petulance, but
thought it improper to give approbation to measures as wise, in
which no wisdom had appeared, and that therefore, in wording the
Address, he would omit the words _wisdom as well as_ goodness; that
he acknowledged the goodness, not the wisdom. Mr. Pelham replied,
that he thought the noble Lord (_who was as accurate as anybody
in writing_)[220] had made a false emendation; that the purpose
of maintaining peace was all that was aimed at in the speech; who
would not own the wisdom as well as the goodness of his Majesty in
this? This is all the speech says: is it good in the King or in
Ministers to pursue bad measures? there cannot be great goodness
and little wisdom.
Feb. 9th.--Lord Egmont, in the course of the Mutiny Bill, moved to
have oaths administered to evidences on regimental Courts Martial.
He still combatted the giant of military power: Sir Henry Erskine,
the old companion of his chivalry, was now the first to oppose him.
The consideration, at the motion of Lord George Sackville, was
deferred till the report.
13th.--The Duke of Bedford moved to have the accounts of Nova
Scotia laid before the House. Lord Halifax added, that all letters
to and from the Secretary of State relative thereto should be
produced. The Duke of Newcastle opposed this, and desired that only
extracts might be brought. The Duke of Bedford artfully inflamed
this contest, praised Lord Halifax, and acquiesced.
15th.--Was published the Duke of Newcastle’s answer to the Memorial
presented by Mons. Michell, Secretary of the embassy from the King
of Prussia. This Memorial and other papers had been presented in
November and December of the preceding year, and was a pretended
justification of the Prussian King’s conduct in stopping the last
payment of the money due to the subjects of Great Britain on the
Silesian loan. This money had been borrowed of private persons in
the year 1734 by the Emperor Charles VI., and he had mortgaged to
them as a security his Revenues arising from the Duchies of Upper
and Lower Silesia, for payment of principal and interest, till the
whole debt should be discharged, which was fixed to be in the
year 1745. But no sooner was the Imperial debtor dead, than the
King of Prussia seized the province of Silesia, on the cession of
which to him in form by the treaty of Breslau in 1742, he agreed
to take the debt upon himself, and to stand exactly in the place
of the Emperor; and actually did continue to discharge part of
it; but being intent on erecting himself into a naval Power, and
as intent on traversing the views of his uncle, he had involved
himself in squabbles with England by transporting and furnishing
naval and hostile stores to France on board his Embden ships, some
of which had been taken by our men of war, some condemned, some
restored. These discussions not turning out to his satisfaction,
or he being determined not to be satisfied, at length resolved
to detain the last payment on the Silesian loan; that is, after
a certain balance had been liquidated by his own Ministers, he
stopped about 30,000_l._ of 45,000_l._ which were due, and offered
to our subjects to pay the remainder, provided they would give a
full and authentic discharge for the whole debt: a transaction
the more arbitrary and unjustifiable, as his complaints were not
dated till 1746, and the whole debt ought to have been discharged
the year before. The measure was violent and insulting, and a
glaring comment on the inconveniences resulting from our connexions
with the Continent. The great superiority of the navies of Great
Britain over the baby fleet of Prussia, the only arms by which
nations so separated could come to any discussion of interests,
was too evident for that Prince to have dared to hazard his infant
hopes in so unequal a contest, had he not been sensible that we had
a pawn on the continent with which he might indemnify himself for
any exertion of British resentment;--and indeed, while we have this
pledge staked for our good behaviour, every petty Prince who is a
match for Hanover is too powerful for England; nor is it a question
any longer what nations can cope with Great Britain, but, what
little Landgrave is too formidable to the Electorate?
With the Duke of Newcastle’s letter was delivered a confutation
of the Memorial, drawn up by Sir George Lee, Dr. Paul, the King’s
Advocate for Civil Law, Sir Dudley Rider, Attorney, and Mr.
Murray, Solicitor General. The examination was made in concert by
all, the composition solely by the last; and perhaps few pieces
in any language can stand in comparison with it, for elegance,
perspicuity, art, and argument. The genius of the author did honour
to his country in a performance of such notoriety; but perhaps the
dignity of England had been less hurt, if we had been made appear
to be less in the right. What advantage was there in having the
better of the argument against a Prince, who lay out of danger from
the resentments of Great Britain, while Hanover lay at his mercy?
It is unseemly for great nations to combat with the pen; and except
in the scholastic reign of James the First, England never dictated
to other kingdoms by a superiority in controversy. What is still
more striking, and a remark that I might, but will not often make,
scarce a murmur followed this supineness of conduct. Even those who
suffered in that tender point, their interest, seemed contented
with our pedantic victory. In the year 1743, a yellow sash worn
by the King in the field, and one or two Hanoverian prejudices as
trifling, were on the brink of raising a Civil War in this country.
In the year 1753, both national honour and national avarice could
not, did not attempt to raise so much as a Debate in the House
of Commons in their own defence! A little spark, in comparison,
kindled the flame that followed.
At the end of the last year, while the dissensions in the tutorhood
had been carried so high, an anonymous Memorial,[221] pretended to
have been signed by several Noblemen and Gentlemen of the first
rank and fortune, had been sent to five or six particular persons:
it ran in these words:
_A Memorial, &c._
The Memorialists represent,
That the education of a Prince of Wales is an object of the
utmost importance to the whole nation.
That it ought always to be entrusted to Noblemen of the most
unblemished honour, and to Prelates of the most disinterested
virtue, of the most accomplished learning, and of the most
unsuspected principles, with regard to government both in Church
and State.
That the misfortunes, which this nation formerly suffered or
escaped under King Charles the First, King Charles the Second,
and King James the Second, were owing to the bad education of
those Princes, who were early initiated in maxims of arbitrary
power.
That, for a Faction to engross the education of a Prince of Wales
to themselves, excluding men of probity, property, and wholesome
learning, is unwarrantable, dangerous, and illegal.
That, to place men about a Prince of Wales, whose principles are
suspected, and whose belief in the mysteries of our Holy Faith
is doubtful, has the most mischievous tendency, and ought justly
to alarm the friends of their country, and of the Protestant
Succession.
That, for Ministers to support low men, who were originally
improper for the high trust to which they were advanced, after
complaints made of dark, suspicious, and unwarrantable means
made use of by such men in their plan of education; and to
protect and countenance such men in their insolent and unheard of
behaviour to their superiors, is a foundation for suspecting the
worst designs in such Ministers, and ought to make all good men
apprehensive of the ambition of those Ministers.
That, it being notorious that books inculcating the worst maxims
of government, and defending the most avowed tyrannies, have been
put into the hands of the Prince of Wales, it cannot but affect
the Memorialists with the most melancholy apprehensions, when
they find that the men who had the honesty and resolution to
complain of such astonishing methods of instruction are driven
away from Court, and that the men who have dared to teach such
doctrines are continued in trust and favour.
That the security of this Government being built on Whig
principles, and alone supported by Whig zeal; that the
establishment of the present Royal Family being settled on
the timely overthrow of Queen Anne’s last Ministry, it cannot
but alarm all true Whigs, to hear of schoolmasters of very
contrary principles being thought of for Preceptors; and to see
none but the friends and pupils of the late Lord Bolingbroke
entrusted with the education of a Prince, whose family that Lord
endeavoured by his measures to defeat, and by his writings to
exclude from the Throne of these kingdoms.
That, there being great reason to believe that a noble Lord has
accused one of the Preceptors of Jacobitism, it is astonishing
that no notice has been taken of a complaint of so high a nature;
on the contrary, the accused person continues in the same trust,
without any inquiry into the grounds of the charge, or any steps
taken by the accused to purge himself from a crime of so black a
dye.
That no satisfaction being given to the Governor and Preceptor,
who, though a nobleman of the most unblemished honour, and a
Prelate of the most unbiassed virtue, have been treated in the
grossest terms of abuse, by a menial servant in the family, is
derogatory to his Majesty’s authority, under which they acted, is
an affront to the Peerage, and an outrage to the dignity of the
Church.
That whoever advised the refusal of an audience to the Lord
Bishop of Norwich, who was so justly alarmed at the wrong methods
which he saw taken in the education of the Prince, is an enemy to
his country, and can only mean at best to govern by a faction, or
is himself influenced by a more dangerous faction, who intend to
overthrow the Government, and restore the exiled and arbitrary
House of Stuart.
That to have a Scotchman of a most disaffected family, and
allied in the nearest manner to the Pretender’s First Minister,
consulted on the education of the Prince of Wales, and entrusted
with the most important secrets of Government, must tend to alarm
and disgust the friends of the present Royal Family, and to
encourage the hopes and attempts of the Jacobites.
Lastly, the Memorialists cannot help remarking, that three
or four low, dark, suspected persons are the only men whose
situation is fixed and permanent, but that all the great offices
and officers are so constantly varied and shuffled about, to the
disgrace of this country, that the best affected apprehend that
there is a settled design in those low and suspected persons
to infuse such jealousies, caprices, and fickleness into the
two Ministers whose confidence they engross, as may render this
Government ridiculous and contemptible, and facilitate the
Revolution, which the Memorialists think they have but too much
reason to fear is meditating.
God preserve the King!
Of these papers, one had been sent to General Hawley, and another
to Lord Ravensworth. The former immediately carried one copy of
his to the Duke, who gave it to the King, and another to the Duke
of Newcastle, whose fright was only equalled by the noise raised
by other copies of the Memorial, which was soon dispersed. Whoever
was ill at or discontented with the Court, whoever was popular,
whoever was remarkably Whig, were said to be in the number of the
Memorialists. But why Hawley was selected for one of the first
copies, was not so easily guessed. It was well said, by somebody,
that it was judiciously intended by the author, if he meant to have
it propagated; for as Hawley could not read, he must of necessity
communicate it to others. Why Lord Ravensworth received one was
obvious. He was reckoned one of the warmest and honestest Whigs in
England. His being reckoned so, was a reason for the authors of
the Memorial to address one to him; perhaps not their only reason;
perhaps their thinking him rather a factious and interested, than
an honest Whig, was the chief inducement to them to sow their seeds
of discontent in a rank soil, which did indeed produce an ample
crop.
In the beginning of February, Lord Ravensworth came to town, and
acquainted Mr. Pelham that he had strong evidence of Jacobitism
to produce against Stone, Murray, the Solicitor-General, and Dr.
Johnson, Bishop of Gloucester. The notification was not welcome;
yet could not be overlooked nor stifled. Lord Ravensworth had
already communicated his intention of having the affair sifted
to the Duke of Devonshire, the Chancellor, Lord Anson, and Mr.
Fox, the latter of whom he had consulted, whether he should carry
the notice to the King or to the Duke. Mr. Fox told him that the
Duke never meddled out of his own province, the Army. The Ministry
determined, against the opinion of Lord Granville, that the Cabinet
Council should hear Lord Ravensworth’s information.
On the 15th, 16th, and 17th, the Cabinet Council sat long and
late, but with much secrecy, inquiring into this affair. The first
night Lord Ravensworth was heard for four hours. The purport of
his accusation was, that some few weeks before at Durham, one
Fawcett, an Attorney, reading the newspaper which mentioned the
promotion of Dr. Johnson to the Bishopric of Gloucester, said “He
has good luck!” Being asked what he meant by that expression, he
had replied, “Why, Johnson has drunk the Pretender’s health twenty
times with me and Mr. Stone and Mr. Murray.” Dr. Cowper, Dean of
Durham, who had been present at this dialogue, was called, and in a
short and sensible manner confirmed Lord Ravensworth’s account. The
conversation made no noise at the time; only Dr. Chapman, master
of Magdalen College in Cambridge, gave private intelligence of it
to Harry Vane, a creature of the accused triumvirate, and he, by
Mr. Pelham’s order, wrote to Fawcett to know the meaning of this
imputation. Fawcett denied what he had said, and acquitted the
Bishop of the charge. The clamours against Stone, on his quarrel
with the Bishop of Norwich and Lord Harcourt, and the Memorial
reaching Lord Ravensworth soon after this conversation happened, he
determined to signalize his zeal, and hastened to London, Fawcett
having confirmed to him what he had denied to Vane, but begging not
to be produced as an accuser.
16th, Fawcett was examined: never was such an instance of terror
and confusion! yet with reluctance and uncertainty he owned that
what he had uttered at Durham was true. The substance of his
evidence was, “that, about twenty years ago, Murray, then a young
Lawyer, Stone, then in indigence, and himself, had used to sup
frequently at one Vernon’s, a rich Mercer, a noted Jacobite, and
a lover of ingenious young men. The conversation was wont to be
partly literature, partly treason; the customary healths, _The
Chevalier_ and _Lord Dunbar_.”
Had the greater part of the Council not wished well to the accused,
it must have shocked them to hear a charge of such consequence
brought after an interval of twenty years, brought on memory,
the transactions of a private company, most of them very young
men, at worst flattering an old rich bachelor of no importance,
and, in their most unguarded moments, never rising beyond a
foolish libation to the healths of their imaginary Monarch and
his Minister. Considering the lengths to which party had been
carried for the last twenty years; considering how many men had
been educated at Oxford about that period, or had been in league
with every considerable Jacobite in the kingdom, if such a charge
might be brought after so long a term, who almost would not be
guilty? Who almost would be so innocent as not to have gone beyond
a treasonable toast? It was necessary to be very Whig to see Lord
Ravensworth’s accusation in an honourable light.
17th, Lord Ravensworth and Fawcett were called to sign their
Affidavits: the latter asked if he might alter his? The Chancellor
told him he might add for explanation, but not make two Affidavits.
He said, “My lords, I am fitter to die than to make an Affidavit.”
He contradicted many things that he had told Lord Ravensworth, and
behaved so tragically, yet so naturally, that the Council were too
much moved to proceed, and adjourned.
The accused were warm and earnest in denying the charge: Stone in
particular affirming, that he would allow the truth of all that
had been alleged against him for the last six months, if he had so
much as once drunk the Pretender’s health in the most envenomed
companies, even when a student at Oxford; adding many menaces of
prosecuting Fawcett for calumny. Such minute assurances from one so
suspected, or such strains of prudence in his very youth, did not
much contribute to invalidate Fawcett’s testimony in the eyes of
the world.
19th, the House of Commons went on the supply for Nova Scotia, as
opened by Lord Duplin. Colonel Cornwallis, just returned from that
Government, gave a short and sensible account of the colony, where,
he said, the trade and improvements had been carried to as great a
height as could be expected in the time. Beckford spoke strongly
in behalf of the colony, and for attending to the West Indies,
where all our wars must begin and end; that till we attended to
our Navy, we had done nothing in the last war; how preferable
this, to flinging our money into the gulf of Germany! He commended
Cornwallis, and the Board of Trade. Sir Cordel Firebrace inquired
into the state of the civil government; Cornwallis gave it. Gray
spoke for improving it. Mr. Pelham desired to have it remembered,
that the support of the colony was the sense of the House; and
he told Beckford, that if he would praise oftener where it was
deserved, his reproofs would be more regarded.
The Council sat late again that night: Fawcett collected more
resolution; said, that Lord Ravensworth had been in the right to
call upon him; that it was fact that he had been with the three
accused when the treasonable healths were drunk; that at such a
distance of time, he could not swear positively that they drank
them; but he would endeavour with time to recollect particular
circumstances.
21st and 22nd, the Council continued sitting, and heard Mr. Stone
purge himself, who, with other articles of defence, called Bishop
Hay Drummond to the character of his principles.
On the 23rd, Mr. Murray appeared before them, but rejected
impetuously the reading of the Depositions: he said, he was
positive to their falsehood, be they what they might: as he was
aware that suspicions might arise from the connexions of his
family, he had lived a life of caution beyond even what his
principles would have dictated.
Lord Ravensworth grew unquiet. Fawcett’s various and uncertain
behaviour distressed him: though the world was willing to believe
the accused Jacobites, the evidence did not tend to corroborate
the opinion: was drinking a treasonable health all the treason
committed by men from whom so much danger was apprehended? Were no
proofs of disloyalty more recent than of twenty years to be found
against men who were supposed involved in the most pernicious
measures? If no acts of a treacherous dye could be produced against
them since they came into the King’s service, might it not well
be supposed, that their views and establishment under the present
Government had washed out any stains contracted by education or
former adulation? and it did appear that Vernon the Mercer had
actually made Murray the heir of his fortunes. Lord Ravensworth
consulted the Speaker, who advised him to establish his own truth,
in having received the advertisement from Fawcett--but neither was
that denied, nor the drinking the healths disbelieved, though both
Stone and Murray at the last session of the Council on the 26th,
when the latter made an incomparable oration, took each a solemn
oath, that the charge was absolutely false.
The Council made their report to the King, signed unanimously,
that Fawcett’s account was false and scandalous--yet the Duke
of Grafton, one of the unanimous, owned to Princess Emily, that
Fawcett being asked if he had seen Mr. Murray since he had been in
town, confessed he had, that he had been sent to him by Harry Vane.
“What did Mr. Murray say to you?” “He advised me to contradict
what I had said.” And the Chancellor, who communicated the whole
transaction to the Duke of Bedford, seemed to own Mr. Murray
guilty. How his jealousy of Murray, and his mean court to Stone,
made him choose to distinguish between them, will appear still more
strongly hereafter.
The King’s acceptance of Lord Ravensworth’s zeal was by no means
gracious. Whether those frowns provoked, whether the Cabinet
censure might inflame, whether disappointment from the ill success
of such notable policy had soured, or whether he was still
persuaded that the House of Hanover was in danger by employing
men who had had such dangerous connexions in their youth with a
Jacobite Mercer, Lord Ravensworth was eager and busy in blowing
up farther and more public inquisition. His temper was naturally
hot; he was reckoned honest; two strong motives to prevent his
acquiescing calmly to the disgrace he had received. His manner
of prosecuting his measure, whatever was the end, was neither
warm nor over-righteous. He tampered with the Duke of Bedford,
communicated his papers to him, and even told him that it would
not be disagreeable to him to be called upon in the House of Lords
to explain his conduct. Yet to others he protested that he had no
dealings with the Duke. His Grace was warned of this intricate
behaviour; yet being still warmer than Lord Ravensworth, and
incapable of indirect policy himself, he slighted the notice; and
on March 16th, acquainted the Lords, that on the Thursday following
he should move for the papers relating to the examination of Stone
and Murray. This was a strain of candour a little beyond what
was exacted by honour or policy. If the notification exceedingly
embarrassed the Ministry, it must be owned that the measures they
concerted, from the time given them by the Duke, were as discreet
and artful as could be devised.
The 22nd was the day of expectation. The House was crowded. The
Duke of Bedford began with observing that the public attention
had been so engrossed by the late Cabinet Councils, that he was
not surprised at the multitude he found assembled to hear the
discussion, or at least to get some light into an affair, which,
though touching the public so nearly, had been wrapt in such
mysterious secrecy: such solemn councils held on treason, yet so
little known of either accusation or process!--the effects indeed,
the acquittal and the continuation of confidence, were divulged and
notorious. His difficulties in a disquisition of this tender nature
were great; difficult it was for him, after repeated obligations,
to name the name of his Majesty--yet, if ever he should suggest
a doubt, he could only mean his Majesty’s Ministers. It is the
very spirit of the Law, the King can do no wrong--and not only
the language of Law and of Parliament, it was the language of his
heart--his experience of the King had taught it him: his Majesty
cannot err, but when facts are not fairly stated to him. Those who
state them unfairly, may misrepresent me. “The notoriety,” said
the Duke, “that an inquest of treason had been in agitation, made
me conclude that it must be brought hither for our advice--could I
doubt but it would? What other Judicature is there for crimes and
criminals of this high nature? The incompetence of the Lords who
had been assembled for this trial was evident: can the Cabinet
Council condemn? Can they acquit? if they cannot condemn nor
acquit, can they try? or who that is accused, is innocent, till he
has had a more solemn purgation than their report can give him?
But if no character can be purified by their verdict, what becomes
of their own? My Lords, what a trust is reposed in the Cabinet
Council! Can they be at peace till their opinions are sanctified by
our sentence? But why do I talk of their satisfaction? the nation
has a right to be satisfied. Here is an accusation of treason
brought against men in such high and special trust, that the
Councils of his present Majesty, and the hopes of the nation in the
successor, are reposed in them: and this charge brought by a Lord
of Parliament, who--but it is not for me to enter upon facts; the
Lord himself is present, and has given me leave to call upon him:
he showed me papers, though he said, he was fully satisfied that he
had cleared his own character--I call upon that noble Lord to give
your Lordships the necessary information.”
Lord Ravensworth, not from want of any facility of expressing
himself, for his manner was natural and manly, but from perplexity
of mind, whether to own or not to own that he had instigated
the Duke of Bedford to this examination, was ambiguous and
unsatisfactory; and he endeavoured to cover his ungenerous
behaviour to that Duke with frankness and candour. He said, that
by the King’s consent, he had received what papers he thought
necessary, that is, he had received his own examination and the
report--indeed, he had not been permitted to have a copy even of
Harry Vane’s letter. For his part, he had determined to proceed
no farther. When the Duke of Bedford asked him, he had shown him
the examination, not the report. That he had told his Grace that
it would not be disagreeable to him to have the whole world know
the story, and let them judge on it. That he should never have
sought this discussion, yet could not but be glad of it. That
so many aspersions had been thrown on him, that he believed his
story had never been twice told in the same manner. That he had
represented to the Ministers, as was his duty, what he had heard,
and had left it to them to proceed upon as they should think
proper--that, now he was called upon, he was willing to lay open
the whole to their Lordships, provided they would allow him to name
a Lord of Parliament, who was concerned in the affair, and was now
present--but must first desire that they would let himself be sworn
to the strict veracity of what he should say.
The Duke of Bedford told him, that as the Lord was present, he
might name him, unless it was opposed; that the Lord, if he thinks
proper, may retire: that it would be very irregular for Lord
Ravensworth to be sworn. The Duke of Newcastle said, that he
supposed it proceeded from the Bishop’s ignorance of the forms of
the House, that he had not risen and given leave to be named; but
that he would answer for his Lordship’s permission. The Bishop of
Gloucester (the person hinted at) pleaded ignorance of forms, and
consented to the free mention of his name. Lord Ravensworth told
him, that as he was perfectly acquitted, the Lords would be ready
to do him justice. Lord Ravensworth then told the story shortly,
clearly, well: that company having dined with the Dean at Durham on
the King’s birth-day, as two of them, Fawcett and a Major Davison,
were drinking coffee with the Dean in the evening, and reading
a newspaper which mentioned a report that Dr. Johnson was to be
Preceptor[222] to the Prince of Wales, Fawcett said, “He has good
luck! twenty years ago he was a Jacobite.” That this conversation
had seemingly been forgot: but that on the 12th of January
following, as he (Lord Ravensworth) was at a Club at Newcastle
with Fawcett, the latter had showed him a letter from Harry Vane,
inquiring into the meaning of those words. That he recollected
no particulars of the letter--and he said with emphasis, _This
letter, my Lords, I have not_. It only, as far as he remembered,
expressed that Mr. Vane was desired and authorized by Mr. Pelham to
inquire into that conversation, as it had occasioned some talk. He
dwelt on his great regard to Mr. Pelham, and said, that urged by
that motive, he had desired Fawcett to come to him the next day;
that he had exhorted him to stick to the truth, and in four several
conversations had always found him uniform. In those conversations
he added the names of Mr. Stone and Mr. Murray--then, my Lords, I
took it up; it then grew important. I feel none higher, none of
more moment than Mr. Stone. That he had advised Fawcett to write
no answer, but to go to Mr. Pelham; he went. That what tended to
confirm his own suspicions, and led him to believe the imputed
connexion, was his finding, upon inquiry, that Vernon had been a
notorious Jacobite; that Mr. Murray had been Vernon’s sole heir.
That some other incidents had not weakened his doubts; that Mr.
Murray had advised Fawcett to let the affair drop; that Bishop
Johnson said Fawcett had acquitted him in a letter written to him;
the letter had been written to the Bishop, but his Lordship stood
by while Fawcett wrote it. That soon afterwards the Bishop would
have persuaded Mr. Fawcett to add these words, _and this is all I
can say consistent with truth_. Fawcett refused. He concluded with
saying, “My Lords, I was not the accuser; I told the Ministers,
that, having come to the knowledge of the accusation, I was
determined to bring the affair to light in some shape or other. I
did it from duty and from zeal, not, as has been said, to revenge
the quarrel of a noble Lord,[223] my friend, who has quitted a
shining post on some disgusts with some of the persons involved in
this charge.”
The Duke of Bedford observed, that Lord Ravensworth had made some
omissions in his narration, of which, as he had given him leave, he
would put him in mind--to which the other replied hastily, that he
had communicated nothing to the Duke from the last papers he had
received, only from his own examination. The Duke owned that he
had not seen the report; but took notice that Lord Ravensworth had
forgot to mention that Fawcett had kept no copy of Vane’s letter,
and that Fawcett had owned to the Council that he had given Lord
Ravensworth all the information which the latter affirmed to have
received from him. The Chancellor, who was to conduct the solemn
drama of the day, took care to keep off all episodes that might
interfere with the projected plan of action, and interrupted the
two Lords, by laying it down for order, that Lord Ravensworth must
not repeat what he had only _heard_ passed in Council. But this
authoritative decision was treated as it ought to be by the Duke
of Bedford, who with proper spirit launched out upon the indecent
assumption of power in the Council, a step that added double
weight to the reasons for bringing this matter before Parliament.
That indeed even the Chancellor’s supposing it had been brought
before the _Council_ was an unfounded assertion; that he denied
its being the _Council_; it was only a private meeting of certain
Lords--were they a Committee of Council? as such was it, that they
arrogated the power of tendering oaths, and listening to voluntary
evidences? if they were, the President of the Council should have
presided--but here was no President, no forms, no essence, no
authority of Council. In their own persons only these Lords were
respectable. The Secretary of State is no Justice of Peace. An
unheard-of jurisdiction had been attempted to be erected, unknown
to this country, derogatory from the authority of this House!
Before this revived Star-chamber, this Inquisition,--different
indeed from the Inquisition in one point, for the heretics of this
court were the favourites of it!--before this court the accused
were admitted to purge themselves upon oath--a leading step to the
introduction of perjury! But what was the whole style of their
proceedings? mysterious! secret! arbitrary! cruel! The minutes are
secreted; the witnesses were held in a state of confinement:[224]
Lord Ravensworth was required to deliver up letters: orders for
filing informations against Fawcett were given--or said to be
given--“for I doubt the intention of carrying them into execution,”
said the Duke: “though, if they are pursued, the hardship on
Fawcett will be the greater, as he is already pre-judged.” The
report, concise as it was, was three-fold: it pronounces Fawcett’s
accusation false and malicious; it pronounces the accused innocent;
it justifies Lord Ravensworth, the accuser! how many powers
assumed! Fawcett, though a lawyer, was terrified at such a court!
“It was their proceedings,” the Duke said, he blamed; he had great
regard for more than half of the Lords concerned, yet he must say
they had erred greatly, if their proceedings were anything more
than preparatory. However, these transactions did not strike him
more than the high rank of the accused. Mr. Stone stands in as
public a light as any man in Britain--there are other points in
which the public should be satisfied too--for his part he had
never conferred with the reverend and noble Lords,[225] who had
lately retired from that important turbulent scene, yet he owned
their resignations had already filled him with suspicions. They had
been dismissed for no misbehaviour: he hoped they would vouchsafe
to lay their motives before the House, that, _in this acquitting
age_, they too may be disculpated--nay, the Council too should
be disculpated; it should be manifest that they were not biased,
and that their report is fit to see the light. Seen to be sure it
will be; it cannot be meant to be secreted. Till it is produced,
the world is left to perplexity, to argue in the dark--till more
is known, one is apt to dwell on the uniformity of Fawcett’s
behaviour for four different times--no deviation, no inconsistence
in his narrative, till after his interviews with Bishop Johnson
and Mr. Murray--then it grew retrograde--then he faltered in his
evidence--this gives suspicion; this calls for the whole system of
the Council’s procedure--how to produce that properly he did not
know.
“You all wish the accused may be cleared; assist me, my Lords, in
dragging into light every testimonial of their innocence: it is our
natural business; and at the same time no business more arduous
on which to give the King advice. Here he may want it; sinister
advices may make our unbiased, honest opinions more necessary,
more welcome.” The noble Lord who presided lately over the
education of the Prince, has been as well replaced as possible; the
choice was the more acceptable, as it was his Majesty’s own--_he_
can do no wrong; he always acts right, when he acts himself. The
time is proper for inquiring into this affair; it is no longer
under examination; nor could he be told, as he generally was,
“_we have a clue: don’t stop us: these are the King’s secrets_.”
This inquiry can be attended with no inconvenience; it may be
attended with good: the King desires to have the accused persons
cleared. For the papers that are denied, they must be produced
in Westminster-hall, if Fawcett is prosecuted--there _the King’s
secrets_ must come out. That now was not merely the proper, it
was the only time for searching into the character of the person
entrusted with the education of the Prince--should a minority
happen (and sorry he was he had not been able to be present and to
give his dissent to a Bill of so pernicious a precedent and nature
as the Regency Bill!) if that dreaded contingency should happen,
might not they who are possessed of the person and authority of the
King,--might not they, however suspected, however accused, shelter
themselves under the clause of præmunire; a clause calculated
not to guard the person of the Prince, but the persons of his
Governors from danger? He moved for all the papers, examinations,
and letters, that had been before the Cabinet Council.
The Chancellor, with acrimonious tenderness, began with protesting,
that he should have taken this for a factious motion, had it not
come from a Lord of so unsuspected a character--but he would enter
at once into the matter. Lord Ravensworth had applied to have
the affair examined, and his Majesty had ordered his Council to
inquire into it. Mr. Stone had made the deepest asseverations of
his innocence; nay, he went so far as to beg that the distance of
time might be thrown out of the question, and that if the least
tittle of the accusation could be proved against him, his guilt
might be considered as but of yesterday. That the term _Cabinet_
Council, said to be borrowed from France, was no novelty; that it
was to be found in the Journals of Parliament. That the Duke of
Devonshire being added by his Majesty’s particular order on this
occasion, was not unprecedented. That it had been called by our
ancestors, sometimes the Cabinet for Foreign Affairs; sometimes
the Cabinet for Private. How they corresponded as a Council in
Queen Elizabeth’s time might be seen in Forbes’s State Papers.
That they had not proceeded by compulsory summons: that it had
been determined in Westminster-hall, that a Secretary of State
may administer oaths. That Magistrates indeed might not accept
the oath of an accused person: here in truth their oaths had been
accepted now by an act of grace, which was the more excusable,
as they were subject to no punishment from the Council that
examined them. That this had been an inquiry for satisfaction,
not for prosecution: that their oaths was the only satisfaction
to be obtained: Vernon was dead; nobody else was present at these
pretended treasonable meetings, (this was false, for he presently
afterwards urged in their favour, that Mr. Cayley, who is living,
and used to be present, had been examined, and could remember
no such passages;) that the oaths had not been administered by
authority, but admitted at their own desire. He commended the great
solemnity of the proceedings, and added, we have all of us the
King’s leave to answer any questions.
He dwelt on the prevarications and inconsistence of Fawcett’s
behaviour, who had often said that he could not charge anybody but
himself. He then turned to encomiums on the zeal and conduct of Mr.
Stone during the Rebellion; and mentioned Mr. Cayley’s evidence.
Slightly he mentioned Mr. Murray, who, he said, had always behaved
in his court in an irreproachable and meritorious manner from the
year 1742. (Servile was this court to Stone; envious this transient
approbation of Murray!) He added, that no orders had been given for
the prosecution of Fawcett--but in a higher tone he talked of the
impropriety of the Motion: that no prerogative was so appropriate
to the King as the government of his own family: that ten Judges
had declared for it[226]--therefore, you will not wantonly invade
it--have you any distrust of the Lords who have sifted this matter?
to what good end would further inquiry tend? That much he was
surprised how the Regency Bill came to be drawn into the question!
Is there one word in that Bill of the Governors of the Prince of
Wales? He never knew that the noble Duke had disapproved that Bill.
He reflected with pleasure on the many converts that had been made
from Jacobitism, and hoped that by raking into old stories their
Lordships would not prevent and discourage change of principles:
that it would make those who were willing to come over to the pale
of loyalty dread parliamentary inquiries hanging over their heads:
they would never think themselves safe: and it would be ungenerous
to exclude men of any principles from enjoying the sunshine and
blessings of such a Reign and Government--for his part he hated
names and distinctions, and to stifle any attempts for reviving
them would give his negative to the Motion.
Lord Harcourt rose next, and though a little abashed as never
accustomed to speak in public, said, with great grace and
propriety, that he thought the King had the best right to judge in
his own family; that he had communicated to his Majesty alone the
reasons of his dissatisfaction in the government of the Prince:
his Majesty had not thought his reasons good; he had therefore
resigned a post which he thought he could not hold with credit and
reputation.
If the decency and consistency of this speech had wanted a foil, it
would have found it in Lord Talbot’s subsequent harangue; who said,
that if the Motion had come from a person of less known integrity,
he should have thought it dictated by a spirit of confusion. That
some indeed love the Crown, some a jumble of Administrations. That
a very sensible man drunk, may make a very good Jacobite: that he
knew Fawcett, and had had a good opinion of him; but that often
where he thought there was most perfection, he had found least.
That he would not have acted like Lord Ravensworth--yet--(what a
_yet_ after such a prelude!) shall a private Council exclude the
activity of the greater? The management of the Royal Children is
of public import: shall the Council engross the direction of them?
Hereafter, if this precedent is suffered, a cabal of Ministers
will be worse than the Star-chamber. The precedent will be used to
stifle all inquiries against sycophants, by applying to the Crown
to appoint a trial by the Cabinet Council.
Hayter, Bishop of Norwich, the late Preceptor, with no less
decency than Lord Harcourt, but with a little more artful desire
of inflaming the prejudice against Stone and Murray, said that
he would not declare the reasons of his resignation till he
should be forced. That all he would say was, that he had met with
obstructions from inferiors, _most cruel obstructions_. That he did
not think himself at liberty to appeal from the King, _yet would
willingly tell if he was obliged to it_. This insinuating offer the
Duke of Bedford had not the presence of mind to take up; and the
Bishop’s gauntlet not being challenged, he could not with propriety
go any farther. Perhaps the Ministry had not more reason to triumph
on the event of the day, than on the Duke of Bedford’s overlooking
so fair an opening into their most vulnerable part!
At last rose the Bishop of Gloucester. If provocation often
sharpens the genius, it did not in his case. Yet he was not
confused, he was insolent: he spoke like a man that had governed
children,[227] not like one fit to govern them. His language
and circumstances were vulgar and trivial; he dwelt more on his
housemaid letting in Mr. Fawcett when he came to him, than on any
part of his defence. He said, he did not doubt but their Lordships
would treat this accusation with the abhorrence it deserved. That
for himself, he yielded to many on the Bench for capacity, he would
not to any in loyalty. That he had had promises of favour formerly
from his Grace of Bedford, and hoped he had not forfeited them:
that it was not true that there had long been a scheme of making
him Preceptor; that [he] himself had never heard of it till he was
at the Hague, and then he was told of such a design by a noble
Duke, who had heard it from a noble Lord, who had heard such a
report--but not one of his own friends had thought of it for him:
that if his Majesty had designed it, he did not know it. That in
the Roman state, when informers were most rife, yet nothing had
happened of this kind. He insisted on the badness of Fawcett, and
affirmed that he did not dictate to him the letter for himself,
though he owned he stood by while Fawcett wrote it; and that two
days afterwards, when he desired Fawcett to add some words to it,
they were not, _This is all I can say consistent with truth_, but,
_This is the truth_.
Lord Ravensworth entirely acquitted the Bishop, and added this
extraordinary problem, that Fawcett’s character was so bad only
from its being so good. He desired to know of all the Lords,
whether they did not acquit him; and whether they did not believe
that Fawcett had told him all he had announced.
Of the Duke of Newcastle’s speech, an hour in length, I shall
touch but a few of the most remarkable passages, such as, after
acquitting Lord Ravensworth, were his panegyric on Harry Vane, _who
never said a false thing, or did a bad one_! and another, scarce
less exaggerated, on the Duke of Devonshire’s _sagacity_, for which
his Majesty had ordered him to be added to the Council. Of his own
immediately going to the King, and saying, “Sir, I am come to keep
my promise; that you should be the first to hear any complaints
against Stone; if he is a Jacobite, he is a greater traitor to
me than to you.” How Stone, who had had the fate of kingdoms in
his breast, had desired to have the accusation examined, and to
be sequestered from his attendance on the Prince of Wales, till
he should be acquitted; and lastly, how these stories had been
propagated by cabal and intrigue, and by the anonymous Memorial
sent assiduously all over the kingdom, full of falsities and
irreverence to the King; and which General Hawley, as was his duty,
had brought to him within an hour after receiving it.
At last opened the solemnity of the scene! the Chancellor’s
hackneyed sophistries, the Bishop of Gloucester’s pedantic scorn,
and the Duke of Newcastle’s incongruous volubility, were rightly
judged or foreseen to want a proper weight on so serious an
occasion. To raise the comely pompous dignitaries of the Cabinet
Council, and make them break their long mystic silence in favour
of the accused, was a resource that did honour to the policy, as
it effectually did the business, of the secret junto. The Duke of
Marlborough first, and then the Archbishop, rose and gave short
accounts of their having fully agreed in the sentence and report of
the Council. Lord Waldegrave, with decency and spirit, commended
Stone, spoke highly of the young Prince, and added, that he would
not act a moment longer as Governor, than he should find Mr. Stone
a man of honour, principles, and integrity. Dr. Hay Drummond,
Bishop of St. Asaph, and brother of Lord Duplin, made a very
elegant and eloquent speech in behalf of the accused. The Marquis
of Hartington and the Duke of Dorset gave their testimonials, like
the two former,[228] to the acts of the Cabinet Council. Lord
Granville added to his, “That innocence was no defence against
temporary clamour; it will blow over: but I don’t like Mr. Stone’s
desiring to have it heard any farther; it would be making ourselves
an inquisition. Some often accuse others, to come at a third
person. I love my Lord Harcourt for what he said.” The Duke of
Grafton, too, bore his testimony.
The Duke of Bedford rose again, and said, that if he had been
angry, he had had time to cool: and must say, on the utmost
deliberation, and with the greatest attention to what he had heard,
that he had not found sufficient reason to acquit the accused
persons, and for this strong reason, amongst others, that it
remains evident that the Bishop of Gloucester had tampered with
Fawcett--do the innocent tamper with evidence? as little could he
agree with the Duke of Newcastle, who said he would be guilty to
be so acquitted by the Chancellor--Newcastle interrupting him,
that he had only said, he would be suspected; the Duke of Bedford
rejoined, that when his Grace had gone so far, it was no wonder if
he had gone a little farther; but so far from agreeing even to that
modification, he would not be suspected by one man, to be acquitted
by that whole House. That, when he had been of the Cabinet Council,
he had never known such a thing as their sitting on a trial. That
the Duke of Newcastle had told them almost the whole examination;
what can induce their Lordships still to refuse to ask for it? That
he had been particularly called upon to make this Motion; that
the nation demands it; that the very Parliament of Paris would
go into such an examination. That if any, in so high a trust as
the care of the Prince of Wales, are suspected, can it be called
a point of domestic concern only? can it be deemed so domestic
as to forbid public inquiry? That he must still urge that Fawcett
had never prevaricated, till the Bishop had been with him--but if
his Lordship is really desirous of purging himself of this charge,
let him promote this Motion: here he will be sure of the most
impartial trial, of the most open, and consequently of the most
satisfactory acquittal. “To prompt witnesses to prevaricate--to
stifle inquiry--these arts will not quiet the suspicions of
mankind. A more manly way it had been to have said, we did drink
these healths, we were as Jacobite as it is pretended we were, but
we are converted--but, my Lords,” concluded the Duke, “it is not to
prove that these healths were drunk that I contend--if any part of
the charge is true, more is true.”
Lord Bath objected to any farther examination of a man who had
so prevaricated with the Cabinet Council, whose proceedings, he
said, were not only sufficient, but not unprecedented. That he
had once been examined so himself, with Sir Paul Methuen and Mr.
Cholmondeley, and that they had been examined separately; it was in
relation to one Lewis, a clerk to Lord Oxford, who, by mistake for
one Levi, a Jew, had been suspected of negotiations with the Court
of St. Germains: it was in the Queen’s time, and she had referred
it to the Cabinet Council.
Lord Northumberland perceiving it was a day for great men to stand
forth, thought it a good opportunity to announce his own dignity;
but he said little to the purpose. Still less was said by the young
Marquis of Rockingham, though he had prepared a long quotation from
Tacitus about informers; and opened with it.
The Duke of Argyle sneered at Ministers out of place--not at
future Ministers, for he was profuse in flattery to Stone, who,
till lately, he had never heard had an enemy! that, during the
Rebellion, happening to be at the Secretary’s office, two men came
to solicit Mr. Stone for a place; the refused went away the better
pleased of the two, from Mr. Stone’s gracious manner of refusing!
Lord Anson bore his testimony to the unanimity and report of
the Cabinet Council. Dr. Madox, of Worcester, ungraciously
and rudely said, that though it might be right to countenance
converts, yet would it be wrong to entrust the whole to one,
who had been a Jacobite. That there were great dissatisfactions
already: what would ensue, if a Star-chamber were erected to
protect the most unpopular? why not remove Mr. Stone to any other
employment? let him come and take his place among your Lordships.
He added, that great would be the hardship on Fawcett, if tried
in Westminster-hall; for what Jury but would be influenced by the
authority and decision of the Council? Lord Holderness notified
his assent to the proceedings of the Cabinet Council. The Bishop
of Worcester and Lord Sandys had some jarring; and then Lord
Ravensworth put a period to this solemn mummery, in which he had
acted such various parts, by saying that he was satisfied with his
acquittal; that he thought nothing farther necessary to his honour;
would take no farther part; did not desire anybody else would;
would leave it here--and went away! A silence of confusion ensued
for some minutes; nobody rising to speak, the Duke of Bedford, Lord
Townshend, Lord Harcourt, and the Bishop of Worcester, went below
the bar to divide, and the Bishop of Norwich was going; but no more
following, they gave it up without telling the House; all the Tory
Lords keeping their seats to vote for Stone and Murray.
FOOTNOTES:
[220] Lord Egmont had written some pamphlets against the Pelhams.
[221] It was written by the Author of these Memoirs.
[222] Lord Ravensworth at first, as is mentioned, p. 266, thought
that Fawcett’s observation on Dr. Johnson’s promotion, had been in
relation to the Bishopric; but on recollection and discussion, it
appeared to have related to the intention of making him Preceptor
to the Prince of Wales.
[223] Lord Harcourt.
[224] The Dean of Durham (Dr. Cowper) and the others were literally
detained privately in separate rooms for several hours; yet Murray,
one of the accused, as it appeared, had evidently tampered with
Fawcett the accuser, and seen him at his own house; so had Dr.
Johnson.
[225] Bishop of Norwich and Lord Harcourt.
[226] In the late King’s reign, on the difference between his
Majesty and the Prince.
[227] He had been one of the Masters of Westminster School.
[228] The Duke of Marlborough and the Archbishop.