It must not be supposed, however, that the excitement on the part of the

Jacobites, or the fear on the part of the Hanoverians, was by any means

allayed, and as by the existing Statute of 6 William and Mary,

Parliament would be dissolved at the close of the year, and a new

election held in the spring of 1717, there seemed great probability of a

renewal of the contest, or at least of very serious riots during the

election time. With this in view, the ministers proposed that the

existing Parliament should be continued for a term of seven instead of

three years. This, which was meant for a temporary measure, has never

been repealed, and is still the law under which Parliaments are held. It

has been often objected to this action of Parliament, that it was acting

arbitrarily in thus increasing its own duration. "It was a direct

usurpation," it has been said, "of the rights of the people, analogous

to the act of the Long Parliament in declaring itself indestructible."

It has been regarded rather as a party measure than as a forward step in

liberal government. We must seek its vindication in the peculiar

conditions of the time. It was useless to look to the constituencies for

the support of the popular liberty. The return of members in the smaller

boroughs was in the hands of corrupt or corruptible freemen; in the

counties, of great landowners; in the larger towns, of small

place-holders under Government. A general election in fact only gave

fresh occasion for the exercise of the influence of the Crown and of the

House of Lords--freedom and independence in the presence of these two

permanent powers could be secured only by the greater permanence of the

third element of the Legislature, the House of Commons. It was thus

that, though no doubt in some degree a party measure for securing a more

lengthened tenure of office to the Whigs, the Septennial Act received,

upon good constitutional grounds, the support and approbation of the

best statesmen of the time. It was upon these grounds that Lord Somers

declared that the measure would be the greatest possible support to the

liberty of the country, and Speaker Onslow, with a clear view of the

tendency of the Act, believed that it would emancipate the House of

Commons from its former dependence on the Crown and the House of Lords.

It was however probably the more far-sighted only who saw the advantages

to which the Septennial Act would lead. It was meant for a temporary

Act, and the reasons for its necessity, as set forth in the preamble,

are the expenses of frequent elections, the constant renewal of party

animosities, and the probability, "at this juncture, when a restless and

Popish faction are designing and endeavouring to renew" the rebellion

within and invasion without, of an election being likely to prove

destructive to the peace and security of the Government. At the same

time it is plain that men's eyes were being opened to the threatened

loss of independence of the Lower House, for a private Bill was

introduced, and subsequently carried through in a modified form by

Government, to forbid the holders of pensions withdrawable at will from

sitting in the House.

No sooner was the great question which had held the Whig party together

settled by the suppression of the insurrection, than certain elements of

disunion which already existed in the Cabinet began to make themselves

felt, and a train of circumstances began, which ended in the disruption

of the ministry. The tumult of pardon and execution had scarcely

subsided, when the King, to the great dislike of his ministers, giving

way to those natural inclinations which were for many years to be the

chief weakness of our Hanoverian Princes, insisted upon the repeal of

the clause of the Act of Settlement which restrained the King from

leaving England, and hurried to his hereditary dominions. Stanhope

accompanied him as representative of the English ministry, Townshend

being left at home. This separation of the ministry of itself afforded

room for intrigue, and the state of affairs both at home and abroad

supplied a more than usually appropriate occasion for it, for the

hereditary family quarrel had already broken out between George and his

eldest son. It was impossible, however, to ignore his claims to the

regency during his father's absence, nor would Townshend permit them to

be overlooked. The King was with difficulty persuaded to put the

Government in his hands, with the inferior title of Guardian of the

Realm and Lieutenant, and under considerable restrictions. The minister

in England was thus at once put, in some sort, in opposition to the

King, and in a position which gave great opening for the intrigues of

his enemies who surrounded the King; for a clique, consisting of the

King's Hanoverian courtiers, Bernsdorf, Bothmar, George's private

Secretary Robethon, and Madame de Schulenberg, Duchess of Kendal, the

royal mistress, were full of animosity to the minister. Like the Scotch

followers of James I., they regarded England as a sort of promised land,

and took umbrage at the attempts of the English ministry to check their

rapacity. The mistrust thus engendered was rapidly increased by

subsequent events, chiefly connected with the affairs of the Continent.

[Sidenote: First signs of the breaking up of the Cabinet.]

[Sidenote: George and Stanhope go to Hanover.]

[Sidenote: Negotiations with France.]

As the King entered Hanover with Stanhope, the minister was met by the

Abbé Dubois, an agent of the Regent Orleans, and negotiations began for

the establishment of friendly relations with France, which mark an

entire change in the politics of Europe. To complete the security of the

new succession, it was regarded as necessary that the Pretender should

be removed beyond the Alps, and that all hope of assistance to his cause

from France should cease. Open hostilities to gain this end seemed out

of the question. Austria was much irritated by the Barrier Treaty, by

which the Dutch were secured a line of fortresses in the Austrian

Netherlands, garrisoned by the Dutch, but paid by Austria. The Emperor,

too, was naturally jealous of the increasing power of the Princes of the

Empire, three of whom had acquired kingdoms; the Elector of Saxony was

King of Poland, the Elector of Brandenburg King of Prussia, the Elector

of Hanover King of England. The temper of Austria thus forbade all hope

of re-establishing the Grand Alliance. The withdrawal of support from

the Pretender had to be sought by peaceful means; and the Regent, intent

on his personal aims, was willing to surrender the cause of the Stuarts,

and to destroy the works at Mardyke as the price of peace with England.

On these terms negotiations for a treaty, in which Holland was to share,

were begun.

[Sidenote: Danger of Hanover from Charles XII.]

The German objects of the King rendered its speedy conclusion an object

of the first importance. After his defeat at Pultowa, Charles XII. had

withdrawn to Bender, where he had vainly attempted to rouse the Turks to

assist him against the Russians. In his absence, Russia, Poland, and

Denmark, the countries which in turn he had conquered, combined against

his deserted country; and the King of Prussia, for his own ends no

doubt, but with some appearance of keeping the balance between the

parties, succeeded in neutralizing Pomerania, and in obtaining the

sequestration into his own hands of the strong town of Stettin. This

arrangement by no means pleased Charles, who hastened home from Bender,

hoping by an alliance with England to keep his enemies at bay. The

accession of the house of Hanover destroyed this hope. The Elector of

Hanover had obtained from Denmark Bremen and Verden, part of the spoils

of Charles, and was pledged by his own interests to oppose him. He

insisted upon an English fleet being sent to the Baltic, though the

question was obviously one of German interest only. Not content with

opposing Sweden, George eagerly desired that the fleet should be used

against Russia, for that country had invaded Mecklenburg, and intended

apparently to appropriate it. Again it was evident that the question was

chiefly of German interest. Townshend placed the English view of the

affair before the King--it did not matter much who possessed

Mecklenburg, but to attack Russia, the chief opponent of Sweden, was to

leave Charles XII. free for dangerous designs in favour of the Stuarts,

in which he was now almost openly engaged. Fortunately diplomacy induced

the Czar to withdraw, and the question was thus solved.

But while eager for war with Sweden and Russia, George was naturally

anxious for the conclusion of the peace with France, and thought himself

purposely thwarted by his minister, when the peculiarities of the Dutch

constitution threw delays in the way of its completion, and Townshend

refused to break faith and conclude the treaty without the accession of

the Dutch. The King's dislike for Townshend, excited by his opposition

to his German plans, was sedulously fomented both by his Hanoverian

courtiers and by the Earl of Sunderland, who, thoroughly discontented

with his subordinate position in the ministry as Lord Lieutenant of

Ireland, had joined the King at Hanover, and had entered busily into the

intrigues going on there. A letter from Townshend, in which, in order to

allow the longer absence of the King, he recommended that additional

powers should be given to the Prince in England, brought matters to a

crisis. Townshend was dismissed from his office, and offered in exchange

the viceroyalty of Ireland. For the sake of the party, and upon some

sort of apology from the King, Townshend accepted his new office, and

the quarrel was temporarily healed.

[Sidenote: Dismissal of Townshend.]

[Sidenote: The Triple Alliance. Jan. 1717.]

During this brief reconciliation, the negotiations which had been

carried on at the Hague and Hanover were completed, and a Triple

Alliance was signed in January 1717, by which the clauses in the Treaty

of Utrecht having reference to the Protestant succession in England, to

the French succession, and to the renunciation of the Spanish King to

his claims on the French throne, were guaranteed.

[Sidenote: Changes in the ministry. April.]

But Walpole and the other friends of Townshend took an early opportunity

of showing their discontent at the treatment of their leader, and it

became necessary to dismiss them. The direction of the Government thus

fell into the hands of Stanhope, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sunderland and Addison became Secretaries of State, and James Craggs

Secretary at War. The occasion of the final schism was a demand for a

supply to oppose the intrigues of the King of Sweden. The lukewarmness

of Walpole's support was so marked that his friends and those of

Townshend voted against Government, and the supplies were carried by a

majority of four only. The fraction of the Whigs who thus left office at

once passed into vigorous opposition; yet the crisis was one which

should have overpowered party feeling.

[Sidenote: Danger to England from Charles XII. and Alberoni.]

The state of Europe was such as to threaten difficulty, even danger, to

England. Two statesmen of unusual ability were at work in Europe; to

both of them the fall of the new Government in England was an object,

and when their intrigues for a moment brought them together, there was

a brief interval of real danger. These were Charles XII. of Sweden, and

Alberoni, the Prime Minister of Spain.

[Sidenote: Charles XII.]

Charles had found himself thwarted in his schemes for re-establishing

his power by the opposition of the English King. The same opposition had

checked the Czar in his ambitious schemes on Mecklenburg. In union with

his minister, Görtz, an adventurer who had passed into his service from

that of the Prince of Gotthorp, Charles determined on a new combination

of the North to suit the altered politics of Europe. He allied himself

with his old enemy the Czar, and despatched Görtz to Holland, to see

what he could do in France and England. In each of those countries he

found it possible to enter into communication with a large discontented

minority. In France, the Duke of Maine, irritated at the loss of the

position which the late King's will would have given him, had put

himself at the head of the older and graver statesmen, who clung to the

old policy of enmity with England. In England, the Jacobites were still

looking out for foreign support. To both countries Görtz sent an

agent,--while Spaar was, if possible, to produce a change of government

in France, Gyllenborg was instructed in England to promise the Tories

the assistance of 12,000 men under the personal command of the King of

Sweden. In seeking assistance for his plans, Görtz had come across

another intrigue tending in the same direction. He found in Alberoni a

man whose views were for the time identical with his own, and Spanish

money found its way largely both to the Pretender and to the Swedish

agents. Fortunately the English Government obtained information of what

was going on. Justly holding that his ambassadorial rights were

forfeited by his treason, they apprehended Gyllenborg and seized his

papers, and persuaded Holland to act in the same manner with regard to

Görtz. The papers thus seized afforded full justification for what they

had done. But though thwarted in this scheme, both Charles and the Czar

continued to act in unison with Spain against the interests of England.

It was to meet this plot that the supply was demanded which caused the

final schism in the English ministry. The death of Charles in September

1718, at the siege of Friedrichshalle, whither he had gone in his haste

to secure Norway, the possession of which was a part of his bargain with

Russia, prevented the Northern branch of the intrigue from bearing

fruits, and a revolution in Sweden, which changed it into little more

than an oligarchical republic, removed it for more than sixty years from

the scene of history.

[Sidenote: Alberoni.]

Alberoni's plots were of more importance. He was one of those statesmen

who owe their rise to the democratic character of the Roman Church. The

son of a market gardener, of a singularly undignified exterior, he had

found means to make himself indispensable to the Duke of Vendome during

the war of the Spanish succession, and had subsequently established his

position in Spain by bringing about the marriage of Philip with

Elizabeth of Parma. His object was entirely patriotic; he desired to

replace Spain in the list of great European nations. For this purpose he

set to work with remarkable success to revive the industry and wealth of

the country. But his views reached further than this; he aimed at the

destruction of the Treaty of Utrecht. By that treaty Austria had gained

almost all that Spain had lost. It was therefore against Austria that

his designs were chiefly directed. Knowing of the irritation which

existed between Austria and England with regard to the Barrier Treaty,

and believing that France would be unwilling to do anything to the

disadvantage of a Bourbon kingdom of its own creation, he supposed that

Austria would be without allies. To secure friendship with England, he

even granted her great commercial advantages. The defensive alliance

between England and Austria, in 1716, was the first blow to his plan.

The subsequent conclusion, in 1717, of the Triple Alliance opened his

eyes to the probable policy of France. It was then that he threw himself

into the intrigues of the Jacobites and the party of the Duke of Maine,

and put himself into communication with Charles of Sweden. Alberoni's

chief object was to destroy the Austrian power in Italy. Conscious that

Spain had gained in strength by the loss of her widespread foreign

dependencies, he had no intention of conquering that country. But he

wished to restrict the Austrian power there, firstly, by the

establishment of younger branches of the Spanish house in Sicily (at the

instant belonging by the Treaty of Utrecht to Victor Amadeus of Savoy),

and in the duchies of Parma and Tuscany, where the reigning houses were

drawing towards extinction, and to which Elizabeth Farnese had claims;

and, secondly, by the increase of the territory of Savoy, which he

designed to compensate for the loss of Sicily by the cession of a

portion of Lombardy. The possession of Sicily was therefore of the first

importance to him. But Austria had already been negotiating with the

powers of the Triple Alliance for the exchange of that island for

Sardinia. Alberoni himself desired to wait till Spain had acquired more

power at home, but the apprehension by the Austrians of a newly

appointed Spanish inquisitor roused the anger of Philip V., and,

against his will, Alberoni was hurried into war. To prevent the exchange

of Sicily he at once took possession of Sardinia, and would probably

have proceeded to attack Sicily, when the Powers of the Triple Alliance

intervened.

[Sidenote: Opposition of the Triple Alliance.]

Their offer of mediation involved the renunciation on the part of

Austria of all claims on the Spanish monarchy, which had never hitherto

been dropped,--on the part of Spain of all claims on the Italian

provinces. The exchange of Sicily for Sardinia was to be carried out,

and Parma and Tuscany to be given to Don Carlos. Enraged at this offer,

the work of men, as he said, "who cut and pared countries as they would

Dutch cheeses," Alberoni at once set to work all the apparatus his

intrigue had prepared. The anger of Savoy was aroused at the loss of

Sicily; the Turks, already at war with Austria, were subsidized and

urged to further exertions; Ragotski, Prince of Transylvania, was

brought forward to demand his hereditary dominions, to hamper Austria on

the east; the Spanish envoy in France busily stirred up faction there;

Charles XII. and the Czar were urged to immediate action; and an

expedition against England, headed by Ormond or the Pretender himself,

was set on foot. The whole of Europe seemed involved. The mediating

Powers found themselves likely to be drawn into war. Stanhope was

removed from his position as First Lord of the Treasury, and made

Secretary of State for the Southern Department, which included foreign

affairs, and on June 4, 1718, Admiral Byng set sail from England for the

Mediterranean.

[Sidenote: Formation of the Quadruple Alliance. August 1718.]

[Sidenote: Fall of Alberoni. Dec. 1719.]

The crisis was so threatening that the Austrian Emperor, who had refused

to accede to the mediation of the Powers, yielded. England procured for

him the Treaty of Passowitz, which secured him from the Turks, bought

off at the expense of the Venetians, from whom they had conquered the

Morea; and a Quadruple Alliance between England, France, Austria, and

Holland was formed on the basis of the old project of mediation, with

this difference, that Parma and Tuscany were to be held by Don Carlos

only as fiefs of the Empire. Without open declaration of war, France and

England had virtually joined the Austrian alliance. Alberoni, however,

persisted in his schemes, but fortune had turned against him. The

Spanish fleet, not knowing whether it was peace or war, was fallen upon

and destroyed by Byng off Cape Passaro; Savoy, yielding to the pressure

of the Quadruple Alliance, accepted Sardinia in exchange for Sicily; the

death of Charles XII. broke up the Northern Alliance; the conspiracy in

France was discovered when approaching maturity, the Spanish ambassador

and the Duke and Duchess of Maine apprehended; of the Pretender's

expedition, scattered in the Bay of Biscay, two frigates only reached

Loch Alsh in Scotland. A few hundreds of the Highlanders gathered to

their standard, but the appearance of English troops put them to flight;

the chiefs escaped to Spain, the Highlanders were allowed to fly

unmolested to their hills, the Spanish troops were taken prisoners of

war. War having now been regularly declared, the French crossed the

Pyrenees, and again and again defeated the Spanish troops; and at length

Philip was compelled to dismiss his great minister, and on the 19th of

January 1720 acceded to the terms of the Quadruple Alliance.

[Sidenote: European peace. 1720.]

The affairs in the North of Europe were settled in a similar high-handed

fashion. There too a nation, struggling to regain its old preponderance,

had to be crushed. The death of Charles XII., and the revolution which

followed it, put an end to any chance of Sweden's regaining its position

in Europe. The new Government fell back upon the old policy of the

country; Bremen and Verden were allowed to remain in the hands of

George, and an alliance with England and France was entered into. As a

necessary consequence the late allies of Sweden again became its

enemies. But the friendship of France and England drove them to peace.

Orders were even issued to the English Admiral of the Baltic to fall

upon the fleet of the Czar without declaration of war, unless with

Denmark, his ally, he consented to a cessation of hostilities. Too weak

to resist, Denmark accepted a sum of money and retired from the contest;

and the Czar, now standing alone, withdrew, though still in arms, to

await a better opportunity for action. The foreign policy of Stanhope

had thus been successful, and though unjust and domineering, secured for

Europe a peace of twelve years.

[Sidenote: Stanhope's home policy.]

Meanwhile the minister had carried out with consistency the politics of

his party at home. In acting thus he was met with considerable

difficulties. On the one hand he had to manage and repress the

meddlesome and rapacious German coterie which surrounded the King, on

the other he was met by a strong opposition headed by that party of the

Whigs which had left office with Townshend.

[Sidenote: Opposition of Walpole.]

[Sidenote: Trial of Oxford. June 1717.]

[Sidenote: Repeal of the Schism Act. Jan. 1719.]

In all the chief measures of his administration he found an eager and at

times a successful antagonist in Walpole. It was chiefly through his

instrumentality that the impeachment of Oxford came to an untimely end.

The Lords were persuaded to refuse to listen to any evidence in support

of the charge of misdemeanour before they had heard that on the graver

charge of treason. They knew that it was impossible for the Commons to

support the more important charge. A quarrel between the Houses ended in

the refusal of the Lower House to proceed to the impeachment. The Lords

gravely assembled on the appointed day in Westminster Hall, sat there

for a quarter of an hour, and then, as no accusers appeared, declared

the impeachment at an end. Again, Walpole, regardless of party ties,

vehemently upheld the charges of peculation brought against Lord Cadogan

by the Jacobites in the House headed by Shippen. And again, with great

inconsistency, he opposed the repeal of the Schism Act. The Act for

restraining Occasional Conformity passed in the last reign, and the

Schism Act of 1714, by which it had been followed, pressed very heavily

on the Dissenters; and Stanhope, whose views appear in some respects to

have been more liberal than those in vogue at the time, went so far in

his wish to relieve them as even to dream of mitigating the severity of

the Test and Corporation Acts. However, wisely yielding to the advice of

Sunderland, he confined himself to an attempt to get the Schism Act

repealed, and succeeded, after much opposition, in both Houses; but his

narrow majorities show that a more extensive measure would have been

useless. The Test Act continued in force, though rendered practically

nugatory after the beginning of George II.'s reign by a Bill of

Indemnity passed almost every year in favour of those who had evaded it.

[Sidenote: The Peerage Bill rejected. Dec. 1719.]

On the two last named occasions Walpole's opposition had been useless.

On the more important question of the limitation of the power of the

Crown to create Peers by the Peerage Bill, he fortunately proved too

strong for the minister. Like the Septennial Act, the Peerage Bill was

introduced partly on theoretical, partly on party grounds. The

Revolution had been an aristocratic rather than a popular movement. The

power or rather the influence of the Crown had not been destroyed, but

was in abeyance, the Hanoverian monarchs being as it were in a state of

tutelage to the Whig party, whose strength was in the Upper House.

Popular in language, but aristocratic in feeling, this party regarded

political liberty as best secured by its own predominance, rendered

permanent by such institutions as a Septennial Parliament and an

exclusive hereditary nobility. It feared alike the power of the King and

the power of the people, and already the adoption of the Treaty of

Utrecht, carried by the popular will and by a large creation of Peers,

had shown the possibility of a union between King and people which might

sooner or later destroy its influence. To guard against such a danger

was the primary object for which Stanhope introduced his Peerage Bill.

But temporary party interests had as much weight with him as general

theory. Stanhope and his friends, especially Sunderland, were in dread

of the conduct which might be pursued by the Prince of Wales when he

came to the throne. He was on bad terms with his father, and regarded

Sunderland as the chief cause of the royal jealousy. It was generally

believed that his accession would be followed by a creation of peers

from among his own favourites. Thus both on public and party grounds the

ministry thought it desirable to limit the royal prerogative. As was

natural, the Tories, in their dislike to restrictions on the royal

prerogative, and the party of Walpole, who opposed it because it was a

Government measure, made common cause against the Bill. By its

enactments the Crown was to be restrained from the creation of more than

six beyond the existing number of 178 English peerages (the power of

creating a new peerage whenever an old one became extinct being

reserved), no new peerage was to be created with remainders except to

the original recipient and his heirs male; while, to place the Peerage

of Scotland on the same footing, the sixteen representative Peers of

that country were to give way to twenty-five hereditary Peers nominated

by the Crown. The Bill met with little opposition in the House of Lords,

but was thrown out by a large majority in the Lower House, where Walpole

pointed out "that one of the most powerful incentives to virtue would be

taken away, since there would be no arriving at honour but through the

winding-sheet of a decrepit lord, or the grave of an extinct noble

family."

[Sidenote: Strength of the ministry.]

A History of England, Period III. Constitutional Monarchy · 第 16 / 78 段