Dangers which beset Marlborough—Peculiar circumstances attending his
return to England—Order in Council forbidding the sale of
places—Lord Marlborough raised to a Dukedom—Sentiments of the
Duchess on that occasion.
The Countess of Marlborough was now left to steer her course alone, amid
the intricacies of politics. Her path was protected by the friendly
assistance of Lord Godolphin, who was at once her guide and support, and
the constant correspondent to whom Marlborough disclosed his inmost
sentiments.
Dangers and difficulties perplexed the hero, even amid his most
brilliant success. The campaign of the Meuse had been concluded, Liege
taken, and Marlborough was preparing to return to England, when an
accident occurred which had nearly closed for ever the splendid career
of him on whom the fortunes of England depended. In descending the
Meuse, from Maestricht, in order to go to the Hague, the boat in which
he sailed was separated in the night from its companion, manned with
sixty men, and Marlborough was left with a guard of twenty-five men
only. A French vessel from Gueldre was lurking among the reeds and sedge
on the river, as Marlborough’s small party became apparent. The adverse
party suddenly rushed on the boat, and overpowered the guards.
In this situation, the coolness of Marlborough, and his perfect command
of countenance, saved him from discovery. The Dutch deputies on board
were furnished with French passports, but Marlborough disdained to
solicit one from these functionaries. A man standing near him thrust
into his hands a pass which he drew out of his pocket. It happened to be
a French passport which had been formerly given to General Churchill,
Lord Marlborough’s brother, who had quitted the service from ill health.
Although aware that it was out of date, and that the slightest
inspection might detect the imposition, Marlborough composedly presented
it. He was, in consequence, permitted to proceed, whilst his escort were
detained. To the man who saved his life, he gave a pension of fifty
pounds.[432] Marlborough reached the Hague in safety, where rejoicings
of the greatest enthusiasm upon his escape gratified the kind heart
which was touched by the homely tribute of the lower orders.
It must have been with no common feelings that the Countess welcomed
back her husband, after a risk so imminent. In her Vindication of her
Conduct she alludes but seldom to Marlborough, and seems to make far
less account of his victories and defeats, than of her own successful or
frustrated intrigues; and of the sentiments with which she welcomed to
his home him whom the multitude compared to Cæsar for good fortune, and
declared that he was shown to be peculiarly in God’s favour, from his
unparalleled success,[433] there is, in her writings, no record.
During the Duke’s absence, the Tory party had been greatly augmented in
strength. After disposing of several important posts, to most of which
Tories were preferred, her Majesty, in July, passed an order in council
against the selling of places in her household and family; but this was
not issued until, as the enemies of Lady Marlborough observed, abundance
of places had been purchased from the favourite.[434]
Elections for a new Parliament were carried on with great warmth, the
Tory interest predominating. On the sixth of August, the Queen prorogued
the Parliament until the eighth of October; and three weeks afterwards,
accompanied by Prince George, she set out by Windsor for Bath, the use
of the waters being recommended for the Prince’s asthma. It is probable
that Lady Marlborough, in her capacity of Groom of the Stole,
accompanied her royal mistress on this occasion; it indeed appears, from
several of the letters, that she[435] frequently visited Bath. At
Oxford, where the Queen rested one night, she was received with
manifestations of loyalty and affection. She honoured the convocation of
the university with her presence, and, in reply to an address, assured
the magnates of “her favour and protection; and that she should always
have a particular regard to this great body, so considerable in itself,
and so useful both in Church and State.” After receiving the usual
present of a Bible, a common prayer-book, and a pair of gloves, Queen
Anne partook of a splendid banquet, at which most of the distinguished
members of her government were present, many of whom had received the
title of Doctor of Law. When these ceremonials were finished, she
proceeded on her road to Bath, where she remained until the beginning of
October, and where, doubtless, “Queen Sarah” remained with her Majesty.
And now commenced that course of prosperity which proved so intoxicating
to the mind of Lady Marlborough, and which is said to have engendered
the vice of cupidity in the otherwise noble nature of Marlborough. It is
one of the besetting temptations of a long career of success, that it
induces us to set a value upon our exertions, and our merits, which
produces the curse of discontent. Nothing can come up to our sense of
what we deserve: and the bounties of fortune, like some luscious
liquors, create only a thirst for more.
The Queen, in her speeches at the opening of her first Parliament,
referred to the successes of her arms under Lord Marlborough, she was
answered by an address, congratulating her Majesty upon that head, and
declaring that the Earl had signally “retrieved the ancient honour and
glory of the English nation,” a phrase which satisfied neither
Marlborough nor his captious wife. The Queen went in great state to St.
Paul’s to return thanks, and received an address of congratulation from
the Commons upon the recovery of her asthmatic consort, whose illness
had assumed the form of lethargy.[436]
In November Lord Marlborough returned, and immediately received the
thanks of the House of Commons for his services. This honour, accepted
with the most graceful, or, as some call it, artful humility by
Marlborough, was succeeded by a declaration of the Queen in council,
that it was her intention to make his Lordship a Duke.
Her determination was expressed in these terms: “I am so satisfied of
the eminent services of my Lord of Marlborough to the public and myself,
both in the command of the army, and in the entire confidence he has
settled between me and the States General, that I intend to make him a
Duke.”[437]
This new distinction is said to have proceeded entirely from the favour
of her Majesty, unsolicited, and indeed by Lady Marlborough undesired.
It is difficult to believe this of so ambitious a woman; yet thus writes
Lord Godolphin to her Ladyship on this momentous occasion.
In sending to Lady Marlborough the address of the House of Lords, he
says:—
“I am apt to think Mrs. Morley may have something to say to you upon the
subject, which perhaps you may not like; but I think it should be
_endured_ upon such an occasion, when it is visible to the whole world
that it is not on your account.”[438]
The Queen followed this prefatory letter with the following gracious and
delicate mode of announcing her intentions.
“_St. James’s, 22nd October._
“I have had this evening the satisfaction of my dear Mrs. Freeman’s of
yesterday; for which I give you many thanks, and though I think it a
long time since I saw you, I do not desire you to come one minute sooner
to town than it is easy for you, but will wait with patience for the
happy hour; and only beg, when you do come, you would send for a coach,
and not make use of a chaise.
“Lord Treasurer intends to send you a copy of the address of the House
of Lords, which is to be given me to-morrow, and that gives me an
opportunity of mentioning a thing which I did not intend to do yet. It
is very uneasy to your poor unfortunate, faithful Morley, to think that
she has so very little in her power to show you how sensible I am of all
Lord Marlborough’s kindness, especially when he deserves all that a rich
crown could give. But since there is nothing else at this time, I hope
you will give me leave, as soon as he comes, to make him a duke. I know
my dear Mrs. Freeman does not care for anything of that kind, nor am I
satisfied with it, because it does not enough express the value I have
for Mrs. Freeman, nor ever can, how passionately I am yours, my dear
Mrs. Freeman.”[439]
“Ambition,” the Duchess of Marlborough observes, “had no share in
procuring that new title;”[440] and the following extract from a letter
addressed by her, on this occasion, to one of her friends, appears to
confirm the declaration of one who was as little addicted to duplicity
as any person inhabiting the atmosphere of a court could possibly be.
“I believe,” she says, “there are very few in the world who do not think
me very much pleased with the increase of honour the Queen gave Lord
Marlborough when he commanded the army at her coming to the crown; and
perhaps it is so ridiculous, at least what few people will believe, that
I would not mention it but to those that I could show the original
letters to. If there be any truth in a mortal, it was so uneasy to me,
that when I read the letter first upon it, I let it drop out of my hand,
and was for some minutes like one that had received the news of the
death of one of their dear friends; I was so sorry for anything of that
kind, having before all that was of any use.
“I fear you will think what I say upon the subject is affected; and
therefore I must repeat again, that it is more uneasy to me for a time
than can easily be believed. I do think there is no advantage but in
going in at a door; and when a rule is settled, I like as well to follow
five hundred as one. And the title of duke in a family where there are
many sons is often a great burthen; though at that time I had myself but
one, I might have had more, and the next generation a great many. To
conclude, a higher title was not my feat; and if I saw you, I could
convince you of it.”
Lord Godolphin, who knew her reluctance to the proffered honour, wrote
to soothe her alarms, and to pacify her on the occasion. At the time
that these letters were written, there was not the slightest reason to
suppose that they would ever be made public; and the Countess is
therefore borne out in her assertion, that the distinction came to her
family, not only unsolicited but undesired.[441]
“I give you many thanks,” writes the Lord Treasurer, “for the favour of
your letter, which I received this evening. I did easily believe Mrs.
Morley’s letter would make you uneasy, but having her commands not to
speak of it, I durst not say any more, than just to prepare you to
submit to what I found by her she was convinced was necessary for the
satisfaction of the public. I have waited upon her this evening to let
her see how truly uneasy you were, and have begged of her, when she sees
you, not to part till she has made you easy again, either by your
submitting to please her, or by her condescending to cure your
apprehensions.”[442]
Lord Marlborough appears to have been far less averse to the favour
meditated by his gracious sovereign than his more cautious, and, in
common affairs, more sagacious wife.
Nov. 4th.—“You know,” he observes, writing from the Hague, in reply to
some letters in which the subject had been broached, “I am very ill at
compliments, but I have a heart full of gratitude; therefore pray say
all you can to the Queen for her extraordinary goodness to me. As you
have let me have your thoughts as to the dukedom, you shall have mine in
short, since I shall have the happiness of being with you so soon.”
He proceeded, however, to take counsel upon the occasion from the
Pensionary Heinsius, a man of great sagacity, and one of his intimate
and partial friends. Heinsius, across the channel, ventured to differ
with the female arbiter who ruled Godolphin and Marlborough, and
strongly recommended the acceptance of the high honour. He represented
that it would give Marlborough greater consideration with the allied
princes, and could not create jealousies, since it was bestowed wholly
as a reward for the good services of the last campaign. To Marlborough’s
objection that he should, until he had an estate, make a worse figure as
a duke than as he was, the Pensionary replied, that “the Queen’s
kindness was such, Lord Marlborough need not doubt a fortune; and that
whatever was done at this time, for his fortune as well as the title,
would be without envy, since all the people were pleased with what he
had done.” Heinsius concluded his arguments by representing to the great
general that it was not reasonable to expect in any future campaign such
signal success as had accompanied the last; and he begged his lordship,
for “the good of the common cause, the Queen’s service, and his own
sake, that he would think this the proper time for being distinguished.”
This discussion made considerable impression on the judgment of him whom
it chiefly concerned. Lord Marlborough assured the Pensionary that he
would acquaint the Lord Treasurer and Lady Marlborough of the matter,
and that he should be guided entirely by their decision. “I do beg of
you,” he adds, addressing his wife, “that you will do me justice that it
is not my vanity that makes me think what the Pensioner says is
reasonable.”[443]
The Queen having, on the second of December, announced her intention of
honouring the Earl of Marlborough with a dukedom, enhanced the
obligation conferred, by sending, in ten days afterwards, a message to
the House of Commons, stating that she had added to the distinction a
pension of five thousand a year upon the revenue of the post-office,
payable during the term of her Majesty’s natural life. She further
observed, “that if it had been in her power, she would have granted the
same terms in the pension as in the honour, that is, by making it
permanent; and that she hoped they would think it so reasonable in this
case, as to find some methods of doing it.”[444]
This message occasioned warm debates in the House, and an address was
returned, importing that the Commons, “to their inexpressible grief,”
could not comply with her Majesty’s wishes; and that they begged leave
to lay before her Majesty their apprehensions of making a precedent for
the alienation of the revenues of the crown, which had been so much
reduced by the exorbitant grants of “the late reign.”
The Queen, notwithstanding sundry complimentary matters from her Majesty
to the Commons, and from the Commons to her Majesty, was yet unable to
accomplish her point. Her justly-prized general and his favoured wife
were fruitlessly indignant, at what they considered almost as a
desertion of their interests, by their ministerial friends. They, on the
other hand, attributed the Duke’s efforts to have the grant of five
thousand a year made perpetual, to that fondness for money with which
this great man has been repeatedly, and, perhaps, not undeservedly,
reproached.[445] Sir Christopher Musgrave remarked, “that he disputed
not the merit of the Duke of Marlborough’s services; but that it must be
acknowledged they were well paid;” and the profitable employments which
had been already bestowed upon different members of his family were
brought into array against his demands.
Whilst these objections to the Duke’s claims were boldly advanced in the
House of Commons, the public, without the doors of that august assembly,
were lavish of satirical remarks, which stung the Duke and Duchess, and
even the Queen herself, to the very quick. Amongst other satires that
were circulated, a lampoon was handed about, importing that the Queen
intended to give one Duke (Marlborough) all the gold which another Duke
(Ormond) had brought from Vigo.[446]
Wounded and incensed by these remarks, the Duke entreated the Queen to
recal her message, lest he should be the cause of obstructing the public
business.[447] The Queen complied with this request; but, on the very
day when the Commons presented their remonstrance, generously intimated
her intention to the Duchess of Marlborough, of adding to the annuity of
five thousand pounds, two thousand pounds out of the privy purse. This
kind and prompt mark of affection was thus announced:
“I cannot be satisfied with myself without doing something towards
making up what has been so maliciously hindered in the Parliament; and
therefore I desire my dear Mrs. Freeman and Mr. Freeman would be so kind
as to accept of two thousand pounds a year out of the privy purse,
beside the grant of the five. This can draw no envy, for nobody need
know it. Not that I would disown what I give to people that deserve,
especially where it is impossible to reward the deserts; but you may
keep it as a secret or not, as you please. I beg my dear Mrs. Freeman
would never any way give me an answer to this; only comply with the
desires of your poor, unfortunate, faithful Morley, that loves you most
tenderly, and is, with the sincerest passion imaginable, yours.”[448]
The proffered bounty was, with a feeling of honour, lofty and
praiseworthy, declined. So disinterested a refusal might be considered
as setting aside the charge of covetousness against Marlborough, and the
imputed, grasping conduct of his wife. But, unhappily for those who
would wish to exalt human nature, years afterwards, when the Duchess was
out of favour, she had the meanness, by her own acknowledgment, to claim
the two thousand pounds a year thus offered, and thus, at the same time,
refused; and to press her claim by sending the Queen one of her own
letters, in which she enforced the Duchess’s acceptance of the grant;
and to demand that her Majesty should allow her to charge the sum, with
arrears, from the time of the offer, in the privy purse accounts. The
Queen, though alienated from her favourite, was generous enough to agree
to her proposal—the Duchess mean enough to receive the money.[449] The
original refusal, therefore, we cannot but suppose, proceeded from the
just, though not liberal Marlborough, who disdained to accept, from the
Queen’s private bounty, a grant which the assembly of the nation had
refused. Thus was the affair settled; but Marlborough never forgave the
Tories their opposition to his claims. In offering to the Parliament his
hearty thanks for their approbation of his services, he made this
speech:—“He was overjoyed,” he said, “that the House thought he had done
service to the public; but that he would hereafter endeavour, as it had
always been his wish, that he might be more indebted to his country,
than his country to him.”[450]
The subsequent rupture between Marlborough and the Tories originated on
this occasion. The Duke was indignant, it is said, at being placed
merely on a footing with Sir George Rooke, and the Duke of Ormond, who
received the thanks of the Houses at the same time with his grace. He
was also wounded, and not without reason, at the apparent disposition to
undervalue his services which his friends manifested. These sentiments
were shared, to their fullest extent, and exasperated with every womanly
invective, by her who had continually regretted the early partiality of
the Duke to a party whom she abhorred. But it was not long before, in
the course of events, the Duchess perceived that her direst foes were
not those who openly and vehemently opposed her ambitious views.
Amid the clamours of Whigs and Tories, and during the storm of their
hostilities, a middle or moderate party gradually and silently arose,
and, fostered by circumstances, attained a powerful ascendency. These
“trimmers,” as they were contemptuously called, gained accession to
their numbers, amongst those who, like the Duke of Marlborough, beheld
with regret the extravagances into which both factions were betrayed, in
their avidity for preferment.
Robert Harley, afterwards Earl of Oxford, was the leader of this new and
powerful schism from the Tory school of politics,—which he appeared, in
a great degree, to have latterly deserted.
The political career of this being of ephemeral influence was, indeed,
one of artifice. “His humour,” says Lord Cowper, “was never to deal
clearly, nor openly, but always with reserve, if not dissimulation, or
rather simulation, and to love tricks, even, where not necessary, but
from an inward satisfaction he took in applauding his own cunning. If
any man was ever under the necessity of being a knave, he was.”[451]
The great instrument of the proud Sarah’s fall, Harley, was well
understood by his foe, even whilst, yet, he flattered her weaknesses,
and temporized with the party whom she espoused. To a plain, familiar,
unoffending manner, great application and extensive reading, Harley
united an aspiring genius, and, as the Duchess remarks, as much
knowledge as any one living, “of the secret of managing the corruptions
of human nature.”[452] Educated among dissenters, his moderation, and
the support which he gave to the succession of the house of Hanover, had
conciliated the Whigs, whose cause he now pretended, with various
reservations, to advocate. His election to the office of Speaker had
been, nevertheless, regarded by the Tories as a triumph, although it had
been carried almost by unanimous consent. Yet, by dexterous management,
Harley contrived, when the high church party became overbearing and
obnoxious, to erect in himself that resource, of which the Queen
afterwards availed herself, to balance parties. Extolled by Swift “for
venturing to restore the forgotten custom of treating his prince with
respect,” Harley was suspected of some deep design by others, when, at
his own table, he expatiated with admiration upon the manner of the late
King’s death, which he compared to that of the ancient heroes, as if it
had been above “the mere condition of mortal men.”[453] Yet, in public,
he still espoused the interests of the Tories, flattering the Whigs,
nevertheless, with assurances that he was satisfied that neither King
William, nor his ministers, had any design but for the public good, and
condoling with them upon the persecution that they had of late years
encountered from the clamours of the adverse party. Thus a foundation
was laid for that future eminence which Harley, to the downfall of
Marlborough and his lady, enjoyed, but with short duration.[454]
In private life Harley was amiable, and, as far as money was concerned,
singularly disinterested, for the times in which he lived. With all the
weight of business on his mind, he had the power of enjoying the
relaxation of conversation in an easy, light-hearted, and pleasing
manner. A patron, as well as a proficient in learning, he was, as Pope
relates, “above all pain, all anger, and all pride;” and thus, by that
happy combination of qualities, escaped those displays by which the
vanity and frequent absurdity of Halifax rendered the character of a
patron odious, and avoided the ridicule, which sometimes, with less
reason, alighted upon Godolphin.
Lord Rochester, the main prop of the Tories, and at present the
determined rival of Marlborough, was his ally; but proved, subsequently,
the only impediment of Harley’s pre-eminent favour with the Queen. By
much prudence, by the courtesy of his manners, and the command of his
temper, he was peculiarly formed to ingratiate himself at a court.
Rochester and Harley were, however, opposed to the favourite and her
gallant husband. But, at this period, both personal regard and
affectionate gratitude were still in favour of the Duchess’s continuance
in prosperity and power.
Aware of her Majesty’s inclination, Marlborough and his wife sought
every means of gratifying the Queen’s earnest wishes, in respect to the
elevation of her consort, Prince George, to an equal share of the regal
dignity with herself. The desire which Anne cherished for the
accomplishment of this end, strongly marks her affectionate disposition
and unambitious character. But although the Prince of Denmark might be
considered as the least dangerous of men, the measure, when brought
forward, was overruled by a jealous parliament, as unconstitutional.
Disappointed as she was, Anne sought consolation in the endeavour to
obtain for her husband a provision in case of his surviving her; a
project in which the Tories warmly concurred. To the bill which was
brought in for granting a pension of one hundred thousand pounds yearly,
a clause was annexed, continuing to the Prince, after the Queen’s death,
the offices which he held during her lifetime; and the most violent
opposition was raised by the Peers to this clause, which was contrary to
the Act of Settlement. The Whigs were clamorous against it, as deviating
from the principles of the Revolution, and the bill passed by one vote
only. Marlborough, who was still considered as belonging to the Tory
party, argued strenuously in the Queen’s behalf, and his efforts were
repaid by expressions of affectionate gratitude on the part of Anne.
“I ought,” wrote her Majesty, “to say a great deal to both of you in
return, but neither words nor actions can ever express the true sense
Mr. Morley and I have of your sincere kindness on this, and on all other
occasions; and therefore I will not say any more on this subject, but
that, to the last moment, your dear, unfortunate, faithful Morley will
be most passionately and tenderly yours.”[455]
The Queen, who was devotedly attached to her husband, notwithstanding
the disparity of their age, and other circumstances, never forgave those
who opposed this measure. It was true that there was little apparent
probability of the Prince’s living so long as to feel the loss of
station and decline of influence which the Queen’s death would entail
upon his Royal Highness. He had for years been afflicted with an asthma,
which during the winter (1702) endangered his life. Yet Anne evinced, on
the subject of a provision for her consort, a zeal which she had never
yet shown on any other subject.[456] The great world, whilst it admired
her domestic qualities, had not given her credit for the strong conjugal
affection which marked and elevated both her own private conduct, and
which had adorned the character of the late Queen. The courts of the
Stuarts had not been accustomed to qualities so respectable and so
amiable. Hence, when even the sedate and virtuous Anne promoted John
Sheffield, Earl of Mulgrave, and afterwards Marquis of Normanby and Duke
of Buckinghamshire, to be a privy councillor, her preference to that
brave and accomplished nobleman was attributed to an early
prepossession; Lord Mulgrave having paid his addresses to her before she
was contracted to Prince George.[457] Queen Anne resembled, it may be
presumed, most other women, who rarely cease to regard with complacency
the man who has once displayed towards them affection or admiration,
even when those feelings have not been reciprocal. If, by a stretch of
imagination, anything like romance can be attached to the recollection
of this amiable Princess, the early addresses of the young
nobleman,—addresses which were prohibited as soon as discovered,[458]
though proffered at a time when there was little probability of Anne’s
becoming Queen of England,—may be deemed romantic. “Anne,” says the
arch-satirist of her day, “had undoubtedly no turn for gallantry, yet so
far resembled her predecessor, Queen Elizabeth, as not to dislike a
little homage to her person. The Duke,” he adds, “was immediately
rewarded, on her accession, for having made love to her before her
marriage.”[459]
Lord Mulgrave, whom the Queen was thought for such reasons to promote,
had been a warm adherent to her father, even whilst he manfully
reprobated and ridiculed that monarch’s religious faith.[460] Like
Rochester, he influenced the Queen’s mind,—it may without scandal be
presumed, in some measure through her affections,—to the Tory party. In
conformity with the fashion of the day, he affected literature.
“The life of this peer,” says Horace Walpole, with his usual pointed and
well-bred ill-nature, “takes up fourteen pages and a half in folio in
the General Dictionary, where it has little pretensions to occupy a
couple. The author of the Dictionary,” he adds, “calls the Duke one of
the most beautiful prose writers and greatest poets of this age; which
is also,” he says, “proved by the finest writers, his cotemporaries;
certificates that have little weight, where the merit is not proved by
the author’s own works.” “It is said,” adds the malicious Walpole, “that
the Duke wrote in hopes of being confounded with his predecessors in the
title; but he would have been more easily confounded with the other
Buckingham, if he had never written at all.”[461]
Notwithstanding the Queen’s earnestness on the subject of a provision
for the Prince her husband, a protest was signed against that clause
which enabled him to keep his employments in the next reign, thus making
him an exception to all other foreigners similarly situated. It bore the
names of seven peers, whilst those of twenty-eight were affixed to a
still stronger protest, objecting to the whole bill. Amongst the noble
names which thus appeared, that of Lord Sunderland, who had lately
succeeded that celebrated statesman his father, gave the greatest
offence to Anne, and distress to the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough.
Lord Sunderland had aggravated his offence by speaking against the
grant. His father-in-law was grieved, and surprised at the part which
his son-in-law took; but the Duchess was incensed by what she considered
as a mark of disrespect, and an act of defiance to her will, by one
usually flattering and subservient to his stately mother-in-law.[462]
Her daughter, Lady Sunderland, with difficulty effected a
reconciliation; for the principles of the Whigs were forgotten in the
service of Majesty. This perplexing and irritating conduct on the part
of Lord Sunderland was one of a series of political vexations, which
Marlborough and his Duchess experienced at the hands of that able, but
violent nobleman.
The Duchess of Marlborough had now wholly embarked on that voyage of
politics which ended only with her long and weary life. A taste for the
excitement for cabal, like a passion for gaming, grows with indulgence;
it is rarely wholly relinquished, but fastens itself upon the character,
until every faculty is absorbed in what is popularly termed a spirit of
party.
The Duchess, whatever were her private motives, had, it must be allowed,
extended and sound views upon such subjects as engaged the powers of her
energetic mind. Doubtless the society of the able men whose intimacy she
had secured, contributed to enlarge those opinions, which could scarcely
have been formed in the courts of Charles the Second and his brother, or
improved into principles in the contracted court or common-place society
of the virtuous, but prejudiced Anne.
It is difficult to draw a distinction between what may be called real
liberality of sentiment, and a pernicious licentiousness of profession
in our religious concerns. The principle of toleration was mingled, in
the days of William and of Anne, with a dangerous laxity, which required
rather the counsels of the preacher, or the correctives of an
enlightened press, or the chastening hand of popular education, to
prevent its growth, than the questionable efficacy of penal enactments.
The Test and Corporation Acts had rendered the Sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper an essential observance to all those who held offices of trust.
This measure, passed (1673) in the time of Charles the Second, had
moderated the bitter feelings towards dissenters, in which the high
church party had, until that time, indulged; and the zeal which many
dissenters had displayed in the service of the country at the
Revolution, had procured them offices under government, to obtain which,
they had in many instances not scrupled to receive the Communion. A
participation in this ceremonial was, by law, only incumbent once, and
it might be followed by an immediate, and regular attendance on the
services and sacraments of a dissenting meeting-house. The laxity and
dissimulation to which this practice conduced, called for remedy; and
the remedy was either to be obtained by remitting the test, thus
unscrupulously nullified, or by strengthening the penal enactments.
The question became, as usual, a matter for faction to agitate, rather
than for the calm light of reason to settle, The dissenters were
countenanced by the Whigs: and were supporters of the war, which they
deemed essential to establish the principles of the Revolution. The
Tories, in attacking them, attacked, therefore, their adversaries in
various ways, and, as it was argued, more from political virulence, than
from religious zeal. Yet, since it was allowed that there were many
dissenters who reprobated the practice of thus prefacing the Sacrament
by making it the vehicle of a false profession, so it may be presumed
that there were also numerous persons amongst the high church party, who
viewed such evasions of truth with real indignation, independent of
party zeal, and who really desired, in the clamour for reformation, that
such scandal to religion, and such temptation to the worst passions of
our nature, should be prevented by legislative enactments.
It is agreeable to reflect that more just and delicate notions of
religion, and its invariable attendant, integrity, now prevail, and that
conduct in these matters, such as was common, and even habitual in the
days of which we write, would be reprobated by all thinking people in
our own times. Men who aspired to hold public offices were then
frequently to be seen receiving the Communion of the Church of England
once, and, having complied with the statute, were never known to enter a
church of the established form again. Even Prince George received the
sacrament as high admiral, yet maintained his Lutheran chapel, in which,
when interest called him not elsewhere, he was a continual attendant and
communicant.[463] Nor were those who raised the clamour against such
inconsistencies, to use the mildest term, much to be commended for the
regularity or sincerity of their religious observances. Sir Edward
Seymour, the leading partisan of the church, confessed, when discussing
the subject of non-conformity, that it was then seven years since he had
received the sacrament, or heard a sermon in the Church of England. It
was remarkable that the leading members of the House of Commons, who
were the most active against dissenters, were all descended from
dissenting families. Amongst these were Harley, and Henry St. John,
afterwards Lord Bolingbroke.[464]
The bill for preventing occasional conformity was, however, brought into
the House of Commons. Its advocates did not attempt to conceal the
existence of party motives, but contended, that since the last reign had
been begun with a law in favour of dissenters, it was becoming that the
gracious sovereign now on the throne should show, by some mark, her
determined protection of the established church.[465] Whilst in the
preamble a spirit of toleration was asserted, the enactments of the bill
were severe, though vague, and tended to promote the vices of informers,
and to produce a spirit of inquisition into every man’s actions. It
affixed a heavy fine upon every person holding a public office, after
attending any meeting of dissenters, not according to the Liturgy of the
Church of England, where more than five persons were present, besides
the family. Upon functionaries so offending, while exercising their
duties, it affixed a fine of five pounds for every day so employed; and,
after attending such meeting, they were incapacitated from holding any
office, until after a whole year’s conformity to the church;—the great
object of the bill being, according to a Whig “historian, to model
corporations, and to cast out of them all those who would not vote in
elections for the Tories.”[466]
Such was the opinion of Bishop Burnet. The Duchess of Marlborough gives
us a much more highly-coloured delineation of the motives and workings
of this famous measure, than even the determined and strenuous prelate.
The Church of England, the Duchess thought, could not be in any
immediate danger with such a “_nursing_ mother” as the Queen, or, as the
Tories called her, the illustrious ornament of the church; and the
Tories, in bringing forward this famous measure, “by the heat and
agitation with which they over-acted their part, exposed their
monopolizing ambition, which ought to have been better concealed under
the cloak of zeal for the church.”[467]
The affection of her Majesty for the church, the Duchess considered,
could not be doubted, since, for its better security, she had chosen
“its renowned champions to be of her ministry and council.
Nevertheless,” she adds, “in the very first new parliament after her
Majesty’s accession, it was thought necessary, with all diligence, to
provide new strength, new supports for this flourishing church, as if it
had been in the most tottering and declining condition.”[468] The
motives for such conduct were, in the Duchess’s estimation, interested
and invidious. The bill did not, in her opinion, “aim at excluding the
_occasional_ conformists only, but all those _constant_ conformists,
too, who could not relish the high church nonsense of promoting religion
by persecution.”
The measure, if intended, as the Duchess further asserts, to distinguish
in her Majesty’s estimation the friends, from the foes of the church,
succeeded in producing that effect, as subsequent events fully proved.
Those who contemplated by its enactments the immediate prevention of the
scandal of non-conformity, were disappointed, for it was not finally
successful. It was brought into the Commons and passed; its “hottest”
panegyrists being, according to Cunningham, “the clergy, and a crowd of
women of the lowest rank, inflamed, as it were, with a zeal for
religion.” “These women,” he observes, “expressed as great an exultation
at the supposed victory, as if they had taken more pleasure in such
religious triumphs, than in the gratification of even their lusts and
their appetites.”[469]
The Peers, however, less carried away at this time by religious or
political zeal than the Commons, threw out the bill, being of opinion,
not only that it was the offspring of party and prejudice, but that it
would be impolitic during the time of war to disgust so large a body of
her Majesty’s subjects as the Protestant dissenters. They argued, also,
that it was not then expedient to set about the reformation of religious
controversies.
The decision of the press was against the court, but highly acceptable
to the people. Prince George, though himself an occasional conformist,
was not ashamed to go to the House and vote for the bill;[470] yet even
this singular proof of the Queen’s good wishes towards the measure could
not save it. The commercial part of the nation were warm in their
dislike to its principles and details. Lord Somers, in a celebrated
speech, in which he designated the great body of merchants, tradesmen,
and mechanics, as “the nation,” denounced the measure. Lord Wharton lent
the aid of his forcible eloquence to advocate the cause of toleration.
His speech was strongly characteristic. “Men’s minds,” he argued, “are
different, and their sentiments of divine worship, various. It were,
indeed, to be wished, but is hardly to be expected, that men were all of
one opinion. Many people like variety, as I myself do, provided it be
not injurious to the public.” It was not long after these debates, that
these two lords, “having,” says Cunningham, “over-strained their voices
in the heat of debates in Parliament, fell into dangerous
sickness.”[471] Such was the violence with which the discussion was
carried on.
The loss of the bill was a great mortification to the Tories; and Lord
Rochester, about this time, resigned his appointment as Lord Lieutenant
of Ireland, it was said, chiefly from his unwillingness to leave
England, lest the church should be betrayed in his absence. But it was
with more truth supposed, that jealousy of Lord Godolphin, and vexation
at the Queen’s not making Rochester her sole director and adviser, had a
share in producing his lordship’s resignation. This, “if true,” says the
Duchess, “affords a remarkable instance how much self-love and conceit
can blind even a man of sense; for such, by his own party at least, he
was esteemed to be. I don’t wonder he should like power, (it is what
most people are fond of,) or that, being related to the Queen, he should
expect a particular consideration: this was very natural and very
reasonable, if he had behaved himself to her as he ought. But when one
considers that his relation to her was by such a sort of accident, and
that his conduct had been so very extraordinary, it is an amazing thing
that he should imagine that he was to domineer over the Queen and
everybody else, as he did over his own family.”[472]
“Whether the church was in any danger or _not_ before,” adds the
Duchess, contemptuously, “it could not be questioned by any good
churchman but it _now_ began to be in some peril, when my Lord Rochester
was no longer in place, nor in the council.”[473]
The Duchess, during the progress and defeat of the Conformity Bill,
endeavoured, but unsuccessfully, to bring the Queen over to her own
views of the important subject. Yet Anne, on being informed that a great
portion of her subjects were greatly offended at the attempt made by
this bill to shackle their religious professions, endeavoured, in her
speech on the opening of the next Parliament, to dissuade the House from
this measure, as it might prove a barrier to union at home, and
consequently detrimental to the prosecution of the war abroad.
Marlborough, though still reputed to be a high churchman, seconded the
wishes of the people by every effort in his power. His popularity, on
that account, rose to a pitch of the greatest favour; and the money and
the trade of the country being in the hands of those who espoused the
cause of the Dissenters, Lord Godolphin began also to be convinced of
the importance of the Whigs as a body, “and to pay them as much regard
as the times and the Queen’s prejudices would permit.”
The next blow to the Tories was manifested by the removal of Sir Edward
Seymour and Lord Jersey from their employments, and by the resignation
of Lord Nottingham, who was indignant at the favour shown to the Whigs.
The same party spirit which affected the political world, ran with
aggravated fury throughout the whole body of the clergy. Divisions now
took place, “to describe which,” says Burnet, “new names were found out;
and they were distinguished by the name of High Church and Low
Church.”[474] Those who treated the dissenters with moderation, who
expressed approbation of the Revolution, and aversion to the House of
Stuart—those who wished well to the present war, and ill to France—were
considered by their opponents to favour the presbytery, and to be ill
affected to the church. Amongst such, the Duchess of Marlborough figured
conspicuously, and, whilst her day lasted, with powerful effect upon the
growth and strength of the party with whom she delighted to be classed.