as the establishment of the House of Hanover. There was, also, a very general wish to see still upon the throne some descendant of Charles the First, a monarch whose memory had become hallowed in the minds of the people from the crime of their fathers against him, and from his consecration as the "Royal Martyr" by the Church. Under the influence of these feelings, a very considerable number of the landed gentry, and of the High Churchmen, began to cast a wistful look of expectation towards St. Germains. "Several in England," writes a Jacobite agent in 1711, "wish the King well, who would not hazard their estates for him. . If he came with ten thousand men it is thought there would not be a sword drawn against him. There are, besides, a set of men well disposed, who have taken the oaths to the government only by form, and whom General Stanhope, in Sacheverell's trial, called the Non-juror Swearers. These are very numerous in the two kingdoms."*

Besides these, besides the steady old Jacobites, besides the whole body of the Roman Catholics, the Court of St. Germains also received promises of support from several leading ministerial statesmen. The extent of this infidelity, which has more recently come to light from the publication of original papers, is truly appalling. No feeling of attachment to party, nor of admiration for greatness, should make us shrink from exposing the shameful treachery of men who secretly kept up a treasonable correspondence with seals of office in their hands, and professions of loyalty on their lips. Amongst these, since 1688, had been Admiral Russell, Lord Danby, the Duke of Shrewsbury, the Lord Treasurer Godolphin, and, above all-it is with shame and sorrow that I write it-the Duke of Marlborough. His conduct to the Stuarts is, indeed, a foul blot on his illustrious name. He had from early life been attached to James the Second. He had received high favors from that monarch. Yet he quitted that monarch at the very hour when Fortune was turning upon him, and under all the circumstances that could add a sting to perfidy. I do not deny that a sense of patriotism, and a conviction of the dangers to which both religion and liberty were exposed under the government of James, would justify his conduct, and that he might be praised for remembering, with a truly Roman spirit, his duty to his country before his obligations to his patron. But, as Hume well observes, this defence requires that we should find on his part ever after, the most upright, disinterested, and public-spirited behaviour. How difficult, then, does it become to excuse his defection when we find him, almost immediately after its success, taking measures to provide for a change of circumstances, to stand well with the dethroned Court, should it be restored, to have to plead the most ardent vows of repentance and attachment! How difficult when we find him betraying to the enemy the secret expedition against Brest!-when we find that expedition consequently failing

• Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. ii. p. 212, &c. ed. 1775.

and costing the lives of eight hundred British soldiers !* What defence can possibly be offered for such conduct! No other than that of Manlius when he pointed to the Capitol!

To the last, Marlborough persevered in these deplorable intrigues. To the last he professed unbounded devotion to the Courts both of Hanover and of St. Germains. Thus, for example, in April, 1713, he writes to the Elector: "I entreat you to be persuaded that I shall be always ready to hazard my fortune and my life for your service." In October of the same year we find him solemnly protesting to a Jacobite agent, that he had rather have his hands cut off than do any thing prejudicial to King James's cause! It may be observed, however, that a correspondence with the exiled family during the reign of Anne, though equally dangerous and hurtful to the public interests, was far less treacherous and disgraceful to the parties themselves than during the reign of William. The objects of the Jacobites had changed. Under William they wished to dethrone and expel the reigning monarch. Under Anne, on the contrary, their views were, in England at least, directed to the hope of her succession. When any of her ministers, therefore, concurred in these views, they, at least, did not concur in any personal injury or insult to the sovereign whom they served. Nay, these views were more than suspected to be in accordance with her Majesty's secret predilections.

It is to be observed, before I quit the subject of parties, that the Tories at this period were the more numerous, and comprised the bulk of the landed proprietors and parochial clergy. The Whigs, on the other hand, had in their favour nearly the whole moneyed interest.

The great majority of the English at this period firmly held the doctrines of the Established Church, and zealously supported its privileges. "The Church for ever!" had become a favourite cry. During Sacheverell's trial the sedan chair of the Queen used to be surrounded by an anxious crowd exclaiming, "God bless your Majesty and the Church! We hope your Majesty is for Dr. Sacheverell!" Another proof of this salutary attachment may be drawn from the fact, that both the Tories and Whigs were accustomed to charge each other, as a ground of unpopularity, with endangering the Church; the Tories because they favoured the Roman Catholics; and the Whigs because they favoured the Dissenters. The state of each of these sects may, perhaps, require a few words of detail.

• The secret letter of Marlborough to King James is printed by Macpherson, vol. i. p. 485. Coxe (vol. i. p. 76) endeavours to defend him, by alleging that Marlborough knew that he had sent his intelligence too late to be of any service to the French. But this would only be a further refinement of perfidy. That arch-traitor Fouché boasts of a similar course with respect to the plans of Napoleon, before the battle of Waterloo. See his Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 342, ed. 1824.

† See Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. ii. pp. 442, and 488. It appears, also, from the Stuart Papers at Windsor, that the chief communications with the Duke of Marlborough, towards the close of Anne's reign, were carried on through the means of Mr. Tunstal, under the cant name of "Trevers." Marlborough's cant name was "Malbranche."

The Roman Catholics at this time seemed very inconsiderable as to numbers. In Ireland, indeed, or at least in its southern and western provinces, they comprised the mass of the labouring classes, but these at that time were men of most unruly temper and abject ignorance, and befriended by no party in the state. Swift was a Tory of that era; yet, in all the eighteen volumes of his works, it would not be easy to point out a single sentence of sympathy or interest with this portion of his fellow-countrymen. So far from it, that in some passages he is anxious to represent the Irish Protestants as English settled in Ireland, and to draw a strong line of distinction between them and the native Irish.* In England, on the other hand, the Roman Catholics could boast of many adherents amongst the ancient peerage and gentry and other educated classes, but had hardly any hold upon the lower. In spite of their very small numbers, they were the objects of extreme alarm to the Protestants, from the remembrance of their former persecutions, and from the religious tenets and impending return of the Pretender. The most unfounded imputations against them were always greedily received. No charge was too gross, no falsehood too glaring, for the credulous animosity of the public. In fact, it is very remarkable how frequently the multitude arrives at a right conclusion from false premises; and it might be truly asserted, that such old wives' fables as the burning of London by the Roman Catholics have produced more effect against them than even the noble martyrdom of Ridley or the unanswerable arguments of Chillingworth. Very rigorous enactments had been passed against the Catholics in the reign of Queen Anne. But in practice these were for the most part moderately and mildly administered: and we find Bolingbroke asserting, in 1714, that the Catholics "enjoy as much tranquillity as any others of the Queen's subjects."+

Of the Protestant Dissenters, who, at this period, before the rise of Methodism, were not numerous, I shall have a better opportunity of saying a few words when I come to the repeal of the Schism Act.

The manners of the English gentry, in this age, were, in a great measure, purely national; and, except at Court, had received from foreign nations neither polish nor corruption. To travel, had not yet grown to be a very common practice. It was not yet thought that a visit to more genial climes, or more lovely landscapes, was the best preparation for afterwards living happy and contented in our In fact, according to the old English maxims, no one could go abroad without special permission from the sovereign. Thus, in the reign of Elizabeth, Sir William Evers was severely punished because he had presumed to make a private journey to Scotland.*

own.

*See, for instance, a letter to Pope so late as July 23, 1737. "We are grieved to find you made no distinction between the English gentry of this kingdom, and the savage old Irish."

† Letter to Mr. Prior, Jan. 30, 1714. Corresp., vol. ii.

See a letter from James the First, interceding for Evers, in Birch's Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 511.

In the first part of the eighteenth century, the same authority seems still to have existed, at least with respect to the great nobility. The Duke of Shrewsbury, for example, could not go abroad, in 1700, until he had obtained leave from King William.* Thus, also, the Duke of Marlborough's application for a passport, in 1712, was opposed by several members of the cabinet. The fees for a passport at the Foreign Office amounted to upwards of 6l., a sum far from inconsiderable in those days, and serving as a check upon the lower class of travellers. To travel with passports from the foreign ministers resident in England is a later, and, in my opinion, a mischievous and unwarrantable innovation.

Thus amongst the gentry and middle classes of Queen Anne's time, the French language was much undervalued, and seldom studied. At Court, however, the case was very different; and, though few could speak French very accurately, it is remarkable how much the style of many eminent men at this period, in their private correspondence, teems with Gallicisms. The letters of Marlborough, especially, appear written by a Frenchman. Thus, for example, he uses the word "opiniatrety" for obstinacy, and "to defend" instead of to forbid.§

At the peace of Utrecht, the population of England was not much above five millions. It may be doubted whether that of Scotland exceeded one million, or that of Ireland, two; although I need hardly observe how far less accurately and carefully such calculations were made in those days. It is certain, however, that the rural inhabitants of England then very far outnumbered those in the towns: but the latter having since increased in a much greater proportion, more especially in the manufacturing districts, the two classes have come nearly to an equality;** a change which has, I fear, involved within it the germ of other changes.

The national debt, at the accession of Anne, had been only 16,000,0007., with an interest of 1,300,000l. In 1714, it had grown to 52,000,000l., with an interest of 3,300,000l.†† By the accounts

* Shrewsbury Corresp., p. 630.

Coxe's Life, vol. vi. p. 221.

Bolingbroke's Corresp., vol. ii. p. 82, note to a letter from Prior, of Sept. 1712. When I was Under-Secretary of State in that department, I found the fees on each passport reduced to 21. 2s. 6d.

§ See Coxe's Life, vol. iv. pp. 229, 243, &c. The duty on the importation of unbound foreign books into England from June, 1711, to June, 1712, amounted only to 120%. 15s., and in the ensuing year to 1921. 38.! (Commons' Journals, vol. xvii. p. 605.) That duty which had been doubled in 1711 appears to have been 60 per cent. ad valorem. (Ibid. p. 642.)

See the Preface to the 1st vol. of the Population Returns, 1831, p. 45. According to the calculations of Mr. Finlaison, the population of England and Wales in 1710 was 5,066,000, and in 1700, 5,134,000, thus showing a decrease of 68,000 in ten years. It is remarkable, that all the periods of ten years between 1710 and 1830, when the popula tion had grown to 13,800,000, exhibit, on the contrary, a steady and progressive increase. Will the wars of Queen Anne's reign account for the difference? But then, what shall we say to the wars of the French Revolution?

Yet Fletcher of Saltoun estimated the number of gipsies in Scotland at not less than 200,000! A monstrous exaggeration!

** See Colquhoun's Wealth and Resources, p. 23.

Ibid., p. 265.

.

presented to Parliament in that year, it appeared that the expense of the late war during twelve years, amounted to nearly 69,000,000l., making a yearly average of above five millions and a half.* The debts, during this period, seem to have been contracted on very moderate terms. Lord Treasurer Godolphin observes, in one of his letters, in 1706: "Though the land and trade both of England and Holland have excessive burthens upon them, yet the credit continues good, both with us and with them; and we can, either of us, borrow money at four or five per cent.; whereas, the finances of France are so much more exhausted, that they are forced to give 20 and 25 per cent. for every penny of money they send out of the Kingdom, unless they send it in specie." In 1709, the supplies voted exceeded seven millions, a sum that was unparalleled, and seemed enormous.‡ In fact, though these sums at present may appear light in our eyes, they struck the subjects of Anne with the utmost astonishment and horror. "Fifty millions of debt, and six millions of taxes!" exclaims Swift: "the High Allies have been the ruin of us!" Bolingbroke points out, with dismay, that the public revenue, in neat money, amounted at the Revolution, to no more than two millions annually; and the public debts, that of the bankers included, to little more than three hundred thousand pounds. Speaking of a later period, and of a debt of thirty millions, he calls it "a sum that will appear incredible to future generations, and is so almost to the present!" It is, I hope, with no undue partiality that I venture to remark, how much juster and more correct on this point were the views of Secretary Stanhope. In the minutes of a Conference which he held in 1716, with Abbé Dubois, I find the following remark recorded of him:-"However large our national debt may be thought, it will undoubtedly increase much more, and believe me, it will not hereafter cause greater difficulty to the government or uneasiness to the people, than it does at present."§

But, though we might astonish our great-grandfathers at the high amount of our public income, they may astonish us at the high amount of their public salaries. The service of the country was then a service of vast emolument. In the first place, the holder of almost every great office was entitled to plate; secondly, the rate of salaries, even when nominally no larger than at present, was, in fact, two or three times more considerable from the intermediate depreciation of money. But even nominally, many offices were then of higher value, and, when two or more were conferred upon the same person, he, contrary to the present practice, received the profits of all. As the most remarkable instance of this fact, I may mention the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough. Exclusive of Blenheim, of parliamentary grants, of gifts, of marriage portions from the Queen

* Parliamentary History, vol. vi. p. 1346.

Letter to the Duke of Marlborough, dated Sept. 24, 1706, and printed in the 3d volume of Coxe's Life. Somerville's Queen Anne, p. 334.

See the Mémoires de Sevelinges, vol. i. p. 207