Commons; and she was not a little displeased with Townshend for counteracting, or at least delaying, that measure, and representing to the King how greatly the interests of his administration would suffer from the promotion of a decided political opponent.

Another no less formidable antagonist of the Prime Minister remains to be mentioned in one of his own colleagues, Charles Earl of Sunderland, at this time Lord Privy Seal. It is remarkable how frequently that family has held a leading position in the councils of the empire. To say nothing of the honours of Marlborough by female descent, we find Robert, the father of this Lord Sunderland, Prime Minister under James the Second; we find his great grandson First Lord of the Admiralty under George the Third; and his next descendant leader of the House of Commons under William the Fourth. The character of Earl Robert-false to his religion, to his friends, and to his country-is undefended, and I think indefensible. But the character of Earl Charles has, in my opinion, been unjustly depreciated; he has been confounded with his predecessor, and the perfidy of the parent has cast its blighting shade over the fame of the son.* The father was a subtle, pliant, and unscrupulous candidate for Royal favour. The son carried his love of popular rights to the very verge of republican doctrines. If he be sometimes open to charges of secret cabals, we find him much more frequently accused of imprudent vehemence and bluntness. According to Lord Dartmouth, "Queen Anne said Lord Sunderland always treated her with great rudeness and neglect, and chose to reflect in a very injurious manner upon all Princes before her, as a proper entertainment for her." Even his own father-in-law, the Duke of Marlborough, thinking him too hasty and incautious, had, in 1706, dissuaded his appointment as Secretary of State, and only yielded at length to the entreaties of his friends, and to the positive commands of the Duchess. The post of Secretary of State was filled by him till June, 1710, with much talent and success; and on being dismissed from office, he refused the Queen's proposal of a pension of 3000l. a year for life, declaring that if he could not have the honour of serving his country he would not plunder it—a degree of generosity which, in those times, was very far from being common or expected. He was undoubtedly a man of great quickness, discernment, and skill; of a persevering ambition, of a ready eloquence. Under the snow of a cold and reserved exterior there glowed the volcano of an ardent and fiery spirit, a warm attachment to his friends, and an unsparing rancour against his opponents. His learn

"Lord Sunderland is said to have too much resembled, as a politician, the Earl his father." (Lord Orford's Works, vol. iv. p. 287.) This vague imputation is followed by a strange story about his consulting his rival Sir Robert Walpole, as to the restoration of the Stuarts; a story which I concur with Mr. Hallam (Const. Hist. vol. iii. p. 336), in rejecting as utterly incredible.

Note on Burnet's History, vol. vi. p. 9.

See Coxe's Life, vol. iii. p. 88, &c. Marlborough at length said to his wife, "I have writ as my friends would have me, for I had much rather be governed than govern." August 9, 1706.

ing is not denied even by the enmity of Swift,* and his activity in business seems to be equally unquestionable. In private life he might be accused of extravagance and love of play,† and his conduct in more than one public transaction appears to me either equivocal or blamable; but I may observe that several points for which he was condemned by his contemporaries, would, on the contrary, deserve the approbation of more enlightened times. Thus, for example, I find in a letter from the Duke of Grafton when Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland: "Lord Sunderland carried the compliment to this country too far, by choosing out of the natives all the chief and most of the other Judges, and the Bishops too, which has been attended with very mischievous consequences to the English interest."

At the accession of George the First, Sunderland, conscious of his talents and his services, proud of the high places he had already filled, and relying on the eminent claims of his father-in-law, had expected to be the head of the new administration. It even appears that he intimated to Baron Bothmar his wish of being appointed Secretary of State, and that Bothmar, at one moment, was inclined to recommend him for that office.§ It was with bitter disappointment that he found his name, and that of Marlborough, omitted in the list of the Lords Justices during the King's absence. It was with still more chagrin that he afterwards saw himself placed beneath Lord Townshend, who had hitherto, in all public transactions, been subordinate to him. The Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, which was bestowed upon him, by no means satisfied his craving for power; he accepted it with sullenness; he never went over for the discharge of its duties; and, on the death of the Marquis of Wharton, was permitted to exchange it for the post of Privy Seal and a seat in the Cabinet. Still, however, excluded from real authority, and still, therefore, discontented and restless, he, in a great measure, seceded from his colleagues, and took no part for their defence or assistance in the House of Lords. During the two first years of George's reign, his name scarcely ever occurs in the proceedings of that assembly. Meanwhile he attached to himself several of the seceders that now began, from various causes, to fall off from the great Whig party, more especially Lord Cadogan, Hampden, and Lechmere, and was prepared to use every opportunity for the overthrow of a Cabinet to which he still continued to belong.

In the month of July, Sunderland had been allowed by the King to go to Aix-la-Chapelle, to drink the waters. Walpole writes upon this to Stanhope:-"Lord Sunderland talks of leaving England in a fortnight, and, to be sure, will not be long from you. He seems very pressing to have instructions from us how to behave at Hanover. His professions for an entire reconciliation and a perfect union are as strong as words can express, and you may be sure are reciprocal;

* See Swift's Works, vol. x. p. 304.

† Coxe's Marlborough, vol. vi. p. 342.

+++

This letter is dated Dec. 29, 1723, and is printed in Coxe's Walpole.
Macpherson's State Papers, vol. ii. p. 641.

and when I consider that common interest should procure sincerity among us, I am astonished to think there is reason to fear the contrary. Accordingly, from Aix-la-Chapelle, Sunderland wrote for leave to proceed to Hanover; and this permission Stanhope used his influence to obtain from the King. An implied censure is cast upon Stanhope by a modern writer, as if he had acted treacherously towards Townshend and Walpole, in promoting instead of opposing, the application of their dissatisfied colleague.† But surely, on the contrary, it is evident, from the passage already cited in Walpole's letter, that such an application had been foreseen and reckoned upon in London; that Sunderland, far from making his journey to Hanover a secret, had asked Walpole for advice as to his conduct there; and that Walpole never requested Stanhope to hinder his progress. It is no less clear, from the mere fact of retaining this well-known antagonist in the Cabinet and in the office of Privy Seal, how necessary it was thought to keep on good terms with him. And, still further, Stanhope's recommendation rests on no external testimony, but on his own: he was so far from wishing to conceal it, as he might easily have done, had he pleased, that he mentioned it the same day to Lord Townshend's secretary with all the confidence of upright intentions. "I prevailed, this morning, for leave that Lord Sunderland should come hither after drinking the waters of Aix. He had writ to me for leave; and you will easily imagine, if it had not been granted, where the fault would have been laid; so I did really press it, and obtained it with difficulty."

When once at Hanover, Sunderland assiduously applied himself to gain the favour of the King and the friendship of Stanhope, and not without success. The misunderstanding which arose with Townshend gave him an excellent opportunity to fill up, as it were, the gap left vacant in the confidence of both the monarch and the minister. He attended the Court to Gohre, and was there when, on the 11th of November, Stanhope tendered his resignation. So far from accepting it, the King caused Stanhope to write, under his own eye, and in French, a letter to Townshend, expressing grave displeasure at the delays of the French treaty, and requiring an immediate explanation. Orders were, likewise, sent to prorogue the Parliament, and to postpone the public business, until his Majesty's return. On that day Sunderland also wrote to Townshend to the same effect, but without authority from the King, and in a very rough and peremptory tone, thus showing, at once, how imperious was his temper, and how great was the influence he had already acquired over the mind of his sovereign.§

Walpole to Stanhope, July 30, 1716, O. S. In another letter of Aug. 30, O. S., he says still more positively, "Lord Sunderland has left us, and will be soon with you." † See Coxe's Walpole, vol. i. p. 96.

Letter to Poyntz, September 8, 1716. Coxe's Walpole.

See Stanhope's and Sunderland's letters in Coxe's Walpole, vol. ii. p. 126-128. I have already made some extracts from the former in explaining the grounds for the suspicions of Lord Townshend. The King himself also wrote to Lord Townshend on the same day, but his letter is not preserved.

The explanations of the Prime Minister were not long delayed. They bear the same date as Stanhope's charges, the latter New Style, and the former Old. To Sunderland he vouchsafed no answer at all. To Stanhope, his answer is short and resentful— only a few lines, ending with, "I pray God forgive you: I do." But his letter to the King contains a most manly, clear, and conclusive vindication of his conduct in every part of the transaction of which he stood accused.*

But in the interval, whilst Lord Townshend's answers were still expected at Hanover, there came from him an important despatch on another subject. It appears that the King had, some time before, sent directions to the Cabinet Council in England to consult on the heads of the business which it would be necessary to bring forward in the next session, his Majesty declaring, at the same time, that he was desirous of passing the whole winter abroad, if any means could be found to carry on his affairs in his absence. This seems to have been his Majesty's real inclination, although a more recent writer, without assigning a single proof from contemporary records, and speaking, as far as I can discover, merely from his own conjecture, represents it as a trap suggested by Sunderland to obtain proofs of the cabals with the Prince of Wales, which he imputed to Townshend and Walpole.† According to the King's orders, Townshend, on November 2, O. S., drew up, in a despatch to Stanhope, the sentiments of the Cabinet on the politics of the North, the payment of the public debts, the trial of Lord Oxford, and a proposed Act of Indemnity. Being anxious to gratify the King's inclination, Townshend did not press his Majesty's return on this occasion: but he strongly urged that, if his Majesty did remain at Hanover, the Prince should be entrusted with a discretionary power, so as to meet unexpected difficulties or altered circumstances. Townshend, moreover, thought it right to select some confidential person to be the bearer of this despatch, and to explain more fully to his Majesty, if needful, any of the points contained in it. For this purpose, he pitched upon Horace Walpole. That gentleman had received from Hanover the permission he had solicited to quit the Hague, and leave the signature of the French treaty to his colleague,§ and thereupon he had returned to England.

These letters, like the rest, are printed in Coxe's Walpole, vol. ii. p. 128-134. † Coxe's Walpole, vol. i. p. 99.

See this despatch in Coxe's Walpole, vol. ii. p. 120. It may be observed that as to northern politics, Townshend greatly fluctuated in his opinion. In his former letter to Stanhope of Sept. 23, O. S., he urges a peace with Sweden, even at some sacrifice: in his letter of November 2, O. S., he is for pushing the war with Sweden, but coming to a good understanding with the Czar. Nor can this fluctuation be sufficiently explained by any intermediate discovery of the Swedish scheme for a Jacobite invasion, since that scheme would of course have dropped, had a peace been concluded as Townshend at first proposed.

§ Stanhope not only granted this permission to the urgent request of Horace Walpole, but so far complied with his views as to write to Dubois, proposing that the signa ture should be delayed eight days more, in hopes that the Dutch might finish their formalities within that time. See his letter in the Mém. Secrets de Sevelinges, vol. i. p. 227.

Horace Walpole made such speed in his new commission as to reach Gohre on the 23d of November, N. S. He found that the King had by this time determined to return to England, and to open the Parliament in person; and he therefore appears to have considered the despatch of which he was the bearer, and which provided for the event of the King's absence, as supererogatory, and bestowed no further thought or care upon it. It will presently be seen how greatly he was mistaken, and how very unfavourable an impression that despatch was producing on the mind of his Majesty. The attention of Horace Walpole was, meanwhile, fully engrossed with the Royal and Ministerial resentments on the subject of the French treaty. He perused copies of the letters which had gone out to Lord Townshend, and observed, with sorrow and surprise, the unfounded suspicions of Stanhope and the rising ascendency of Sunderland.

Want of frankness was never the fault of Horace Walpole. He warmly remonstrated with Stanhope; explained the doubtful circumstances in Townshend's conduct; declared, that if there was any blame incurred by the delay of the signatures at the Hague, that blame belonged solely to himself, and to his scruples in affixing his name to a separate treaty; and finally, he answered for the high honour and undiminished friendship of his two brother ministers.

Stanhope, on his part, convinced by the truth of these remonstrances, acknowledged that he had been misled by unfounded suspicions and suggestions, and had wrongly accused Lord Townshend on the matter of the French treaty. "We must now, however," added he, "look forward instead of backward." He declared that he frankly cast off his own doubts, and promised to use his influence with the King to efface the unfavourable impression which his Majesty, like himself, had conceived, from the delay of the signatures. Accordingly, he vindicated Townshend's conduct to the King and to Sunderland, and had already, in a great measure, re-established his Majesty's former good humour and complacency before the arrival of Townshend's own letter of defence. That letter completed the good work; the King, like Stanhope, now candidly acknowledged his mistake, and desired Horace Walpole to convey to Townshend the strongest assurances of his entire satisfaction and confidence in the matter of the signatures. Nor did his Majesty give any hint to Horace Walpole of other causes for displeasure. Stanhope, on his part, warmly expressed to Horace Walpole his feelings of friendship and esteem for the brother ministers; entrusted him with conciliatory letters to both, and earnestly requested him to lend his good offices

The authentic details of what passed between Horace Walpole and Stanhope, are, except one or two scattered hints, only to be gleaned from two letters of the former to the latter, on December 8, and 23, 1716, N. S. Coxe, who has printed these letters, has added some particulars from his own ideas of probability. Where could he find any authority for saying that "Walpole reminded Stanhope that he owed his high situation to Townshend and his brother," or that "Stanhope expressed a high sense of his obligatious to them?" There is not a word to that effect in any contemporary statement, and the favour thus implied never existed, as I have shown elsewhere.