slunk ignominiously from several duels, especially from one with General Grumkow, first minister to the King of Prussia; and it is not a little singular that a coward should have gained the highest favour of the most warlike prince of his age. His wandering, haphazard mode of life, before his appearance at the Swedish Court, had given him a peculiar dexterity in dealing with different characters, and an utter freedom from scruple as to the means which he employed; and he was, says Voltaire, equally lavish of gifts and of promises, of oaths and of lies.†

This active adventurer, having gone from Court to Court to stir up enemies against the House of Hanover, at length fixed his station at the Hague, as envoy from Sweden. Amongst those whom he had noticed and wished to take with him in his journeys, was Voltaire, at that time a very young man, known only as the author of some political lampoons, for which he was soon afterwards confined in the Bastile; but the historian has since commemorated the obscure intrigues of the satirist. From Holland Gortz carried on a secret correspondence, with Count Gyllenborg and Baron Spaar, the Swedish ministers at London and at Paris; he had also some direct communications with the Pretender and the Duke of Ormond, and he had received full powers from Sweden. The views of Gortz were most extensive. He wished to form new political connections for his master, whose imprudent heroism had hitherto gained him more admirers than allies. He projected a peace with the Czar, and even a perfect concert of measures between that monarch and Sweden,§ a conspiracy against the Regent in France, an insurrection against George the First in England, and an invasion of Scotland by Charles in person. It is evident that nothing could have been more auspicious for the Jacobite cause than to find itself freed from the unpopularity which attended its dependence upon France, and assisted no longer by a Romish but by a Protestant ally. Spain also entered warmly into this scheme. Its prime minister, Alberoni, sent to Spaar a subsidy of a million of French livres; and the little Court of the Pretender offered 60,000l. Time, which, next to money, is the chief auxiliary in such enterprises, was to be fixed as early as possible; the invading army was to number 12,000 Swedish soldiers, and the military reputation of their King was in itself a host.

So

Happily for England this mine was tracked before it burst. far back as October, some letters between Gyllenborg and Gortz being stopped and deciphered by the Government in London, afforded

* See Lamberty, Mém. vol. ix. p. 267. This was the same Grumkow so grossly caricatured in the Mémoires de Bareith.

† Histoire de Charles XII., livre viii.

See Voltaire, Histoire de la Russie sous Pierre le Grand, partie ii. ch. 8. Observe how slightingly Voltaire, then called Arouet, is spoken of in the contemporary Mémoires de St. Simon, (vol. xv. p. 69.)

The Czar, who was then travelling in Holland and France, was certainly favourable, in general, to the schemes of Gortz. According to Voltaire, he did and he did not see Gortz at the Hague. "Gortz vit deux fois à la Haye cet Empereur." (Histoire de Charles XII.) "Quand Gortz fut à la Haye le Czar ne le vit point." (Histoire de Pierre le Grand.) But such inaccuracies are not uncommon in Voltaire.

a clue to the whole conspiracy,* and on the King's return fresh information was received, and further measures became necessary. Stanhope, to whose department this affair belonged, laid it before the council on the 29th of January, and proposed the decisive remedy of arresting the Swedish envoy and seizing his papers. A foreign minister who conspires against the very Government at which he is accredited, has clearly violated the law of nations. He is, therefore, no longer entitled to protection from the law of nations. The privileges bestowed upon him by that law rest on the implied condition that he shall not outstep the bounds of his diplomatic duties, and, whenever he does so, it seems impossible to deny that the injured Government is justified in acting as its own preservation may require. On such grounds the Cabinet having agreed to the proposal of arresting Gyllenborg, it was executed on the same day by General Wade, who found the Count making up some despatches. In a few words he explained his mission, laid hold of the papers on the table, and demanded those from the scrutoire. The Swede, much surprised and irritated, warmly expostulated on the laws of nations being violated in his person, and asked leave to send for the Marquis de Monteleon, the Spanish ambassador, that he might consult with him; but Wade stated his positive orders not to let him speak with any person. On the other hand, the Count would by no means give up the key of the scrutoire, and the Countess, who came in, declared that it contained only her plate and linen; but it being, nevertheless, broken open, it was found to be full of papers. These, General Wade, according to his instructions, sealed up and carried away, leaving a sufficient guard upon his prisoner. On the same day were also arrested, Mr. Cæsar, Member of Parliament for Hertford, and Sir Jacob Bancks, formerly member for Minehead, who were suspected of a share in the same conspiracy.†

In a proceeding so unusual and startling, it was judged proper that Stanhope should write a circular to all the foreign ministers in London, informing them of the reasons for Gyllenborg's arrest; and none of them expressed any resentment, except the Marquis de Monteleon. But a far more complete vindication than Stanhope's letter was afforded by those of Gyllenborg, which had been seized at his house, and which were forthwith published by authority.§ They confirmed in the most undoubted manner, all the charges of the Government, all the suspicions of the public. It is remarkable that the name of Walpole occurs in them; and some hasty words of his are repeated, as if his disgust with some of his brother ministers might probably draw him into the conspiracy. In this I am persuaded that

• Lord Townshend to Secretary Stanhope, Oct. 12, and Nov. 2, 1716. (Coxe's Walpole.) Bolingbroke, writing to Wyndham, Sept. 13, observes, "The people who belong to St. Germains and Avignon were never more sanguine in appearance."

+ "Count Gyllenborg has passed most of this summer with Cæsar, a creature of Lord Oxford's in Hertfordshire." Townshend to Stanhope, Oct. 12, 1716.

Political State, 1717, vol. i. p. 150.

The material passages of this correspondence are printed in the Parliamentary His. tory, vol. vii. p. 396-421.

Gortz and Gyllenborg did complete injustice to Walpole, and, in fact, their expressions clearly prove that he had not afforded them any adequate grounds for such hopes.*

Gortz was on his way to England to put the last hand to the conspiracy, and had already reached Calais, when he heard of the fate of his colleague, and upon this returned to Holland. But at Arnheim he and his two secretaries were taken into custody, by an order from the States, obtained at the application of England. The arrest of this prime mover was certainly still more important than Gyllenborg's, but it appears to me to have been far less justifiable. For, admitting the full right of any government to seize and search a foreign minister if conspiring against itself, yet it by no means follows that this extreme resource should be extended to the case of a conspiracy against an ally.

Charles, when informed of the proceedings at London and at Arnheim, maintained a haughty silence, neither owning nor disowning the conduct of Gyllenborg, but directing, as a measure of reprisal, the arrest of Mr. Jackson, the British resident in Sweden. With respect to the Dutch, whom he wished to conciliate, he pursued a milder course, merely forbidding their minister to appear at his Court. Meanwhile, the Regent of France interposed his good offices as mediator; and, after several months of negotiation, and the Regent making an assurance, in the name of Charles, that his Majesty had never any intention to disturb the tranquillity of Great Britain, Count Gyllenborg was sent home and exchanged with Mr. Jackson; and Gortz, with the consent of the English Government, was set at liberty in Holland.†

The Parliament, on its meeting (it was opened on the 20th of February by the King in person), expressed great indignation at the conspiracy so happily crushed. One member even went so far as to move that war should be declared against Sweden; which, Stanhope observed, it would be quite time enough to do if Charles should acknowledge the practice of his ministers. Addresses to the King were carried in both Houses with perfect unanimity. But this happy concord was not of long continuance; and the late schism in the Administration was soon found to be by no means truly and thoroughly healed. Walpole was too conscious of his own ability and influence, and too aspiring in his temper, to be long contented with a second place. His own quarrel, some years afterwards, with his brother-inlaw and most intimate and steady friend, Lord Townshend, clearly shows how little he could bear a rival near the throne; and according to his own expression at that time, he was determined that the firm should be not Townshend and Walpole, but Walpole and

* "I do not know whether Mr. Walpole's expressions were the effect of his first rage on account of his brother-in-law, my Lord Townshend's, being removed, or whether they came from his heart." Gyllenborg to Gortz, January 23, 1717. The subject was mentioned in the House of Commons by Mr. Hungerford, on the 22d of February. Coxe, in his Life of Walpole, passes over the whole transaction in silence.

† Political State, 1717, vol. ii. p. 83.

Townshend. Thus also he ill brooked the superior influence of Sunderland and Stanhope. Private coldness, and, perhaps, private cabals, soon led to public reserve, to utter silence in the House of Commons, or to faint and formal support. On the motion of granting his Majesty a supply against Sweden, it was expected by the Government that Walpole, named as he had been in the Swedish correspondence, would have felt it incumbent upon him to show peculiar zeal and energy. But, on the contrary, his unwillingness and dissatisfaction were apparent; and though he himself spoke in favour of the motion,* yet he seems to have done so coldly and shortly; and all his and Townshend's personal adherents, known to act according to his advice and direction, voted on the opposite side. They were, of course, joined in this policy by the whole body of Jacobites, Tories, and discontented Whigs, and prevailed so far that, on the division, the motion for a supply was carried by a majority of only four, the numbers being 153 against 149.

No Government could possibly close its eyes or restrain its hands from the authors of so insidious an attack; and coming as it did from the party of which Lord Townshend was called the leader, it was necessary to make an example of that nobleman. The state of the case was immediately laid before the King; and, according to his Majesty's directions, Secretary Stanhope, on the same evening of the division, the 9th of April, wrote a letter to Lord Townshend, acknowledging his past services, but announcing his dismissal from the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. If Stanhope and Sunderland had formed any similar intention against Walpole, it was anticipated by that minister, who, early next morning, waited on his Majesty to resign his places of First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. George showed great regret at parting with so able a servant, and endeavoured to persuade him to keep his post, using many kind expressions, and several times pressing the seals back upon him; but Walpole, though moved even to tears by his Majesty's goodness, remained firm in his determination. His example was followed the same morning by Methuen and Pulteney, and, a few days afterwards, by Lord Orford and the Duke of Devonshire. Stanhope was appointed First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sunderland and Addison Secretaries of State, James Craggs Secretary at War, the Earl of Berkeley, First Lord of the Admiralty, the Duke of Newcastle Lord Chamberlain, and the Duke of Bolton Lord Lieutenant of Ireland: Lord Cowper and the Duke of Kingston remaining in their places.

The loss of Walpole was severely felt by the new administration. His influence with the House of Commons, and his reputation with the public, had greatly risen, and he was superior to Stanhope both in power of debate and in knowledge of finance. His late conduct, however, exposed him to many angry reflections; his cabal against

Coxe is mistaken in saying that Walpole in this debate "maintained a profound silence." (Life, p. 106.) Both Robert and Horace Walpole spoke for the Supply. (Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 439.)

his colleagues was termed "a criminal conspiracy," and his withdrawing from the Government, "a defection;" and these charges appear to have induced him, during the first few days, to pursue a very moderate course. When Stanhope proposed to fix the subsidy against Sweden at 250,000l., and when Pulteney thundered against "a German ministry," Walpole closed the debate, and turned it in favour of the Government by observing, that having already spoken in favour of the Supply, he should now give the Court his vote. Soon afterwards he took an opportunity to promise, in the House of Commons, that "the tenor of his conduct should show he never intended to make the King uneasy, nor to embarrass his affairs.' But never, certainly, was any profession so utterly belied in performance. Almost from the moment he left the Treasury until the moment he returned to it, he uniformly and bitterly opposed every measure of the Government. No regard for the public, no feeling for his own consistency, ever withheld him. He unscrupulously leagued himself with Shippen, Wyndham, Bromley, and other decided enemies to the reigning dynasty, insomuch that Shippen, on one occasion, expressed his satisfaction that his friend Walpole was no more afraid than himself of being called a Jacobite. He had made a warm opposition to the Schism Bill at its passing, saying that it rather resembled a decree of Julian the Apostate, than a law of a Protestant Parliament; yet he no less strenuously resisted the repeal of that very law when proposed by Stanhope. We shall find him, who had been one of the prime movers of Oxford's impeachment, contriving a legal difficulty, and assisting that minister's es

We shall find him joining the vulgar outcry against a standing army, and declaring that 12,000 men were fully sufficient, at the very time when he well knew the country to be in danger of another insurrection, and of invasions both from Sweden and from Spain. We shall find him, so acute and practical a statesman, not ashamed to argue against that necessary measure the Mutiny Bill, and exclaiming, in the heat of debate, "IIe that is for blood shall have blood!" In short, his conduct out of office is indefensible, or, at least, is undefended even by his warmest partisans;† and, in looking through our Parliamentary annals, I scarcely know where to find any parallel of coalitions so unnatural, and of opposition so factious. The character of a statesman so reckless in opposition, but so eminent in office, deserves the most attentive consideration, and affords the best clue to the history of England for more than twenty years. During his life, he was loaded with unmerited censures; since his death, he has sometimes received exaggerated praise. Amidst the showers of invective which his enemies have poured, amidst the clouds of incense which his flatterers have raised, the true lineaments of his mind are dimly and doubtfully seen; and I should have failed far more completely in my attempt to give an

*Parliamentary History, vol. vii. p. 446 and 449.

† See the reflections of Speaker Onslow and of Archdeacon Coxe (Memoirs, vol. i. p. 110, and vol. ii. p. 551).