liberal, but lavish; and it must be acknowledged that the magnificence of his buildings, the extent of his purchases, and the profusion of his entertainments at Houghton, gave his enemies no small handle for invective.* He should have recollected that the display of wealth by a Prime Minister is always unpopular with the multitude; if acquired, it excites suspicion; if inherited, envy. So true is this, that in democracies an outward air of poverty is often considered the best recommendation to public favour and confidence. In the United States an intelligent French traveller lately saw an eminent living statesman, a candidate for the Presidentship, canvassing in a patched coat and ragged hat.† Such is the uniform of the courtiers to King Mob!1

It would be unjust to Walpole to conclude his character without alluding to his mildness and placability towards his political opponents. The system under which contending statesmen used to raise up rival scaffolds, and hunt down one another even to the death, ended during his administration; although I must own that I think no small part of the praise belongs to the personal clemency and kindliness of George the First and George the Second. On the whole Walpole appears to me to have been a man of many useful and some great qualities; who faithfully served his country, but who never forgot his own family; and who rose partly by the frailties of others, as well as by merits of his own. With every allowance for the "evil days and eyil tongues" amongst which his lot had fallen, it is impossible not to own that his character wants something of moral elevation. Name him in the same sentence with a Chat

• According to Coxe, his buildings and purchases at Houghton must have cost no less than 200,000l. (p. 728), his pictures 40,000l. (p. 730), his lodge at Richmond 14,0007, (p. 759), and each "meeting" at Houghton 3000l. (p. 758). I believe that he died far from rich.

† Marie, on l'Esclavage aux Etats Unis, par M. de Beaumont, vol. i. p. 227.

On this point we may safely trust the testimony of a zealous Jacobite. Lockhart of Carnwath tells us, "It was moved and pressed in the Cabinet Council, to prosecute the Earls of Wigtoun, Kincardine, and Dundonald, the Lord Balmerino, and myself, for high treason (in 1726), but the late King (George the First), opposed it; he said, 'he would have no more blood or fore-faulters'. . . and in this he was so positive, that his ministers, after several attempts, were forced to drop it." (Vol. ii. p. 398.)

living. It was his favourite and frequent subject of conversation, which proved to those who had any penetration, that it was his prevailing weakness, and they applied to it with success." Letter to his Son, October 16, 1747. Letters, vol. i. p 83.]

' [It would not be worth while to add a word of annotation on this passage, but for the inferences that are drawn. On this account only, it may be remarked that the author has been misled by the French traveller, who, while his general tone is not unfriendly, has in this instance used language that is exaggerated, and has erred in his conclusions. Naming a distinguished citizen of Kentucky, he speaks of his recollection of having seen him, “parcourir le pays avec un vieux chapeau et un habit troué. Il fait sa cour au peuple. Chaque régime a ses travers, et tout souverain ses caprices," etc. It was a foreigner's mistake to give such a description as leads to the notion that there is such a process as can justly be called canvassing for the Presidency; and it is a foreigner's hasty assumption, by which some carelessness of dress is converted into a purposed method of gaining popularity. A better acquaintance with the institutions of the country, and with the character of the people would have satisfied M. de Beaumont that even in its rudest region such a device would provoke popular ridicule rather than win favour.]

ham, and who will not feel the contrast? The mind of Chatham bears the lineaments of a higher nature; and the very sound of his name carries with it something lofty and august. Of Walpole, on the other hand, the defects,-nay, perhaps, even the merits, have in them something low and common. No enthusiasm was ever felt for his person; none was ever kindled by his memory. No man ever inquired where his remains are laid, or went to pay a homage of reverence at his tomb. Between him and Chatham there is the same difference as between success and glory!!

At the period of Walpole's resignation, in 1717, he had just matured a very able and well-considered scheme for the reduction of the national debts. The rate of common interest for money had, by the statute of the 12th of Anne, been reduced to five per cent.; but in the funds it continued to exceed seven :* and of these funds a part, namely, the Long and Short Annuities, was irredeemable, and could not be touched without the consent of the proprietors. The plan of Walpole, in which we may trace the earliest germ of a National Sinking Fund, was, in the first place, to borrow 600,000%. at only four per cent., and to apply all savings to the discharge of the principal and interest of the debts contracted before December, 1716. Concurrently with this scheme, he hoped to form arrangements with the Bank and South Sea Companies, by which they should not only reduce their own interest, but lend, if required, the former two millions and a half, and the latter two millions, at five per cent., to pay off such holders of redeemable debts as might refuse to accept an equal reduction. The first part of these measures was brought forward by Walpole on the very day of his resignation; an event which he announced, saying, "that he now presented that Bill as a country gentleman; but hoped that it would not fare the worse for having two fathers, and that his successor would take care to

"Do not we make seven or eight per cent. by the public funds, and this upon the security of the Parliament of England, and are paid punctually every quarter?" (Remarks of an English Gentleman to Count Gyllenborg, as quoted in his letter to Gortz, Dec. 4, 1716.) Mr. Hungerford said in the House of Commons, May 20, 1717, "He knew by experience, and in the course of his business, that money may be had at four per cent. on good securities." See the detailed accounts in the Commons' Journals, vol. xviii. p. 497-507.

1

[See Lord Chesterfield's "Character of Walpole." "He had more of the Mazarin than of the Richelieu. He would do mean things for profit, and never thought of doing great ones for glory." Chesterfield's Letters, Lord Mahon's Edition, vol. ii. p. 453.

"After much unjust abuse heaped upon Walpole," observes Lord Campbell," there seems now to be a great disposition to bestow upon him unqualified praise. He was probably the most dexterous party leader we have ever had,-equally skilled to win royal favour, to govern the House of Commons, and to influence or be influenced by pub. lic opinion. He likewise well understood the material interests of the country, and as far as was consistent with his own retention of power, he was desirous of pursuing them. But that he might run no personal risk, he would make no attempt to improve our institutions; he was regardless of distant dangers; he plunged into a war which he admitted to be unjust and impolitic.-and by his utter neglect of literature and literary men, in spite of the example set him by his immediate predecessors, Whig and Tory, he gave to official life in England that aristocratic feeling and vulgar business-like tone which it has ever since retained." Lives of the Chancellors, vol. v. p. 95, note, chap. cxxxiv.]

bring it to perfection." Nor were the expectations of Walpole disappointed; the arrangements he had in view with the Bank and South Sea Companies were successfully concluded, with some alterations, by Stanhope; a result, no doubt, almost entirely owing to Walpole's skill and reputation for finance ;* but marked with peculiar disinterestedness on the part of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer. He stated, in the House, that he understood it had been the common practice of those concerned in the administration of the Treasury to make bargains for the public with the governors and directors of companies, by which some private advantages were generally made; but that, in his opinion, such bargains ought to be determined at the bar of the House; and if any advantages could be made, the public ought to have the benefit of them. This was a system in which his predecessors had not proposed any alteration.

The financial measures in question were finally embodied in three bills, and all passed into laws. But though Stanhope and Walpole scarcely differed on this subject, a violent altercation arose between them on one occasion when it was before the House. Stanhope, giving way to his passionate temper, said that "he ingenuously owned his incapacity for the affairs of the Treasury, which were so remote from his studies and inclination that therefore he would fain have kept the employment he had before, which was both more easy and profitable to him; but that he thought it his duty to obey the King's commands; that, however, he would endeavour to make up, by application, honesty, and disinterestedness, what he wanted in abilities and experience; that he would content himself with the salary and lawful perquisites of his office; and, though he had quitted a better place, he would not quarter himself upon any body to make it up; that he had no brothers, nor other relations, to provide for; and that, on his first entering into the Treasury, he had made a standing order against the late practice of granting reversions of places.

Walpole, stung by these insinuations, replied with great warmth, complaining, in the first place, of breach of friendship and betraying private conversation. He frankly owned that, while he was in employment, he had endeavoured to serve his friends and relations, than which, in his opinion, nothing was more reasonable or more just. "As to the granting reversions," he added, "I am willing to acquaint the House with the meaning of that charge. I have no objections to the German ministers whom the King brought with him from Hanover, and who, as far as I have observed, have behaved themselves like men of honour; but there is a mean fellow" (alluding to Robethon), "of what nation I know not, who is eager to dispose of employments. This man, having obtained the grant of a reversion, which he designed for his son, I thought it too good for him,

* Several publications have assigned to Stanhope the merit of these reductions, and we read on his monument in Westminster Abbey, "Delicatam publicarum pecuniarum fidem, temperato solerter fœnore, conservavit integram." I am bound to say, that I think this praise belongs not to Stanhope, but to Walpole.

and therefore reserved it for my own son. On this disappointment the foreigner was so impertinent as to demand 25007., under pretence that he had been offered that sum for the reversion. But I was wiser than to comply with his demands, and one of the chief reasons that made me resign was, because I would not connive at some things that were carrying on." Stanhope answered, Walpole rejoined; several violent expressions passed; and it needed the interference of the House to prevent a hostile meeting between these former friends. Soon after this time, Pope writes, "The political state is under great divisions; the parties of Walpole and Stanhope as violent as Whig and Tory."*

By the advice of the new Administration, the King, on the 6th of May, went to the House of Lords with a speech, in which were recommended a reduction of 10,000 men in the army, and an Act of Grace to many persons involved in the late rebellion. Under the circumstances of the country, the former was a very popular, and the latter a very wise measure.

The two other most important proceedings of this session were the attack upon Lord Cadogan and the release of Lord Oxford. Cadogan, as ambassador to the Hague, had superintended the transporting the Dutch auxiliaries at the time of the rebellion. A charge of fraud and embezzlement in these expenses was now brought forward against him by some of the Jacobite members of parliament, to whom his zeal and success against the rebels in Scotland had made him peculiarly obnoxious. In this spiteful attack, Shippen might smile to find himself backed by Walpole and Pulteney; the former speaking for nearly two hours, and making such violent exertions that the blood burst from his nose, and that he was obliged to retire from the House. They were answered by Stanhope, Craggs, Lechmere, and several others; and evidence in vindication of Cadogan was given at the bar.† Lechmere, who had lately been appointed Attorney-General, observed most truly that the inquiry was altogether frivolous and groundless, and the result of party malice; that it was of the same nature as those which had formerly been levelled against Marlborough, Townshend, and Walpole himself; and that those very persons who were now most clamorous for an inquiry had been wholly silent about these pretended frauds whilst they were in office. Notwithstanding, however, these homethrusts, the spirit of faction was so strong that the motion was only negatived by a majority of ten.

The proceedings in Lord Oxford's case seemed to partake of his character, and could scarcely have been more slow and dilatory had they been directed by himself. For nearly two years had he now been in confinement, and no progress yet made in his trial. But on a petition from Lord Oxford complaining of the hardship, the business was taken up with vigour. The Lords appointed the 24th of

To Lady Mary W. Montagu. Letters, vol. i. p. 119, ed. 1820.

† See Lord Cadogan's Case in Boyer's Political State, 1717, vol. i. p. 697–702.

June as the day for it. The Commons renewed the sittings of their Secret Committee; and as it was found that the zeal of Walpole had suddenly cooled on leaving office, and that he almost always absented himself, it became necessary to appoint another chairman in his place. In fact, he and Townshend, in their eagerness to thwart and embarrass the new administration at all risks, were now combining with the Tories to screen their former enemy from justice. They could not, after their own past accusations, openly appear as his defenders; such a change would have hurt their characters, and perhaps their consciences; and they accordingly took a more artful course, by inducing Oxford's friend, Lord Harcourt, to propose a specious alteration in the order of proceedings.

When, therefore, the 24th of June had come; when the Peers had assembled in Westminster Hall; when the King, the Royal family, and the foreign ministers were seated around as spectators; when Oxford, brought from the Tower, stood bare-headed at the bar, with the fatal axe carried before him; when the articles of impeachment and the Earl's answer had been read; when Hampden had harangued; when Sir Joseph Jekyll had just risen to make good the first article; Harcourt interposed, and stated that, before the managers proceeded further, he had a motion to make. The Peers accordingly adjourned to their own House, where Lord Harcourt represented "that going through all the articles of impeachment would take up a great deal of time to very little purpose. For if the Commons could make good the two articles for high treason, the Earl of Oxford would forfeit both life and estate, and there would be an end of the matter; whereas, the proceeding in the method the Commons proposed would draw the trial into a prodigious length." He also observed "that a Peer, on his trial on articles for misdemeanours only, ought not to be deprived of his liberty nor sequestered from Parliament, and is entitled to the privilege of sitting within the bar during the whole time of his trial; in all which particulars the known rule in such cases may be evaded should a Peer be brought to his trial on several articles of misdemeanours and of high treason mixed together, and the Commons be admitted to make good the former before judgment be given on the latter."* Harcourt, therefore, moved that the House should receive no evidence on the charges for misdemeanours until after the charges of high treason were determined, it being well known to the whole Privy Council, as we learn from Townshend's own letters, that there was not sufficient evidence to convict Lord Oxford of that crime.† The motion of Harcourt was warmly opposed by Sunderland, Coningsby, Cadogan, and other ministerial speakers; but, being supported by many plausible arguments, by the whole force of the Tories, and by the influence and authority of the late Whig premier, it was carried by a majority of 88 against 56.

*This argument is more fully reported in the subsequent Lords' Reasons. (Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 459.)

†Townshend to Stanhope, Nov. 2, 1716.