member during the Session, in order, as was alleged, to support the charge of their residence in London. These Scotch members were now told by Walpole, when they waited upon him, that they must find or acquiesce in some mode to make up this expense from the Scotch revenue; or else, as he expressed it, they must in future "tie up their stockings with their own garters!"*

But though the Scottish members might have excellent reasons for yielding to this impost, the Scottish people unhappily had none; and its result was a general irritation throughout the country, and a serious riot at Glasgow. The mob assembled in large numbers, shouting "Down with Walpole," and "Up with Seaforth!" they broke open and plundered the house of Mr. Campbell, of Shawfield, member for the city;† and his cellar being unfortunately well-stocked, added fresh incitement to their fury. Two companies of foot, under Captain Bushell, had been sent from Edinburgh at the first apprehension of a tumult; these were now surrounded by the mob, and fiercely assailed with stones and other missiles, until the soldiers, being compelled in self-defence to fire, killed nine persons, and wounded many more. Nevertheless, the mob seemed exasperated rather than dismayed; and Captain Bushell was compelled to retire to Dumbarton Castle, still pursued, and pelted by the rabble during a part of the way.

Under these circumstances, the Commander-in-Chief for Scotland,, General Wade, seeing the necessity of prompt measures, marched to Glasgow with so large a force as to disarm all opposition. Not content with seizing some of the rioters, he apprehended the chief magistrates, and sent them prisoners to Edinburgh, under the charge, certainly well-founded, of either timidly or treacherously conniving at the riots. But, being brought before the Lords Justiciary, they were declared innocent, and set at liberty; and this acquittal, being considered a victory over the Government, revived the zeal of the people. A combination was formed amongst the brewers at Edinburgh, engaging not to give security for the new duty, nor to brew if the duty were demanded.

The Duke of Roxburgh was at this time Secretary of State for Scotland; he had been attached to Carteret, and was accused by Walpole of fomenting these disturbances.§ Whether this was really the case, or whether Walpole merely seized the opportunity to acquire a more supple colleague, the Minister now obtained not merely the dismissal of Roxburgh, but the abolition of the office of Secretary for Scotland. Henceforth he centred the power of that department in his own hands; deputing, however, no small share of it to his de

* Lockhart's Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 141, and Sir Walter Scott's Tales of a Grandfather, third series, vol. ii. p. 150.

+ "Had Mr. Campbell himself been in town," says Lockhart, "they had certainly Dewitted him." (Mem. vol. ii. p. 162.) He coins this new term from the savage murder of the two De Witts by the mob in Holland. Thank God! we have no such English word!

Culloden Papers, pp. 86-98.

Walpole to Townshend, Aug. 17, 1725.

voted follower the Earl of Isla. It was Isla who, on the fall of Roxburgh, was despatched to Edinburgh with the view of allaying the storm: he came armed with full powers from Government, and with no small prudence of his own. So firm, yet so skilful were his measures, that the threatening combination of brewers was speedily dissolved. They at first attempted to make terms; but being told that none would be accepted but an immediate return to their duty, "various opinions" (I quote the words of Walpole) "began to arise among themselves in their assembly, and at last they unanimously agreed to be determined by a question:-Brew or not. Which, being put by the chairman, he began to take their votes, SERIATIM, at the right hand; but his right-hand man thought it a hardship upon him to be obliged to speak first, his left-hand man thought so too, and they could get nobody to give his vote first. At last, one Gray declared he thought they had nothing now left to do, but to return to their trades; that he would not be bound by the majority, but began the vote, and voted BREW! He was immediately followed by another, upon which two warm ones hoped they would hold out till their brethren were set at liberty; but those not being supported, the assembly broke up, and such of them as had their things in readiness fell to brewing that night; and next day, at noon, above forty brewhouses were hard at work in Edinburgh, and ten more at Leith."* It is probable that the argument which had most weight with the brewers, was that, after all, the ultimate loss must fall not on them but on the public. This happy termination is mentioned by Walpole, with much satisfaction and high praises of Lord Isla: he adds, "I think we have once more got Ireland and Scotland quiet, if we take care to keep them so."

The Session of Parliament, which began in November, 1724, was distinguished by three important transactions: the impeachment of the Lord Chancellor; the partial restoration of Lord Bolingbroke; and the first public breach between Walpole and Pulteney.

Enormous abuses had crept into the Court of Chancery: the offices of Masters were set up to sale; and the buyers, in consequence, attempted to turn them to their own advantage. The price of these offices having latterly been augmented, the extortion of the holders. grew in the same proportion. The suitors' money, the estates of widows and orphans, became a source of private peculation; and the public voice was loud against the Chancellor, Parker, Earl of Macclesfield. In January, he resigned the Great Seal, but did not thereby escape the national resentment. His impeachment was moved in the House of Commons by Sir George Oxenden; his trial took place at the bar' of the House of Lords, and continued twenty days. He was unanimously found guilty, and sentenced to a fine

1

bar.'

To Lord Townshend, Sept. 3, 1725.

["When referred to during the trial he was designated 'The noble Earl within the Peers on trial for treason or felony are placed outside the bar." Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vol. iv. p. 538, note, chap. cxxii.]

of 30,0007.; a motion to disable him from sitting in Parliament, or holding any future office, being, moreover, very nearly carried. His Majesty struck off his name from the list of Privy Councillors, and Sir Peter King, now created Lord King, was appointed Chancellor in his place. The unanimity of his judges might seem decisive as to his guilt; yet it may perhaps be doubted, whether they did not unjustly heap the faults of the system on one man; whether Parker had not rather, in fact, failed to check gradual and growing abuses, than introduced them by his authority or encouraged them by his example.1

Lord Bolingbroke was still at Paris. "Tired," as he says, "with suspense, the only insupportable misfortune of life, and with nine years of autumnal promises and vernal excuses,' " he had, early in 1724, another painful subject of embarrassment in the villany of a banker. His wife, Madame de Villette, had invested 50,0007. in the English funds through the hands of Sir Matthew Decker, who now pretended to make a discovery of it to the government as a forfeiture, upon proving her married to Lord Bolingbroke. This brought the lady to England under the name of Villette, and ready, if required, to deny her marriage; and Lord Townshend, who abhorred all dishonesty, and considered Decker's reasons "very bad ones," gave her his zealous and successful aid. But she also seized the opportunity to ingratiate herself at Court, and obtain Bolingbroke's long-desired restoration. The King was by no means fascinated with her; he declared that she talked too much, and without respect; but a well-timed present of 11,000l. to the Duchess of

*To Swift, July 24, 1725.

† Lord Townshend to Horace Walpole, April 2, 1724.

Elle parle trop, et sans respect." (Lord Lansdowne to James, July 10, 1724. Appendix.) He adds, "You can tell, Sir, whether that is a just character; she is your old acquaintance."

1

[See a full account of the proceedings against Lord Macclesfield in Campbell's "Lives of the Chancellors," vol. iv. chap. cxxii. Life of Macclesfield. Lord Campbell maintains that the conviction was lawful, and the punishment mild. After stating instances of the correction of abuses in Chancery by previous Chancellors (Cowper and Harcourt), he adds: "In Lord Macclesfield's time, from the speculations caused by the South Sea mania, the abuses in the Masters' offices had become more flagrant. But instead of trying to redress them, he increased their enormity, by raising the price which the Masters were to pay for their places, and rendering it still more necessary that, for their own indemnity, they should traffic with the trust-money in their hands. Whoever takes the trouble of perusing the whole of the evidence, will see that he was rapacious in his bargains, and that, with the view of bolstering up a system which was so profitable to him, he resorted to very arbitrary means to keep the public in ignorance of its consequences. Of all the impeachments recorded in our annals, I find no one marked by more honesty of purpose, more practical ability in the manner in which it was conducted, or more utility to the public in its results." Vol. iv. pp. 555–6.

Lord Campbell adds some curious details of an arrangement by which the King offered to repay out of the privy purse the amount of the fine. The first instalment of 10007. is said to have been actually repaid to Macclesfield, and a second was about to be paid, when the death of George I. took place.

After his fall Lord Macclesfield never made any attempt to recover his position in public life, or in private society. He retired to the country and died after about seven years of seclusion.]

Kendal smoothed many difficulties. A complete restoration was now earnestly and positively pressed upon Walpole by the Court. Walpole, seeing the unpopularity of the measure among his own friends, and afraid of Bolingbroke's future ascendency, for a long time refused, and made every opposition in his power; but at length, being threatened with dismissal, compromised matters by agreeing to a restoration of fortune, though not in peerage. Bolingbroke, on his part, thought it best to take what he could, if not what he would; but as might be expected, he never forgot or forgave the resistance of the Minister. "Here I am, then," he writes to Swift, "two thirds restored; my person safe, and my estate, with all the other property I have acquired, or may acquire, secured to me. But the attainder is kept carefully and prudently in force, lest so corrupt a member should come again into the House of Lords, and his bad leaven should sour that sweet untainted mass." ""*

Even this partial restoration, however, could not pass Parliament without some resistance from two opposite quarters the staunch Whigs and the decided Jacobites. When the bill was brought in by Lord Finch, seconded by Walpole, Methuen, though filling an office in the Household, warmly opposed it, declaring, that the crimes of Bolingbroke were so heinous and flagrant as not to admit of any expiation or atonement. He was backed by Lord William Powlett, by Onslow (afterwards Speaker), and by several other usual friends of government. In like manner was the Tory camp divided; several, such as Lord Bathurst and Sir William Wyndham, were personal friends of Bolingbroke, and eager to promote his interests; while others, recollecting how ill the Pretender had used him, and how great must be his resentment, thought it necessary, (as is too commonly the case), because one injury had been inflicted to inflict another, and to thwart his restoration as much as possible. The Duke of Wharton, who at this period frequently appears in the Stuart Papers as foremost amongst James's correspondents, relates a curious conversation which he had upon the subject with Lord Bathurst. Having pressed him to give no aid to Bolingbroke, and urged the wish of the Pretender, Bathurst demurred, and at last said that he had not yet learnt JURARE IN VERBA MAGISTRI, to which Wharton only answered JURAVI, and left him.† Shippen, and some more, steered clear of the difficulty by staying away from the debate. But, as Wharton writes, "Sir Christopher Musgrave, Sir Thomas Sebright, and Sir Jermyn Davers, out of their utter detestation for your Majesty's enemies, bravely opposed the very bring⚫ing in of any bill whatsoever." Yet notwithstanding this motley combination of ardent Whigs and ardent Tories, the minority could

Coxe states this erroneously in his Memoirs of Walpole; he speaks of Bolingbroke's obligations to Walpole, his want of gratitude, &c. But in his Life of Horace Lord Walpole (p. 70), he admits his mistake, observing, that papers have since fallen under his notice, proving the vehement opposition of Walpole to the restoration, and accounting for the bitter and well founded enmity of Bolingbroke.

† Duke of Wharton to James, Feb. 3, 1725. Appendix.

only muster 113 votes against 231. In the Lords, a strong protest against it was signed by Lechmere and four other Peers. Lechmere had been created a Peer by Walpole, but was now indignant at not succeeding Macclesfield as Chancellor:-"He votes and speaks with us," says Wharton; "but I am afraid from resentment, and not principle."

On the passing of the Act, Bolingbroke returned to England. He appears to have made one more effort to gain the friendship of Walpole, and his support in completing his restoration; but being repulsed, he plunged decisively into cabals against that minister. Still retaining his influence with the Duchess of Kendal, he endeavoured to combine a strong opposition in Parliament and in the country, under the convenient name of PATRIOTS, and he found an unexpected and most powerful ally in William Pulteney. This celebrated party leader was born in 1682: his family was old, his fortune immense. He early distinguished himself in Parliament; during the last years of Queen Anne, he was one of the most steady and able supporters of the Whigs, and on the accession of George, became Secretary at War. Walpole and he were especially intimate. When Walpole was sent to the Tower, for corruption, Pulteney had spoken in favour of his friend; when a schism broke out in the Government of 1717, Pulteney was one of the few who adhered to Walpole, and left office with him. He had, therefore, the strongest claims, political and personal, upon Walpole, when Walpole returned to power. But he had two great faults in Walpole's eyes; ability and independence. In fact, there is nothing more remarkable throughout all Walpole's administration, than his extreme jealousy of any colleague who could possibly grow his rival near the throne. Considering the very favourable circumstances under which he became Prime Minister; the deaths, in such rapid succession, of all his chief competitors; the reunion of the great Whig party; the insignificance and division of the Tories in Parliament; the readiness of the chief remaining statesmen to act under him; we can scarcely doubt, that a liberal encouragement of rising talents, and toleration of high-minded colleagues, would have secured his power through his life, without serious difficulty, and averted that fearful tempest which, during his last years, howled around his head, and at length overthrew not only him, but, in its violence, almost the monarchy itself. But such liberality did not belong to Walpole: he would be all or nothing. He could be kind to a dependent, or generous to an enemy; not fair to a colleague. He could forgive great faults, but never great talents. We have already seen his conduct. to Stanhope, to Sunderland, and to Carteret; we shall hereafter see it to Townshend and to Chesterfield; and it may truly be said that the opposition under which he fell at last, was one raised and fostered by his own inordinate ambition.

It appears, however, that Pulteney did not approve of the facetious course which Walpole took in opposition. See Lord Stair's letter to Lord Stanhope, January 23, 1718. Appendix.