present mode of proceeding," said the former, "Parliament, which used to be the scourge only of evil Ministers, is made by Ministers the scourge of the subject.. Mr. Steele is only attacked because he is the advocate for the Protestant succession. The cause which he so ably defends gives the offence. Through his sides the succession is to be wounded. His punishment will be a symptom that the succession is in danger; and the Ministry are now feeling the pulse of Parliament to see how far they may be able to proceed. . . . . . . From what fatality does it arise that what is written in favour of the Protestant succession, and countenanced by the late Ministry, is deemed a libel on the present administration?"*

Lord Finch was son of the celebrated Tory leader, Nottingham. He owed some personal obligations to Steele, who had formerly refuted a libel on his sister. He now rose to defend her defender : but addressing the House for the first time, and overcome by the bashfulness usually felt on that occasion, he found all his attempts to express himself in vain, and sat down in confusion, merely saying, "It is strange I cannot speak for this man, though I could readily fight for him." These words being overheard, produced a general feeling in his favour; the whole House rang with encouraging "Hear! Hears;" and thus called on, Lord Finch rose a second time, and delivered a speech fraught with high public spirit and natural eloquence. He particularly justified Steele in his reflections on the Peace of Utrecht. "We may," he said, "give it all the fine epithets we please, but epithets do not change the nature of things. We may, if we please, call it here honourable; but I am sure it is accounted scandalous in Holland, Germany, Portugal, and over all Europe except France and Spain. We may call it advantageous; but all the trading part of the nation find it to be otherwise and if it be really advantageous, it must be so to the ministry that made it."

Such was the beginning of a public career which, though not illustrious, was long, useful, and honourable. As Earl of Winchelsea and Nottingham, Lord Finch formed part of several administrations, and held his last cabinet office above half a century from the time of his outset.†

Of the speeches delivered against Steele no account appears. But when the question was put, that his publication should be declared a scandalous libel, and the author expelled the House, it was carried by 245 votes against 152; a most fierce and unwarrantable stretch of party violence.1

The notes of this speech were found amongst Sir Robert Walpole's papers, and are published by Coxe in his Life, vol. i. p. 44.

† He resigned the Presidency of the Council in July, 1766, and died in 1769, aged 81. Lord Waldegrave says of him, that at the Admiralty, "his whole conduct was so unexceptionable, that faction itself was obliged to be silent." (Memoirs, p. 139.)

[See Bunbury's Life of Sir Thomas Hanmer, p. 156, for a very earnest letter addressed by Steele to the Speaker the day after the vote of expulsion.]

Soon after this transaction, a generous effort was made in the House of Lords on behalf of the ill-fated Catalans. The treatment of that poor people by Oxford's administration is perhaps the foulest of all the blots upon its memory. They had first been roused to revolt at the instigation of England. In the name of the Queen had Lord Peterborough summoned them to arms, and solemnly promised to secure to them their ancient Fueros, or provincial liberties. Under this belief had they nobly fought and suffered. Through their aid had the Austrian cause been for several years maintained in Spain, and its standards twice seen to float from the towers of Madrid. That cause, it is true, was laid prostrate for ever in the burning streets of Brihuega and the bloody plain of Villa Viciosa. But it fell from no fault of the Catalans themselves. They had performed, and were even yet performing, their part of the contract, while ours, on the contrary, was shamefully withheld. At the Peace of Utrecht their promised Fueros were utterly neglected by the English plenipotentiaries, and nothing beyond an amnesty (that is, mere personal pardon) was stipulated for them. We even find Lord Bolingbroke sneering at what he calls their "obstinacy, and attempting to prove that "it is not for the interest of England to preserve the Catalan liberties!"+

The shamelessness of Lord Bolingbroke's conduct will appear yet more glaring, if we contrast it with that which the same people had received from the French, and remember that the French, with all their great qualities, have never been thought remarkable for a liberal interpretation or an exact fulfilment of their treaties. These are points on which we have often, and not unjustly, compared their faith with the Punic. But on this occasion they might well have retaliated upon ours. During the reign of Philip the Fourth, the Catalans had risen in another insurrection against the Castilian government. In that insurrection they had received assistance from the French, as in the latter from the English. In both cases had there been mutual engagements, in both were their struggles for independence finally foiled; but did the French forsake them at the peace of the Pyrenees in 1659 as the English at the Peace of Utrecht in 1712? So far from it, that we find the 55th article of that treaty provide, in the most positive manner, for the restoration and maintenance of the Catalan Fueros ;§ and what is more, we find that under the guarantee of France these privileges were effectually respected.

⚫ Letter to the Queen, Dec. 17, 1713, in Lord Bolingbroke's Correspondence. † Case of the Catalans, in Tindal's History, vol. vi. p. 258.

The Catalan wars of that century might form a very interesting narrative. When Dr. Dunham observes, that "for the domestic portion of this and much of the following reign, there are no native contemporary authorities extant; at least we know of none;" (Hist. of Spain and Portugal, vol. v. p. 93,) he overlooks the Guerra de Cataluña en tiempo de Felipe IV., por Don Francisco de Melo; one of the most valuable and authentic historical records in the Spanish language. See Mr. Dunlop's Memoirs of Spain, vol. i. p. 287.

§ See the Corps Diplomatique, ed. 1728, vol. vi., part 2, p. 271. Lord Clarendon is very inaccurate in what he says on this point. (Hist. of Rebell., vol. vii. p. 355, Oxf. ed.)

The Catalans, now forsaken by their Austrian as well as by their English allies, and opposed to both the monarchies of France and Spain, yet stood heroically firm, and determined to wage the contest for their freedom single-handed. But their noble spirit failed to rouse any sense of justice or humanity in Bolingbroke; and so far from befriending them, by word or deed, he now prepared to assist in their reduction, and to fill up the measure of his own disgrace by despatching an English squadron to the Mediterranean. The Admiral, Sir James Wishart, was directed, in his first instructions, "to repair with the fleet before Barcelona, then besieged by the enemy, and demand immediate payment of the value of the Queen's stores in the town, or a sufficient security for payment in some reasonable time: to take care to time his arrival before the town according to the advices from Lord Bingley (then designed to be sent to Madrid as ambassador): by the strongest representations to induce the regency of Barcelona to accept of the terms that shall be obtained. for them to take all the necessary measures pursuant to the Queen's intentions to put an end to the confusions that now reign in those parts, and all proper methods of persuasion to induce the inhabitants of Majorca to submit to the terms that shall be offered them; and, in case of refusal, to employ his squadron in countenancing and assisting all attempts which may be made for reducing them to a due obedience."* On these instructions, we may observe, first, that England was under the same engagements to secure the privileges of Majorca as those of Catalonia at the time Sir James Wishart received direct orders to attack the former; and, secondly, that the whole expedition was planned in concert with, and in deference to, Sir Patrick Lawless, the Spanish envoy in London, who, during the preceding September, had presented a memorial to Bolingbroke, stating that "His Catholic Majesty hopes the Queen will order a squadron of her ships to reduce his subjects to their obedience." Thus England was actually not merely forsaking her faithful and ill-fated allies, but leaguing herself with France and Spain against them!

It was at this point that the House of Lords, with a generous feeling of compassion, took up the cause of the oppressed. The first step, a motion for papers on the 17th of March, was not opposed by the Ministry. On the 31st, the subject was resumed by Lord Cowper's moving an address to the Queen, "That her endeavours for preserving to the Catalans the full enjoyment of their ancient liberties having proved ineffectual, their Lordships made it their humble request that she would continue her interposition in the most pressing manner in their behalf." Lord Cowper was ably supported by his former colleagues, Sunderland and Halifax; while on the other part, Bolingbroke declared "that the Queen had used her endeavours to procure to the Catalans the enjoyment of their ancient liberties and privileges; but that, after all, the engagements

* See the case of the Catalans, p. 261.

she had entered into subsisted no longer than while King Charles. was in Spain!" But that miserable subterfuge (then urged for the first time) made no impression on the House. The Ministers found it necessary to lower their tone; and Lord Chancellor Harcourt could only observe, that the address would be more welcome to her Majesty if the word "ineffectual," as applied to her former endeavours, were left out. Thus amended, the address passed without opposition, and was presented the next day.* Her Majesty's answer was as follows:

"My Lords, I heartily thank you for this address, and the satisfaction you express in the endeavours I have used for securing the Catalans their just liberties. At the time I concluded my peace with Spain, I resolved to continue my interposition, upon every other proper occasion, for obtaining those liberties, and to prevent, if possible, the misfortunes to which that people are exposed by the conduct of those more nearly concerned to help them." The last sentence is an evident and angry allusion to the Cabinet of Vienna.† But the address of the House of Lords was by no means fruitless of relief for the Catalans. Bolingbroke immediately sent fresh orders to Sir James Wishart not to appear before Barcelona, nor to attack the Majorcans till he should hear from Lord Bingley and receive directions from England; and Lord Bingley's instructions were also (in appearance at least) considerably modified.1

Meanwhile the Lord Treasurer greatly surprised the House by moving for leave to bring in a bill "For the further security of the Protestant succession, by making it high treason to bring in any foreign troops into the kingdom." At first sight, this measure seemed to point at St. Germains; but it was, in reality, directed against Hanover, and adverted to the secret design, already mentioned, of bringing over the Elector with a body of troops. Bolingbroke, however, dissembling his real drift, and finding himself hard pressed by the Opposition, observed, in the course of the debate, that he doubted not his noble friend who had introduced the motion meant only such foreign troops as might be brought into the kingdom by the Pretender. This the Lord Treasurer himself confirmed. But it was answered that, in that case, such a bill was altogether unnecessary; and that the law already provided sufficient weapons, such troops being either open enemies, if foreigners, or traitors and rebels, if natives; and on the whole, the motion was so coldly received by the House, that it does not seem to have been carried further.

The Lords obtained also the concurrence of the Commons in this address. Commons' Journals, vol. xvii. p. 575.

This was the tone taken by all the ministerial writers of the time: "How dreadful," says Swift, in his Public Spirit of the Whigs, "must be the doom of those who hindered these people from submitting to the gentle terms offered them by their Prince!" &c. Works, vol. iv. p. 446.

' [See Lord Mahon's History of the War of the Succession in Spain, chap. ix, for an interesting account of the heroic efforts of the Catalans, and of the siege of Barcelona.]

The Ministers, however, undaunted by this check, attempted to retrieve their reputation by a decisive vote in both Houses, that the Protestant succession was not in danger under her Majesty's government. In the Lords, this question came on early in April. The debate was very remarkable, from the fact that a body of Peers, hearty friends to the Protestant succession, but holding Tory politics, and hitherto supporters of the Tory Administration, separated from it on this trying occasion. The chief of these were the Archbishop of York and several other prelates; the Earls of Abingdon, Jersey, and Anglesea; Lords Ashburnham and Carteret. Anglesea was especially hostile in his language. Looking full at the Treasurer, he said, that "if he found himself imposed upon, he durst pursue an evil Minister from the Queen's closet to the Tower, and from the Tower to the scaffold." But, in spite of this schism, the Ministerial vote was passed by seventy-six against sixty-four; and thus, in fact, it was passed by the twelve peers of the new creation.

The House of Commons on the 15th, displayed a similar scene. The House having, on the motion of Sir Edward Knatchbull, resolved itself into committee on the same question of the Protestant succession being out of danger, there appeared, as in the Lords, a secession from the Government of many moderate Tories, (the Hanoverian Tories, as they were then termed,) with the Speaker at their head. A very powerful speech from him drew over a considerable number on this occasion; and, on the division, the Court could only muster 256 against 208. Next day, on reporting the resolution to the House, another fierce debate arose. Walpole applauded the public spirit of the Speaker, but added, that he despaired of seeing truth prevail; since, notwithstanding the weight of a person of his known integrity and eloquence, the majority of votes had carried it against reason and argument. Stanhope endeavoured to prove the Protestant succession in danger by this single induction, that, as was universally acknowledged, it had been the French King's intention, so it was still his interest, and he had it more than ever in his power, to restore the Pretender. But the Opposition did not venture on a second division.

In the Lords, the Whigs showed their resentment in a far less. justifiable manner. The Earl of Wharton moved, that her Majesty might be requested "to issue out a proclamation, promising a reward to any person who should apprehend the Pretender dead or alive." The last clause, a direct encouragement to murder, might disgrace even a barbarous age and a false religion; and it is with great regret that I find such illustrious names as Halifax and Cowper ranged in defence of this savage and unchristian proposal. They, Whigs as they were, by a strange anomaly, relied mainly on the precedent of James the Second, in setting a price on the head of his nephew, the Duke of Monmouth: so inconsistent do men sometimes become from party spirit! To oppose this address was by no means safe or prudent at that time, as laying open the opponent to the charge of Jacobitism; yet Lords North and Trevor did