private school, or act as tutor, that has not first subscribed the declaration to conform to the Church of England and obtained a license from the diocesan, and that upon failure of so doing the party may be committed to prison without bail; and that no such license shall be granted before the party produces a certificate of his having received the sacrament, according to the communion of the Church of England, within the last year, and also subscribed the oaths of allegiance and supremacy.

This tyrannical act, introduced in the Commons on the 12th of May by Sir William Wyndham, was of course vehemently opposed by the Whigs. We know that Sir Peter King, Mr. Hampden, Sir Joseph Jekyll, and Robert Walpole spoke against it, although nothing beyond their names has been preserved on this occasion. But some observations of General Stanhope, which appear in the scanty reports of those debates, and which seem to have excited much attention, may perhaps be said, without undue praise, to be far in advance of the time at which they were delivered, and to show a large and enlightened toleration, which it was reserved for a much later generation to feel, acknowledge, and establish. We are told that he "showed, in particular, the ill consequences of this law, as it would of course occasion foreign education, which, on the one hand, would drain the kingdom of great sums of money, and, which was still worse, would fill the tender minds of young men with prejudices against their own country. He illustrated and strengthened his argument by the example of the English Popish seminaries abroad, which, he said, were so pernicious to Great Britain, that, instead of making new laws to encourage foreign education, he could wish those already in force against Papists were mitigated, and that they should be allowed a certain number of schools." It is singular that some of the most plain and simple notions, such as that of religious toleration, should be the slowest and most difficult to be impressed upon the human mind.

The Schism Act passed the Commons by a majority of 237 against 126. In the Lords, the second reading was moved by Bolingbroke, and ably opposed by Lords Cowper and Wharton. "It is somewhat strange," said the latter, "that they should call schism in England what is the established religion in Scotland; and therefore if the Lords who represent the nobility of that part of Great Britain, are for this bill, I hope that, in order to be even with us and consistent with themselves, they will move for the bringing in another bill to prevent the growth of schism in their own country.' Lord Halifax drew an animated contrast between the oppression now meditated on our own Protestant Dissenters and the protection and encouragement of the reformed Walloons by Queen Elizabeth, and of the French Huguenots by William the Third, when both fled

We have no account of Bolingbroke's speech on this occasion. In his letter to Wyndham he urges the best, perhaps the only argument that could be alleged on that side: "The evil effect is without remedy, and may therefore deserve indulgence; but the evil cause is to be prevented, and can therefore be entitled to none."

hither from domestic persecution. Lord Townshend said that he had lived a long time in Holland, and had observed that the wealth and strength of that great and powerful commonwealth lay in the number of its inhabitants; and, at the same time, he was persuaded that, if the States should cause the schools of any one sect tolerated in the United Provinces to be shut up, they would soon be as thin of people as Sweden or Spain. The Earl of Nottingham concluded an eloquent speech on the same side with a bitter and impressive allusion to Swift, whose favour with the Ministers was now firmly established and generally known. "My Lords," he said, "I have many children, and I know not whether God Almighty will vouchsafe to let me live to give them the education I could wish they had. Therefore, my Lords, I own I tremble when I think that a certain Divine, who is hardly suspected of being a Christian, is in a fair way of being a Bishop, and may one day give licenses to those who shall be intrusted with the education of youth!"*

All parties looked with great interest to the conduct of the Lord Treasurer on this occasion. It was, as usual, in the highest degree irresolute and ambiguous. In the Cabinet, he proposed to soften the most rigorous clauses; in the House he declared, that he "had not yet considered of it;" and having induced the Opposition to allow the second reading to pass without dividing, took care to absent himself on the day when it finally came to the vote. Such vacillating weakness sealed his political ruin.

In committee, the Opposition moved many important amendments and carried a few. First, they inserted a clause, that Dissenters might at least have schoolmistresses to teach their children to read. Next, they removed the conviction of offenders against the act from the justices of the peace to the courts of law. A right of appeal was also provided; and a clause added, to exempt from the act any tutor employed in a nobleman's family, it being, of course, impossible for a nobleman to entertain or to countenance any other than excellent principles!

On the other hand, the independent and Hanoverian Tory Peers, headed by Lord Anglesea, moved that the act should extend to Ireland; a proposal which was combated by the Lord Lieutenant of that kingdom, but which, on a division, passed by a majority of six. On the third reading (June 10) the whole bill was carried by 77 against 72; thus proving that the ascendant of the Whig party in the House of Lords had been grievously shaken by the late creation; and that, when opposed to all the Hanoverian Tories, in addition to the Government, they had no longer the majority in their hands. A strong protest was entered against the bill, and it deserves notice that this was signed by several of the Bishops.

When the bill, thus amended, was sent to the Commons, a short

*The Earl of Nottingham had previously been the object of some of Swift's fiercest attacks, and might no doubt entertain a personal resentment against him. See especially the ballad-" An orator dismal of Nottinghamshire," &c. (Swift's Works, vol. x. p. 375.) † See Somerville's Queen Anne, p. 561.

debate ensued. Stanhope proposed, that the tutors in "the families of members of the House of Commons might be put upon the same footing as those who taught in the families of noblemen; it being reasonable to suppose that the members of that House, many of whom were of noble extraction, had as great a concern as the Lords for the education of their children, and an equal right to take care of their instruction." A very aristocratic argument for a popular privilege! Several members of both parties were of Stanhope's opinion; but Mr. Hungerford, backed by the Ministerial bench, represented that the least amendment now made might occasion the loss of the bill; and, on a division, the one proposed was lost by 168 against 98. And thus was passed through both Houses one of the worst acts that ever defiled the Statute Book. Happily for us, it never came into operation; for it so happened that the very day that had been fixed for its commencement was that on which the Queen expired. The Government which succeeded suspended its execution; and its repeal, as will afterwards be shown, was one of the acts of Lord Stanhope's administration.

At the time, however, the passing of this bill appears to have flushed the Jacobites with the most eager hopes, insomuch as to draw them from their usual fenced and guarded caution in debate. One of them, Sir William Whitlocke, Member for the University of Oxford, speaking in the House of Commons of the Elector, said: "If he comes to the Crown, which I hope he never will-" Here there was a loud cry and confusion, the Whigs all calling out that Sir William should be brought to the bar to answer for his words. But he, with great adroitness, eluded their attack, and repaired his own imprudence. He said he would retract nothing; he only meant that, as the Queen was younger than her heir presumptive, he hoped she would outlive him!*

Some of the Jacobites, moreover, showed an inclination not to confine themselves to words. Two Irish officers were arrested, the one at Gravesend and the other at Deal, bearing passes from the Earl of Middleton, and enlisting men for the Pretender. Their detection was due to some secret information given to Lord Wharton, and to the legal steps he took in consequence; and the affair being not merely a national but a party one, made a great noise. Apprehensions were entertained that James, instead of trusting to the favourable disposition and broken health of the Queen, and awaiting her succession, might attempt to prosecute his claim by her dethronement, a blow which would have struck down the Tories in office as much as the Whigs in opposition, and which roused the dormant zeal of the former. Partly, therefore, to guard against this danger, and partly to lull the suspicions of their doubtful partisans, the Hanoverian Tories, who, by joining the Whigs on some questions, had already produced such strong addresses from the House of Lords, the Ministers, on the 23d of June, issued a pro

* Lockhart, vol. i. p. 469.

clamation for apprehending the Pretender whenever he should attempt to land in Great Britain, and promising a reward of 50007. for that service. Bolingbroke took an early opportunity of assuring the French agent that "in fact this will make no difference;' nor can I think that it did. The measure was, however, received with great expressions of satisfaction in both Houses, and the Lower even passed a resolution for increasing the promised reward to 100,000l. A bill was also rapidly passed, making it high treason to list or be enlisted in the Pretender's service; and thus did Bolingbroke and his adherents endeavour to retain the mask which had already begun to drop, but which it was not yet expedient to cast aside. These were the last important proceedings of this session, which was closed on the 9th of July by the Queen in person with a short and dissatisfied speech.

...

Meanwhile, the division amongst the Ministers and the murmurs of their partisans had been daily rising higher. A letter at this period from Swift to Lord Peterborough portrays the scene with his usual harsh dark colours:†-"I was told the other day of an answer you made to somebody abroad who inquired of you the state and dispositions of our Court, that you could not tell, for you had been out of England a fortnight. It appears you have a better opinion of our steadiness than we deserve; for I do not remember, since you left us, that we have continued above four days in the same view, or four minutes with any manner of concert. I never led a life so thoroughly uneasy as I do at present. Our situation is so bad, that our enemies could not, without abundance of invention and ability, have placed us so ill if we had left it entirely to their management. . . . . The height of honest men's wishes at present is to rub on this session, after which nobody has the impudence to expect that we shall not immediately fall to pieces; nor is anything I write the least secret, even to a Whig footman. The Queen is pretty well at present; but the least disorder she has puts us all in alarm, and when it is over, we act as if she were immortal. Neither is it possible to persuade people to make any preparation against an evil day. I am sure you would have prevented a great deal of ill if you had continued among us; but people of my level must be content to have their opinion asked, and to see it not followed."

Bolingbroke himself was no less loud in his complaints. "If my grooms," he says, "did not live a happier life than I have done this great while, I am sure they would quit my service." His breach with the Lord Treasurer, which had long been widening, was now open and avowed. Their common friend, Swift, made indeed another effort for their reconciliation, and induced them to meet at

Iberville to Torcy, July 2, 1714. Bolingbroke afterwards told Gaultier that the measure had been proposed in the Council by Oxford, and that he had not ventured to oppose it. Swift to Lord Peterborough, May 18, 1714, vol. xvi. p. 132. Letter to Swift, July 13, 1714.

Lady Masham's, when he preached union to them warmly, but in vain. Finding his remonstrances fruitless, and unwilling to take part against either of his patrons, he declared that he would leave town and cease his counsels. Bolingbroke whispered him, "You are in the right," whilst the Lord Treasurer said, as usual, "All will do well." Swift adhered to his intention, and retired into Berkshire, and with him departed the last hopes of Oxford.*

Another former friend of the Lord Treasurer had become not less active in striving for his downfall than she had been in promoting his power. Lady Masham, still the ruling favourite of the Queen, was now the close confederate of Bolingbroke and the Jacobites. In July, she was so far impelled by her resentment as to tell Oxford to his face, "You never did the Queen any service, nor are you capable of doing her any;" and what is more surprising, Oxford bore this taunt with silence and submission, made no reply, and went to sup with her at her house the same evening!† Such meanness never yet averted a fall.

His

What had Oxford to oppose to these bedchamber intrigues? Nothing. His own artifices had become too refined for success, and too frequent for concealment. His character was understood. popularity was gone. His support, or, at least, connivance, of the Schism Act, had alienated his remaining friends amongst the Puritans. Nay, even the public favour and high expectations with which he entered office had, from their reaction, turned against him. The multitude seldom fails to expect impossibilities from a favourite statesman; such, for instance, as that he should increase the revenue by repealing taxes; and, therefore, no test of popularity is half so severe as power.

We also find it positively asserted by Marshal Berwick, in his Memoirs, that the Court of St. Germains had intimated to the Queen, through the channel of the Duke of Ormond and of Lady Masham, its wish to see the Lord Treasurer removed. It is the more likely that Ormond was employed in this communication, since it appears that, in the preceding April, he had offered to receive a letter from the Pretender to the Queen, and to put it into the hands of her Majesty, which Oxford had always declined to do.§ Thus, then, all the pillars which had hitherto upheld his tottering authority were sapped and subverted, and on the 27th of July came the longexpected crisis of his fall. Her majesty had that afternoon detailed to the other Members of the Council some of the grounds of her

The best account of this celebrated quarrel is to be found in one of Swift's later letters to the second Lord Oxford, June 14, 1737. (Works, vol. xix. p. 158.) There is something very mournful and affecting in the tone of those recollections of his friends.

Erasmus Lewis to Swift, July 17, 1714. Oxford had refused the lady a job of some money out of the Asiento contract; of course after that he "could do no service to the Queen!"

Mem., vol. ii. p. 133. A little before this time (June 9), Oxford had addressed a long letter to the Queen, which was printed in the report of the Committee of Secrecy next year. It is artful and submissive, but seems to have produced no effect.

§ Gaultier to Torcy, April 25, 1714.