plished scholar; and we find him, in 1719, one of the most active and important years of his administration, engage the Abbé Vertot in a controversy on a very knotty point of ancient history, not without some application to modern times-the mode of election or inheritance of the Roman Senate. In 1691, taking leave of his father at Madrid, he embarked at Valencia for Italy, and in his way witnessed in Majorca the latest, I think, of the large public Autos de Fé.* After a visit to Rome and Naples, he served some time under the Duke of Savoy, and afterwards in the English regiment of Foot Guards, with which he joined the army in Flanders. His conduct at the siege of Namur in 1695, when, though not on duty, he went as a volunteer to the attack of the castle, and supplied the place of the officers who fell around him, until he also sunk down disabled with a wound, attracted, in a high degree, the notice of King William, who desired that, young as he was, he should always have free access to his person; and gave him a company of foot, and soon afterwards a colonel's commission. In the last Parliament of that Prince, he was elected Member for Newport; in the first of Queene Anne, for Cockermouth; and a few months later, on the breaking out of the war of the Succession, he commanded the van-guard of the English who landed in the Bay of Cadiz, and acquired as much honour as that miserable expedition could admit. In the course of that war, he obtained at different times the rank of general, the command in chief of the British army in Spain, and the diplomatic post of Envoyextraordinary to the Court of Charles. His skill and valour, signalized on many previous occasions, shone forth above all in the victories of Almenara and Zaragoza, but were not able to avert the disaster of Brihuega. That evil day closed his career as a soldier. But even during that career, ever since his election as a member of Parliament, he had taken a frequent and active part in politics, as might be done with far less difficulty at a period when an army regularly withdrew into winter quarters, and when its commanders might therefore be spared for the Parliamentary campaign. Thus, for example, in 1710, by far the most stirring and important year of his military life, the year of Almenara, Zaragoza, and Brihuega, he had, before leaving England in the spring, distinguished himself as one of the managers of Sacheverell's impeachment. In the same year, also, but during his absence, he was put in nomination for Westminster, together with Sir Henry Dutton Colt. They were decidedly the mob favourites;† a circumstance which, at that period, "I arrived here the 3d inst., and could get but very ill accommodations by reason of the concourse of people which are here at this time to assist at the Auto de Fé, which began last week; for Tuesday last there were burnt here twenty seven Jews and heretics, and to-morrow I shall see executed above twenty more: and Tuesday next, if I stay here so long, is to be another fiesta, for so they entitle a day dedicated to so execrable an act. The greatest part of the criminals that are already and will be put to death were the richest men of the island, and owners of the best houses in this city." Letter to his father, Palma, May 5, 1691. MS. Swift mentions in his Journal to Stella: "In the way we met the electors for Parliament-men, and the rabble came about our coach crying a Colt! a Stanhope! &c. We were afraid of a dead cat, or our glasses broken, and so were always of their side." October 5, 1710. did not either imply subserviency or insure success. The popular shouts at Westminster were not then reserved exclusively for despotic pledges; nor had it yet become usual for the electors to determine their choice according to the clamour of the non-electors. Accordingly, after a sharp struggle, the Whig candidates were here as elsewhere defeated by a large majority, and Stanhope could only fall back upon the burgage tenures of Cockermouth.* The general arrived from his Spanish captivity in August, 1712, to the great joy of the principal Whigs. "Your return, wrote Walpole to him, "is the only good effect that I ever hoped from our celebrated peace." Even before his arrival in England, he had taken an opportunity of publicly showing his aversion for the treaty then in progress, by declining an introduction to Louis the Fourteenth, when offered by Lord Bolingbroke at Fontainebleau, a refusal then much noticed, and considered by the new administration as an insult to themselves. Finding that he meant to keep no terms with them, their animosity led them to appoint some commissioners, at the head of whom was Shippen, to sift and examine all his payments of late years in Spain as Envoy-extraordinary or Commander-in-chief, and if possible to establish some charge against his character, or some claim upon his fortune. It was proved, however, from Stanhope's accounts and explanations,§ that far from his owing the Government anything, he had left them his debtors; and I find it stated in his family papers, that he thereupon claimed and received this balance, which it had otherwise been his intention to relinquish. It is added, that soon afterwards meeting Shippen in the House of Commons, he walked up and thanked him for the pecuniary benefit he had thus derived from the hostility of the commission. On his return from his captivity, Stanhope devoted himself wholly and eagerly to what had hitherto been only a divided pursuit; and he carried into politics the same qualities which had raised him in the field. He had always been distinguished as an officer of very great activity and personal exposure to danger; as one always foremost in his charges of cavalry; as one who would always rather cry "Come on" than "Go on" to his men; and in the council his energy and vehemence are recorded both by his enemies and friends. The "noble flame," which yet lives in the immortal poetry of Pope,|| will be found admitted even in the sneer of Bolingbroke, that "Mr. Stanhope was not apt to despair, especially in the execution of his See the Memoirs of the Life of James Earl Stanhope, London, 1721. I am not acquainted with the author's name: he is a warm panegyrist. Letter to General Stanhope, Houghton, Aug. 24, 1712. MS. See Tindal's History, vol. vi. p. 10. Lord Bolingbroke in his despatches does no more than dryly notice Stanhope's arrival. To Lord Dartmouth, August 22, 1712. $ Stanhope's answer to the Commissioners was published early in 1714, as a tract. See also Boyer's Political State, 1713, 1715, &c. "Carleton's calm sense and Stanhope's noble flame Epilogue to Satires. own projects."* There were few men opposed to him in council who did not feel the force of his haughty and resolute spirit. But it appears that his ardour sometimes rose to violence, and betrayed him into starts of passion and precipitate decisions; that he was by no means master of his temper, and often lost it in debate.† Another defect-it is nearly allied to the former-of Stanhope's political character, was too much openness. He was unwilling to conceal or disguise his plans and proceedings, as state necessity but too frequently requires. He used to say that, during his administration, he found that he always imposed upon the foreign ministers by merely telling them the naked truth; since they, suspecting some deep stratagem, and thinking such candour from a rival impossible, never failed to write to their respective Courts information directly contrary to the assurances he gave them. But it is evident that such a scheme of policy cannot be long effectual, and is only an ingenious excuse for indiscretion. In this respect, as in most others, the character of Stanhope stands in most direct contrast to that of his predecessor, Harley, who carried his reserve and dissimulation to such an extent as most frequently to defeat itself, who, when he wished to be secret, only became mysterious, and raised curiosity instead of eluding observation. Stanhope was, I believe, not unambitious of power; but, as to money, few statesmen have ever shown themselves more disinterested.§ He left his son, as Lord Chesterfield once said of him in the House of Peers, "little else besides the honour of a seat amongst your Lordships;" and of the landed possessions which his representative now enjoys, scarely one fifth is derived from him. In his youth he is stated, and I believe truly,|| to have been licentious; even then, however, he was an assiduous and able man of business. Like most other distinguished generals, he, in the field, gradually acquired the talent how, on any sudden emergency, to pour forth very rapidly a variety of orders, each, apparently, unconnected with the last, yet each tending to the same point from a different quarter, and forming, when put together, a regular and uniform plan. His bodily activity was no less remarkable, and appeared in the great number of special missions he undertook, and of affairs he transacted at * Letters on History. Letter 8, vol. i. p. 225, ed. 1773. It may be observed, however, that Stanhope seldom showed this hastiness to foreigners, or in negotiations. The caustic St. Simon says of him, "Il ne perdait point le sang-froid, rarement la politesse, avait beaucoup d'esprit, de genie, et de ressource." (Mem., vol. xviii. p. 339.) See some comments on this plan of Lord Stanhope by Lady M. W. Montagu (Letter to Lady Bute, March 6, 1753). $ For a remarkable instance-his reply to a munificent offer of the Emperor Charles VI.-I venture to refer to my War of the Succession, p. 177. The authority of Cunningham, who had been personally disobliged by Stanhope, and who is seldom accurate on any subject, might be rejected. But we are told by the impartial St. Simon, "Ce Général Anglais avait été fort debauché." (Mem., vol. vii. p. 293, ed 1829.) As to Stanhope's maturer years, I find that in 1708, in a private correspondence between two other persons, his "strict morals" are commended. See the Collection of Original Letters, published by Mr. T. Forster, London, 1830, p. 234. foreign capitals whilst holding the seals of office at home. All this, I firmly believe, is no more than strict justice requires me to say of him. Yet I cannot deny that, in drawing his character, or in estimating his abilities, I may, perhaps, be misled by my affectionate and grateful attachment to his memory. I may, perhaps, be too ready to adopt the panegyric of Steele, on his "plain-dealing, generosity, and frankness; a natural and prevailing eloquence in assemblies; an heroic and inspiring courage in the field; a gentle and winning behaviour in conversation." I may, perhaps, be partial in believing, as I do, that had his life been longer spared, had not his career been cut short so soon after he had reached the heights of power and the age of forty-seven years, the world would not have been, what Steele proceeds to call it, "in arrear to his virtue ;" and that he would be generally acknowledged as inferior to few other public characters in the history of his country. It is for the reader to reflect and to decide.1 It remains for me to touch upon a circumstance connected with Stanhope's appointment as Secretary of State. Horace Walpole, Lord Orford, who numbered him amongst Sir Robert's enemies, and disliked him as such, says of him, in his Reminiscences-"Earl Stanhope was a man of strong and violent passions, and had dedi [In his History of the War of the Succession, Lord Mahon has written, respecting the character of his ancestor, as follows: General Stanhope "was grandson of the first Earl of Chesterfield, and son of Mr. A. Stanhope, whom I have already had occasion to mention as ambassador to Spain in the days of its Charles the Second. Having passed his youth at his father's house in Madrid, he was well acquainted with the Spanish language, manners, and feelings; and thus peculiarly fitted to conduct any public business in that country. For his military studies he had found opportunity in Flanders, and a master in Marlborough. His diplomatic talent was tried by this most difficult mission to Charles the Third at Barcelona. In both departments of war and state affairs he was considered by his contemporaries as well skilled; and they saw him at successive periods attain the highest pinnacle of each, being at one time commander-in-chief in Spain, and afterwards first Lord of the Treasury in England. In both he is admitted to have shown very great disinterestedness as to personal profit and enrichment. Thus, for instance, when directed by his government to conclude, if possible, a commercial treaty with King Charles, and having, at the same time, rendered that prince important military services, he was offered, as a recompense for these, a grandeeship and estate in Spain, but refused them; and only requested that, if any gratitude were felt towards him, it might be displayed in a readi ness to adjust and concede the disputed articles of the treaty. Many men, accordingly, have left a more ample fortune, but few a more blameless character, behind them. Even now his high qualities are recorded by tradition in the country where they were most conspicuously shown: his name yet lives in the honourable recollection of the Spanish peasantry; and two of his great-grandchildren, who fought (and one fell) in the late peninsular campaigns, met with frequent inquiries, whether they were anywise related to Don Diego Estanop,' the great English general in the War of the Succession." -p. 176-7, chap. v. In the dedication of that work to the Duke of Wellington, Lord Mahon justly asserts an impartiality, which distinguishes also the present History: "As to General Stanhope himself I venture to claim the merit of impartiality. Though strongly attached to his memory, I am still more strongly impressed with my own solemn duty to the public; and I trust and believe that I have never allowed the zeal of the descendant to interfere with the truth of the historian. I am not conscious of having, on any occasion, either misstated, exaggerated, or concealed, any of his actions. Still less have I endeavored to raise his character by depressing those of his rivals and contemporaries."--vii.] cated himself to the army; and was so far from thinking of any other line, that when Walpole, who first suggested the idea of appointing him Secretary of State, proposed it to him, he flew into a furious rage, and was on the point of a downright quarrel, looking on himself as totally unqualified for the post, and suspecting it a plan of mocking him."* In conversation with Archdeacon Coxe, Lord Orford afterwards improved this story into Stanhope's putting his hand to his sword;† and, perhaps, had Lord Orford lived a little longer, it might have grown into a statement of Stanhope's actually stabbing Walpole. It relates to a period of which the narrator has just before, in his Reminiscences, had the unusual candour to own. that he was "but superficially informed." The story is, moreover, in one of its circumstances, contradicted by a letter of the elder Horace Walpole, who states that it was he, and not his brother Robert, who first suggested the idea of appointing Stanhope Secretary of State.‡ But even were there no such circumstances to shake Lord Orford's testimony, it is, I conceive, fully disproved by the tenor of the Commons' proceedings in the sessions of 1713 and 1714. All those who have perused them cannot fail to perceive that Stanhope had taken a very active and prominent part in them; and that none, not even I think Robert Walpole, at that time competed with him as a leader of the Opposition in that House. It is, therefore, as it seems to me, utterly incredible and absurd that so natural and common a result of parliamentary distinction as the offer of a high civil appointment should have moved Stanhope into any expression of surprise or resentment. But this is not all. So far from being unexpectedly raised by the favour of Walpole, it appears, on the contrary, that Stanhope, and not Walpole, was the Government leader of the House of Commons. In the contemporary writers, I find, it is true, no positive statement either to that or to the opposite effect. But I find that, in the first place, Stanhope held the high office of Secretary of State, and Walpole only the subaltern post of Paymaster; so that it can hardly be supposed that the former was to be under the direction of the latter. I find, secondly, that in the Cabinet Council Walpole had no seat;§ and I would ask, whether there is a single instance of the House of Commons being led by any placeman not a Cabinet Minister? I find, thirdly, that in the ensuing session, the King's messages were brought down by Stanhope, and not by Walpole. I believe, therefore, that Stanhope was the Government leader at first. There is no doubt, however, that as time went on, Walpole showed himself the more able debater; and, accordingly, as will be seen in the sequel, he was promoted to be First Lord of the Treasury in October, 1715. • Reminiscences, Works, vol. iv. p. 287, ed. 1798. + Coxe's Memoirs of Walpole, vol. i. p. 96. Letter to Etough, Sept. 21, 1752, printed in Coxe's second volume. Horace had been Stanhope's private secretary in Spain. § Tindal, vol. vi. p. 318. |