It may be observed that, with the exception of Nottingham, who of late had always acted with the Whigs, not a single Tory was comprised in the new administration. Some modern writers have severely arraigned the policy of George in that respect. They have argued that he ought to have shown himself the King of the whole people, promoted the junction of both parties, instead of the triumph of one, and formed his government on broad and comprehensive principles. But was such a union really possible? Had not the Whigs and Tories too fiercely and too recently waged war to be so suddenly combined? If even an experienced native monarch might have shrunk from this attempt, would it not have overwhelmed a stranger to our language and manners? How ill had that experiment succeeded with William the Third, a prince so far more able and energetic than George! Would it have been prudent, while the storm of a Jacobite rebellion was gathering, to place at the helm any statesman of doubtful or wavering loyalty? For though, on the one hand, it would be most unjust to accuse the whole Tory party of Jacobite principles, it can as little be denied that many of its leaders secretly held them. Let us not, then, consider as the fault of George what was rather the misfortune of his times, nor fall into the common error of judging past events by the standard of present facts and present feelings.

Meanwhile a great number of loyal addresses from the various cities and counties continued to pour in. The Ministerial arrangements were all completed before the Coronation, which took place on the 20th of October, and which, according to custom, was signalised by several promotions both in and to the Peerage. Few of the principal statesmen of the time, whether in or out of power, failed to attend the solemnity; both Oxford and Bolingbroke were present; and there were great demonstrations of joy throughout most parts of the kingdom. The day was, however, painfully marked in some places by riot and outrage, and other such tokens of public disapprobation, especially at Norwich, Bristol,* and Birming

The cry of the Bristol rioters was, "Sacheverell and Ormond! Damn all foreign governments!" One house was plundered, and one man murdered. In November,

[See Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vol iv. p. 347, chap. exvi., for an account of Lord Cowper's Memorial on the state of parties presented to George I, for whose information it was drawn up. In consequence of the king's ignorance of English, it was translated into French, and being submitted to him, is "supposed to have strongly confirmed the royal prepossessions in favour of the Whigs, and of their leader, Lord Cowper." It is entitled "An Impartial History of Parties," and is now for the first time published, as an Appendix to the Life of Lord Cowper.]

2 [Lady Cowper, who was present at the coronation, writes in her Diary:-"One may easily conclude that this was not a day of real joy to the Jacobites: however, they were all there, looking as cheerful as they could, but very peevish with everybody that spoke to them. My Lady Dorchester stood underneath me. and when the Archbishop went round the throne, demanding the consent of the people, she turned about to me, and said, 'Does the old fool think that anybody here will say No to his question when there are so many drawn swords?' There was no remedy but patience, and so everybody either was pleased, or pretended to be so."--Quoted in Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vol. iv. p. 346, note, chap. cxvi.]

ham, the latter being then remarkable for its high-church and monarchical principles. The University of Oxford also chose that day to confer unanimously, in full convocation, an honorary degree upon Sir Constantine Phipps, the late Jacobite Chancellor of Ireland.

Meanwhile the innocent cause of these unhappy divisions, the Pretender, or, as he was frequently called, the Chevalier de St. George, was still residing in Lorraine. On the first tidings that his sister was either dead or dying, he had immediately posted towards the Court of Versailles; but found it so fearful of allowing England any pretext for a rupture that it would not afford him the least countenance. M. de Torcy gave him a civil but positive injunction to quit the French dominions; and, finding his partisans in England benumbed and confounded, making no effort in his favour, he returned whence he came, after one melancholy visit to the Queen Dowager at Chaillot. From Bar-le-Duc he soon afterwards proceeded to drink the waters of Plombieres. There, on the 29th of August, N. S., he issued a manifesto, asserting his right to the Crown, and explaining the cause of his inactivity till "the death of the Princess, our sister, of whose good intention towards us we could not for some time past well doubt." When published in England, this incautious declaration produced an impression most unfavourable to the late administration, as unveiling their secret and disavowed, because defeated, designs in favour of the Jacobites. Their adherents at first insisted upon this document being a base contrivance of the Whigs to reflect upon the memory of the Queen and of her Tory government, but were much disconcerted at finding its authenticity acknowledged. However, they soon rallied sufficiently to be able to pour forth with some effect a host of libels, whose tendency we may easily discover from their titles:-"Stand fast to the Church!Where are the Bishops now?-The Religion of King George.-No Presbyterian Government.-The State Gamester; or, the Church of England's Sorrowful Lamentation.-Esop in Mourning.-The Duke of Ormond's Vindication.-The Lord Bolingbroke's Vindication.-No Lord Protector, or the Duke of Marlborough's Design defeated!" The hawkers who cried these and other such pamphlets were sent to the house of correction by the Lord Mayor, with the approbation of Lord Townshend; and some antidotes to the poison were put forth on the other side.*

seven of the ringleaders were brought to trial, and sentenced to fine and imprisonment; "but it was thought surprising," says a contemporary, "that not one of them suffered capitally." (Tindal, vol. vi. p. 341.) A curious contrast to the scenes of 1831.

* Addison, in one short piece (Freeholder, No. 14, Works, vol. iv. p. 384, ed. 1761) very humorously exposes the inconsistencies of the High Church Jacobites, by drawing out the articles of what he calls A Tory's Creed. The three first are as follows:

I.

That the Church of England will be always in danger till it has a Popish King for its defender.

That for the safety of the Church no subject should be tolerated in any religion differ

[Asgill sent forth an ironical pamphlet, entitled "The Pretender's Declaration English'd by Mr. Asgill," 1715]

On the day after the Coronation, Secretary Stanhope, and Sir Richard Temple, just created Lord Cobham, set out together on a secret mission to Vienna. It was of great importance to remove the jealousy and coldness with which the Emperor, Charles the Sixth, had seen the accession of the House of Hanover, and to allay his apprehensions as to any encroachments in Germany. Nor was it of less moment to induce the Imperial and the Dutch Governments to conclude the Barrier Treaty which was still under discussion, and presenting an obstacle to any renewed alliance or cordial co-operation between them. Lord Cobham was intended as the permanent ambassador; but the personal appearance of Stanhope, in the first instance, was considered most desirable, from his having formerly been so closely linked with the Emperor in Spain, obtained so large a share of his regard and confidence, and, since that period, continued in correspondence with his Majesty. Stanhope went first to the Hague, where he had a conference with Pensionary Slingeland, Fagel, Hop, and other leading Dutch statesmen. He found them not unreasonable as to the articles of the Barrier Treaty, nor averse to the idea of a defensive alliance with the Emperor for their mutual security, but timidly shrinking from any public declaration or immediate measures. On the whole, they seemed much more afraid of personal responsibility than of national loss; and "it is my decided opinion," adds Stanhope, "that if we do not help them to do their own business, it will never be done at all. There is not one amongst them who dares to take anything upon himself." Proceeding to Vienna, Stanhope was most graciously received by Charles, and represented in strong terms to his Majesty, and to Prince Eugene, that a speedy conclusion of the Barrier Treaty was most necessary to arrest the further progress of French intrigues in Holland; that the public mind in that country was becoming soured; and that the possession of one town, or a few thousand florins, more or less, was not to be put in competition by the Emperor with the advantage of a sincere friendship and close alliance with the Dutch. But he met with unexpected difficulties. "I found," he says, "Prince Eugene much irritated with the Dutch, and very indignant at their last proposals; insomuch, that he declared he should never advise the Emperor to accept the Low Countries on such terms. The Low Countries, he observed, were of little value, either to the Emperor or to the empire; they were only a burden to the former: and, if he should consent to accept them, it would be much more for the sake of his old allies than for his own."

The English Minister remained at Vienna during several weeks, endeavouring to overcome these obstacles. In his opinion, "the

ent from the Established, but that the head of our Church may be of that religion which is most repugnant to it.

III.

That the Protestant interest in this nation, and in all Europe, could not but flourish under the protection of one who thinks himself obliged, on pain of damnation, to do all that lies in his power for the extirpation of it.

Emperor is much more moderate than most of his ministers. His views on the general system of European policy seem to me as just and reasonable as could possibly be expected; but all his Government is so exasperated against the Dutch, that I really cannot tell to what extremities they may not proceed." Stanhope succeeded in lowering their pretensions as to several articles, but could not bring them to any positive and satisfactory adjustment. Setting out from Vienna on the 22d of December, N. S., he returned to confer with the statesmen at the Hague, and was again in England early in January.* His embassy, though it failed in several of its objects, tended to facilitate the subsequent negotiations; and the Barrier Treaty, after a long and well-matched struggle between Dutch and German obstinacy, was, at length, brought to a conclusion, and signed in November, 1715. The States were to receive 500,000 crowns yearly, and to garrison Namur, Tournay, Menin, Furnes, Warneton, Ypres, and Knoque, together with Dendermond, jointly.†

Immediately after Stanhope's arrival, the Ministers, meeting in council, determined to publish two Royal proclamations, the one dissolving the Parliament, the other calling a new one. The terms of the latter gave considerable, and, I think, very just offence. It severely reflected on the evil designs and miscarriages of the late Government, and advised the electors, in the choice of their representatives, to "have a particular regard to such as showed a firmness to the Protestant succession when it was in danger." Such suggestions, however cautiously worded, are clearly unconstitutional; and appear least of all becoming in the mouth of a Prince so lately called over to protect our liberties and laws. Can it be doubted, also, that the Ministers, when using the name of Majesty, should have carefully avoided all approach to party violence and rancour?

The elections, however, went precisely as the framers of the proclamation could have wished.§ How strange and sudden are the

Secretary Stanhope to Lord Townshend, Nov. 6, 24, Dec. 5, &c., 1714. See Appendix.

† See Lamberty, vol. ix. p. 24, and Coxe's House of Austria, vol. iii p. 25; but the former strangely omits Namur and Tournay as they stand in Dumont's collection. Coxe is also by no means accurate in this portion of his history; and his treaty of Westminster of May 5. 1715, is quite imaginary. I should conclude it to be a misprint for May 25, 1716, but that he goes on to speak of the change of policy produced by the death of Louis XIV., Sept. 1, 1715.

A striking instance of blind and unreasonable party accusations is to be found in the Memoirs of Berwick, who charges the government of George the First, amongst other faults, with having "cassé le Parlement qui venait de le reconnaitre si unanimement!" Yet the statutes 7 & 8 W. III. c. 15, and 6 Ann. c. 7, made it imperative that the Parliament should be dissolved within six months from the demise of the Crown. See Mém. de Berwick, vol. ii. p. 135, and Blackstone's Comment., vol. i. p. 188, ed. 1825. There is a curious account of some slight disturbances at these elections in a contem porary pamphlet,-" Account of the Riots and Tumults, &c.; printed for J. Baker, 1715." We are told that at Cambridge the under graduates took an active part, and that "a right trusty body of passively obedient Johnians were mounted on their College leads, under which the members were to pass, with good store of brick-bats to discharge on their heads!" (p. 20.)*

1

[Mr. Wright, in his recently published work, "England under the House of Hano

veerings of popular favour! In the House of Commons, which sat at the beginning of 1710, the Whigs had a very great majority. The elections of that autumn, and of 1713, sent up as large a majority on the side of the Tories. Now, again, in 1715, the Whigs found themselves lords of the public mind, and victorious in nearly all their contests. Some grounds have elsewhere been given that will partly account for these revulsions; but to explain them altogether on any thing like reason, or without a liberal allowance for the caprice of popular assemblies, would, I believe, be found as impracticable as to say why the wind should blow from the north to-day, and from the south to-morrow!

The Houses met on the 17th of March, when the Whigs, without opposition, raised Mr. Spencer Compton to the Speaker's chair. A few days afterwards, the King came down to open Parliament in person; but, being unable to pronounce English, gave his speech to be read by the Chancellor. Its tone was frank and affectionate. He thanked all his loving subjects for their zeal and firmness in defence of his succession. He gently lamented the unsatisfactory terms of the peace, and the incomplete fulfilment of even those; and he ended with assurances that the established Constitution in Church and State should be the rule of his government, and the happiness of the people the chief care of his life.

The addresses in answer to his Majesty's speech raised warm debates in both Houses. The Duke of Bolton having moved that of the Lords, in which there were the words "recover the reputation of this kingdom," Lord Bolingbroke, in a masterly harangue (it was his last in Parliament), vindicated the memory of the late Queen, and proposed to change the word "recover" into "maintain." The original address was, however, carried against him by 66 to 33; and "I saw," he says, "to the shame of the Peerage, several Lords concur to condemn, in one general vote, all that they had approved of in a former Parliament by many particular resolutions." It is remarkable that Lord Townshend did not speak at all on this occasion, and that the Duke of Shrewsbury took part against the Court.

In the Commons, the address moved by Walpole contained even stronger expressions:-" It is with just resentment we observe that the Pretender still resides in Lorraine; and that he has the presumption, by declarations from thence, to stir up your Majesty's subjects to rebellion. But that which raises the utmost indignation of your Commons is, that it appears therein that his hopes were built upon the measures that had been taken for some time past in Great Britain. It shall be our business to trace out those measures

ver," remarks, that it was at this period "that English elections of members for Parlia ment first took that character for turbulence and acrimony which, for more than a century, destroyed the peace and tranquillity of our country towns, and from which they have only been relieved within a few years." After quoting a burlesque bill of costs for an election, he adds, "It will be observed in this 'bill' that bribery is not put down as one of the prominent features of an election at this period; violence was, as yet, found to be more effective than corruption."-Vol. i. p. 23-4.]