document being laid upon the table, the Opposition, in order to thwart the Government and perplex the negotiations as much as possible, moved, "That effectual care be taken in any treaty that the King of Spain do renounce all claim to Gibraltar and Minorca, in plain and strong terms." But a large majority decided for a counterresolution: "That the House relies upon his Majesty for preserving his undoubted right to Gibraltar and Minorca." This resolution was communicated to the Commons in a conference; in that House also, Lord Malpas obtained the production of the King's letter, and a similar proposal to that of the Lords in opposition was made, but with similar defeat. The minority, however, mustered no less than 111, a larger number than they usually could at that period.* The agitation of the public mind on this question, and the rising clamour against Spanish depredations, rendered it more than ever necessary to come to some conclusion of the long pending negotiations. Scarcely, therefore, had the Session closed, and the King set out on his first Royal journey to Hanover, than the Ministers determined to send once more to Spain the former Ambassador, Mr. William Stanhope. His diplomatic skill was long tried, he was thoroughly acquainted with the Spanish nation, and his integrity was so highly esteemed by the Spanish monarch, that His Majesty used to say of him, "Stanhope is the only foreign minister who never deceived me." The ambassador found the Spanish Court no longer at Madrid, nor in the stately palaces around it: their Catholic Majesties had wandered to the delicious plains of Andalusia, and now dwelt amidst the Moorish glories of Seville. The cause of this change was the same which influenced all others at that Court-the ambition of the Queen. The King, her husband, was a prey to hypochondriac maladies, and often desirous of resigning his Crown: he had effected that wish in 1724, and she had discovered, to her infinite alarm, that a similar scheme was nearly accomplished in 1728. It became, therefore, her great object to withdraw him from the neighbourhood of the Council of Castile, to whom any abdication must be first addressed, and by whose intrigues it might be sometimes promoted.† It was, therefore, in Andalusia that, on the 9th of November, William Stanhope, after innumerable difficulties, signed the celebrated treaty of Seville. The terms were highly advantageous to his countrymen. It was a defensive alliance between England, Spain, and France, to which Holland subsequently acceded. After a confirmation of preceding treaties, and a stipulation of mutual assistance in * Parliamentary History, vol. viii. pp. 548 and 695. Mr. Keene to the Duke of Newcastle, August 1, 1733. According to Duclos :"Sans aucune incommodité apparente Philippe était quelquefois six mois sans vouloir quitter le lit, se faire raser, couper les ongles, ni changer de linge. . . Dans des momens il se croyait mort, et demandait pourquoi on ne l'enterrait pas !" &c. (Mém. vol. ii. p. 386.) 1 [See Lord Hervey's "Reign of George the Second," vol. i. chap. vi.] case of attack, Spain revoked all the privileges granted to Austrian subjects by the treaties of Vienna, re-established the English trade in America on its former footing, and restored all captures, with compensation for the loss sustained. The Asiento was confirmed to the South Sea Company. Commissioners were to be appointed to determine the disputes as to the limits of the American trade, and as to the claims of Spain for restitution of the ships taken in 1718. Another article stipulated, that to secure the succession of Parma and Tuscany to the Infant Don Carlos, 6000 Spanish troops should be allowed to garrison Leghorn, Porto Ferrajo, Parma, and Placentia, instead of the neutral garrisons provided by the Quadruple Alliance. The question of Gibraltar was passed over in total silence, which, after the noisy pretensions of Spain, was equivalent to a public renunciation. Such, in fact, it was considered by Philip, who now, losing all hope of ever obtaining the fortress, attempted to cut off its communication with the main land, and constructed the strong lines of San Roque, across the isthmus.* The Spanish people, however, still continued to look with indignation on the British banners floating from the summit of the inaccessible rock, and for above half a century longer nursed an ardent ambition for its conquest. For the conclusion of this peace, and for his other services, William Stanhope was immediately created Lord Harrington, and soon afterwards, as we shall find, appointed Secretary of State. In proportion to the satisfaction in London was the rage and resentment at Vienna; and a further mortification to the Emperor ensued in the next Session of Parliament; for, being deprived of his Spanish supplies of money, he attempted to borrow 400,000l. on his credit in London. The ministry immediately brought in and carried through a bill, prohibiting loans to foreign powers without license from the King under his Privy Seal. It is quite certain that, had the Government allowed the loan, the Opposition would afterwards have loudly inveighed against their supineness. Now, however, as loud a cry was raised against "a bill of Terrors"-"an eternal yoke on our fellow-subjects"-"an advantageous bargain to the Dutch." "Shall British merchants," answers Walpole, "be permitted to lend their money against the British nation? Shall they arm an enemy with strength, and assist him with supplies?" The treaty of Seville was followed in a very few months by Lord Townshend's resignation. I have already more than once mentioned the misunderstandings between the brother ministers; and I need scarcely again advert to the jealousy of power in Walpole, to the violence of temper in Townshend. The former would brook no * Mr. Keene was afterwards instructed to remonstrate against these works. But he writes, May 20, 1731-"I was assured if the whole universe should fall upon the King to make him desist, he would rather let himself be cut to pieces than consent. We might as well pretend to Cadiz as to the spot where the line is." See Coxe's House of Bourbon, vol. iii. p. 240. † Speech of Mr. Danvers. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 788. equal, and the latter no superior. Their constant bickerings were often appeased by the mediation of Walpole's sister, Lady Townshend, or even of Queen Caroline; but unhappily the former died, and the latter, when she found a breach unavoidable, threw her whole influence into the scale of Walpole. Besides the general causes of coldness, there were, at this time, particular grounds of difference. In foreign affairs Townshend was much incensed against the Emperor, and would have pushed matters to extremity against him if not withheld by his colleague. At home he was disgusted with the timidity and captiousness of the Duke of Newcastle, and wished him to be removed in favour of Chesterfield. Another cause of irritation in the Session of 1730 was the Pension Bill; a measure proposed by Mr. Sandys, and supported by the whole Opposition, to disable all persons from sitting in Parliament who had any pension, or any offices held in trust for them, and to require every member to swear that he had not. In the King's private notes this is termed "a villainous Bill," which should be "torn to pieces in every particular." But Walpole, though he entertained the same opinion of it, would not run the hazard of unpopularity by taking an active part against it, and he allowed it to pass the House of Commons, knowing that it would be thrown out by the House of Lords. Such, indeed, was the policy which he pursued with respect to this bill during his whole remaining administration; for so strong a weapon of attack was not allowed to rust in the scabbard, and the measure was brought forward again and again by the party out of power. Townshend, on the other hand, complained that the odium of the rejection should be cast solely upon the House of Lords; and foretold, as the event really proved, that the petty manoeuvre of Walpole would be soon seen through, and that the Minister would incur even more unpopularity by his disguised, than by a manly and avowed, resistance. Complaint and recrimination were, however, useless. "It has always," says the great Duke of Marlborough,† "been my observation in disputes, especially in that of kindness and friendship, that all reproaches, though ever so reasonable, do serve to no other end but the making the breach wider." Between Townshend and Walpole the train of enmity was now ready laid, and any spark would have produced the explosion. The decisive quarrel took place at the house of Colonel Selwyn, in Cleveland Square. Foreign affairs being discussed, and Townshend presuming to differ with Walpole, Sir Robert grew so incensed as to declare that he did not believe what the other was saying! Townshend, losing all patience, raised his hand, and these old friends, near relations, and brother ministers, seized one another by the collar and grasped their swords. Mrs. Selwyn shrieked for assistance; the men interposed and dissuaded them from going out, as they wished, to fight an immediate The King to Lord Townshend, March, 1730. Coxe's Walpole, vol. ii. p. 537. †To the Duchess, August 26, 1709. duel. But though the encounter was prevented, the friendship could never be restored.1 Townshend, however, made another struggle to establish his power at Court, and obtain the dismissal of Newcastle. He had still considerable personal influence with the King; but finding it quite inadequate to maintain him against his all-powerful colleague, he resigned on the 16th of May. He left office with a most unblemished character, and-what is still less common-a most patriotic moderation. Had he gone into opposition, or even steered a neutral course, he must have caused great embarrassment and difficulty to his triumphant rival. But he must thereby also have thwarted a policy of which he approved, and hindered measures which he wished to see adopted. In spite, therefore, of the most flattering advances from the Opposition, who were prepared to receive him with open arms, he nobly resolved to retire altogether from public life. He withdrew to his paternal seat at Rainham, where he passed the eight remaining years of his life in well-earned leisure, or in agricultural improvements. It is to him that England, and more especially his native county of Norfolk, owes the introduction and cultivation of the turnip from Germany. He resisted all solicitations to re-enter public life, nor would even consent to visit London. Once when Chesterfield had embarked in full opposition to Walpole, he went to Rainham, on purpose to use his influence as an intimate friend, and persuade the fallen minister to attend an important question in the House of Lords. "I have irrevocably determined," Townshend answered, "no more to engage in politics; I recollect that Lord Cowper, though a staunch Whig, was betrayed by personal pique and party resentment to throw himself into the arms of the Tories, and even to support principles which tended to serve the Jacobites. I know that I am extremely warm, and I am apprehensive that if I should attend the House of Lords, I may be hurried away by my temper, and my personal animosities, to adopt a line of conduct which in my cooler moments I may regret.' Whatever may be thought of Lord Cowper's conduct, the highest praise is certainly due to Townshend's, and he deserves to be celebrated in history, as one of the very few who, after tasting high power, and when stirred by sharp provocation, have cherished their principles more than their resentments, and rather chosen themselves to fall into obscurity than the public affairs into confusion. Let him who undervalues this praise compute whether he can find many to deserve it!2 [See Hervey's "Reign of George II," vol. i. chap. v., and an editorial note by Mr. Croker, who remarks: "It is odd that Lord Hervey should not allude (if it had ever hap pened), to the remarkable altercation and personal scuffle between Walpole and Townshend, said to have occurred at Mrs. Selwyn's in Cleveland Court, and supposed to have been the original of the celebrated quarrel scene between Peachem and Lockit in the 'Beggars' Opera.'" (Coxe dates it in 1729; Lord Mahon in 1730.) "But," adds Mr. Croker," as the 'Beggars' Opera' was played on the 29th January, 1728, it is certain either that the date of the historian is an anachronism, or that Gay alluded to some earlier dispute, or that the story was made from the scene."] 2 * [Chesterfield, in his “Character” of Townshend, says: "Lord Townshend was not of a temper to act a second part, after having acted a first, as he did during the reign of The peaceful accession of George the Second; the happy conclusion of the Treaty of Seville; and the consequent quiet throughout Europe, dashed all the hopes of the English Jacobites. That party had never varied in its language. It had uniformly declared that any attempt without a body of troops would be hopeless, and would not receive their support; and such troops could no longer be expected from any foreign power. In the twelve years from 1728 to 1740, the Jacobite cause was evidently at a very low ebb; the Stuart Papers lose most of their importance, and the correspondence dwindles in a great measure from powerful statesmen down to low adventurers. What interest could the reader feel in tracing a succession of wild schemes formed by subaltern ambition, or nourished by religious bigotry, or what place can History assign to the reveries of some despairing exile, or persecuted priest? As the old leaders drop off, few others appear to supply their place. In 1728, we find Shippen praised for keeping what is called "his honesty," (that is, swearing one way, and voting the other,) "at a time when almost every body is wavering."* The faults of the Government afterwards added again to the strength of the Jacobites; but of their new champions scarce any seem of note, besides Lord Cornbury, heir to the illustrious house of Clarendon, and member for the University of Oxford.† Abroad, the Pretender's party lost at nearly the same time the Earl of Mar, the Duke of Wharton, and Bishop Atterbury. Mar died at Aix-la-Chapelle in May, 1732, distrusted by all parties and regretted by none. Wharton had been plunging deeper and deeper from one folly and extravagance to another. His first Duchess having died in England, he on a very short acquaintance, and contrary to the advice of all his friends, married Miss O'Byrne, the daughter of an exiled Irish Colonel, and maid of honour to the Queen of Spain, but he afterwards left the lady almost as suddenly as he had sought her. So completely did he renounce his country, that he joined the Spanish army as a volunteer, when engaged in the siege of Gibraltar. Next spring, we find him again in Italy, having an interview with the Chevalier at Parma, and writing him a letter in vindication of his conduct, and in reply to "some gentlemen, who brand my zeal with the name of madness, and adorn their own indolence with the pompous title of discretion, and who without your Majesty's gracious interposition will never comprehend that Mr. Morice to Bishop Atterbury, June 24, 1728. George the First. He resolved therefore to make one convulsive struggle to revive his expiring power, or if that did not succeed, to retire from business. He tried the experiment upon the King, with whom he had a personal interest. The experiment failed, as he might easily, and ought to have foreseen. He retired to his seat in the country, and in a few years died of an apoplexy."-"Characters," Chesterfield's Letters, Lord Mahon's edit., vol. ii. p. 443. See also Hervey's "Reign of George II.," vol. i. chap. vi. "Never was any minister more gently disgraced; yet never was any disgraced minister more thinly attended, not one man sharing his fortune, or seeming to repine at it."] |