III.

1714.

CHAP. "with long speeches, it is plain that the writings "that have been complained of are seditious and "scandalous, injurious to her Majesty's Govern"ment, the Church, and the Universities; and I move that the question should be put there"upon."

This motion occasioned a very warm debate, in which there were several powerful speeches on the side of Steele. But of these the most remarkable were those of Walpole and Lord Finch. "By the "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 succes"sion 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 Parlia"ment to see how far they may be able to proceed.

66

. . . . . . 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:

* 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.

III.

1714

but addressing the House for the first time, and CHAP. 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."

66

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.*

* He resigned the presidency of the council in July, 1766, and died in 1769, aged 81. Lord Waldegrave says of him, that

СНАР.

III.

1714.

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. Soon after this transaction, a generous effort was made in the House of Lords on behalf of the illfated 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

at the Admiralty, "his whole conduct was so unexceptionable, "that faction itself was obliged to be silent." (Memoirs, p. 139.),

III.

1714.

an amnesty (that is, mere personal pardon) was sti- CHAP. pulated 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. ing the reign of Philip the Fourth, the Catalans had risen in another insurrection against the Castillian 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

Dur

* 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.

III.

1714.

CHAP. 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.

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 be

66

sieged 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 repre

* 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.)