III. 1714 that "if he found himself imposed upon, he durst CHAP. pursue an evil minister from the Queen's closet "to the Tower, and from the Tower to the scaf"fold." But, in spite of this schism, the Ministerial vote was passed by seventy-six against sixty-four; and thus, in fact, it was passed by the twelve Peers of the new creation. The House of Commons, on the 15th, displayed a similar scene. The House having, on the motion of Sir Edward Knatchbull, resolved itself into committee on the same question of the Protestant succession being out of danger, there appeared, as in the Lords, a secession from the Government of many moderate Tories (the Hanoverian Tories, as they were then termed), with the Speaker at their head. A very powerful speech from him drew over a considerable number on this occasion; and, on the division, the Court could only muster 256 against 208. Next day, on reporting the resolution to the House, another fierce debate arose. Walpole applauded the public spirit of the Speaker, but added, that he despaired of seeing truth prevail; since, notwithstanding the weight of a person of his known integrity and eloquence, the majority of votes had carried it against reason and argument. Stanhope endeavoured to prove the Protestant succession in danger by this single induction, that, as was universally acknowledged, it had been the French King's intention, so it was still his interest, and he had it more than ever in his power, to CHAP. restore the Pretender. But the Opposition did not venture on a second division. III. 1714. a In the Lords, the Whigs showed their resentment in a far less justifiable manner. The Earl of Wharton moved, that her Majesty might be requested to issue out a proclamation, promising a "reward to any person who should apprehend the "Pretender dead or alive." The last clause direct encouragement to murder might disgrace even a barbarous age and a false religion; and it is with great regret that I find such illustrious names as Halifax and Cowper ranged in defence of this savage and unchristian proposal. They, Whigs as they were, by a strange anomaly, relied mainly on the precedent of James the Second, in setting a price on the head of his nephew the Duke of Monmouth so inconsistent do men sometimes become from party spirit! To oppose this address was by no means safe or prudent at that time, as laying open the opponent to the charge of Jacobitism; yet Lords North and Trevor did not shrink from this duty. The former concluded his speech by saying, that no man had more respect and affection for the House of Hanover, or would do more to serve them than himself; but that they must excuse him if he would not venture damnation for them. The latter moved as an amendment, "That the "reward should be for apprehending and bringing "the Pretender to justice, in case he should land "or attempt to land." Many of the Whig peers concurred with the amendment; all the Whig III. bishops had withdrawn from the debate; and the CHAP. House of Lords, to their honour, rejected Lord Wharton's proposal. commerce. The House of Lords, on the same day, passed two resolutions: 1. That no person, not included in the Articles of Limerick, and who had borne arms in France or Spain, should be capable of any employment, civil or military. 2. That no person, who is a natural born subject of her Majesty, should be capable of sustaining the character of public minister from any foreign potentate. These resolutions were levelled entirely at Sir Patrick Lawless, an Irishman, who was then in London as agent from the Court of Spain in the treaty of He had been an adherent of James the Second, had intrigued in the cause of his son, was in frequent and close communication with Bolingbroke, and held the Roman Catholic faith. All these might be just grounds of jealousy: but, as mere truth and reason have seldom sufficient weight with the vulgar, some of the leading Whigs did not scruple to add several absurd and groundless allegations. Walpole had even gone so far as to allude to him, in the House of Commons, as a man "strongly suspected of having imbrued his "hands in the blood of the late Duke of Medina "Celi and Marquis of Leganez*,”. calumny. The Ministers, however, wisely yielded to the popular prejudice; and sent to Lawless a friendly suggestion to withdraw into Holland. * Coxe's Life, vol. i. p. 45. an utter 1714. CHAP. 1714. In the midst of these parliamentary proceedings, the Ministers were thrown into the greatest confusion by an unexpected diplomatic demand. The Hanoverian envoy, Baron Schutz, had, instead of any precise instructions from his Court, received an order to consult and be guided by Somers, Halifax, Cowper, and other undoubted friends of the Protestant succession. All of them were, at this period, unanimous in thinking that their great object could not be better secured than by the presence of one of the Hanover family in England. So long as they had indulged any hope of regaining the Queen's favour, they had been unwilling to urge, or even to allow, a measure which they knew to be peculiarly distasteful to her Majesty; but seeing her now thoroughly wedded to Tory counsels, they looked much more to the safety of her legal successor than to her own satisfaction. They saw, besides, that the active intrigues of the Jacobites could only be withstood by equal activity and vigour on the other side; and their plan was, that the Electoral Prince, having been created a peer by the title of Duke of Cambridge, should come over and take his seat. With such views, and under the guidance of these statesmen, Schutz, on the 12th of April, suddenly waited upon Lord Chancellor Harcourt, and told him that he had orders from the Electress Sophia to ask for the writ of the Prince as Duke of Cambridge. The Chancellor, much discomposed, changed colour III. 1714. and looked down*; and, after a long pause, CHAP. answered that he would speak of it to the Queen. On Schutz's taking his leave, the Chancellor followed him to the door, and begged him to observe that he had not refused the writ, but only wished, in the first place, to take her Majesty's orders. A cabinet council was immediately summoned. At its conclusion, Harcourt wrote drily to the envoy, stating that the Queen, not having received the least information of that demand from him, or in any other manner whatsoever from the Court of Hanover, could hardly persuade herself that he acted by direction from thence; but that the writ of the Duke of Cambridge had been sealed at the same time with all the others, and lay ready to be delivered to the envoy whenever he called for it. It soon appeared how great was the resentment of the Queen, and the perplexity of Ministers. Three days after Schutz had an interview with the Lord Treasurer. He told me," says the envoy in his despatches, "that he never saw the Queen in a 66 greater passion. He said I ought to have "addressed myself to the Secretary of State, or to "him, who would not have failed to advise very "properly in the affair; protesting that he had no "service more at heart, after the Queen's, than "that of the Electoral family; and that he was "vexed at what had happened, the Queen taking ...... * See an account of this conversation in the despatch of Schutz to Robethon, April 13. 1714. Macpherson's Papers, vol. ii. p. 590. |