I.

1713.

Parliament, would be ruinous in practice. So evi- CHAP. dent, indeed, were these and other such considerations, that, in 1706, after an interval of cool reflection, the article was repealed. But two provisions of great importance were established in its stead. First, that every member of the House of Commons accepting an office under the Crown, except a higher commission in the army, shall vacate his seat, and a new writ shall issue. Secondly, that no person, holding an office created since the 25th of October, 1705, shall be capable of being elected at all.* These restrictions continued unchanged, and even unquestioned, during the reigns of the four Georges. It may be observed, however, that the vacating of seats by members who take office might often have been productive of most serious injury, had it not in a great measure been neutralized by the effect of the smaller boroughs. For until our new constitution of 1832, any eminent statesman, though he might be out-voted at one place, was perfectly sure of his election at another. The defeat of a great party leader, under any circumstances, such as that of Mr. Brougham in Westmorland, or of Sir Robert Peel at Oxford, was speedily repaired at Winchelsea or Westbury.

* See the excellent remarks of Mr. Hallam (Const. Hist. vol. iii. p. 257. 8vo. ed.). I would, however, presume to doubt whether that eminent writer be not mistaken when he says, that "at the same time were excluded all such as held pensions

during the pleasure of the Crown." That clause seems to have been rejected in 1706, since ten years afterwards a bill for that very object was brought in by General Stanhope. See the Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 374.

C

CHAP.

I.

1713.

The Act of Settlement, in favour of the House of Hanover, was, however, attended with one great but unavoidable evil-a large increase of the Jacobite party. Many of the Tories had been willing to concur in the exclusion of James the Second and his son, so long as the throne was held by other members of his family, but were most reluctant to admit so wide a departure from the hereditary line, as the establishment of the House of Hanover. There was, also, a very general wish to see still upon the throne some descendant of Charles the First, a monarch whose memory had become hallowed in the minds of the people from the crime of their fathers against him, and from his consecration as the "Royal Martyr" by the Church. Under the influence of these feelings, a very considerable number of the landed gentry, and of the High Churchmen, began to cast a wistful look of expectation towards St. Germains. "Several "in England," writes a Jacobite agent in 1711, "wish the King well, who would not hazard their "estates for him. . . . If he came with ten

"thousand men it is thought there would not be "a sword drawn against him. ...... There are, "besides, a set of men well disposed, who have "taken the oaths to the government only by form, "and whom General Stanhope, in Sacheverell's "trial, called the Non-juror Swearers. These are very numerous in the two kingdoms."*

*

Besides these-besides the steady old Jacobites

• Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. ii. p. 212, &c. ed. 1775.

His

I.

1713.

-besides the whole body of the Roman Catholics, CHAP. the Court of St. Germains also received promises of support from several leading ministerial statesmen. The extent of this infidelity, which has more recently come to light from the publication of original papers, is truly appalling. No feeling of attachment to party, nor of admiration for greatness, should make us shrink from exposing the shameful treachery of men who secretly kept up a treasonable correspondence with seals of office in their hands, and professions of loyalty on their lips. Amongst these, since 1688, had been Admiral Russell, Lord Danby, the Duke of Shrewsbury, the Lord Treasurer Godolphin, and, above all-it is with shame and sorrow that I write it the Duke of Marlborough. conduct to the Stuarts is, indeed, a foul blot on his illustrious name. He had from early life been attached to James the Second. He had received high favours from that monarch. Yet he quitted that monarch at the very hour when Fortune was turning upon him, and under all the circumstances that could add a sting to perfidy. I do not deny that a sense of patriotism, and a conviction of the dangers to which both religion and liberty were exposed under the government of James, would justify his conduct, and that he might be praised for remembering, with a truly Roman spirit, his duty to his country before his obligations to his patron. But, as Hume well observes, this defence requires that we should find on his part ever after the most upright, disinterested, and public-spirited

CHAP. behaviour. How difficult, then, does it become to

I.

excuse his defection when we find him, almost im1713. mediately after its success, taking measures to provide for a change of circumstances-to stand well with the dethroned Court, should it be restoredto have to plead the most ardent vows of repentance and attachment! How difficult, when we find him betraying to the enemy the secret expedition against Brest!-when we find that expedition consequently failing-and costing the lives of eight hundred British soldiers!* What defence can possibly be offered for such conduct! No other than that of Manlius when he pointed to the Capitol!

To the last, Marlborough persevered in these deplorable intrigues. To the last he professed unbounded devotion to the Courts both of Hanover and of St. Germains. Thus, for example, in April, 1713, he writes to the Elector: "I entreat you "to be persuaded that I shall be always ready to "hazard my fortune and my life for your service." In October of the same year we find him solemnly protesting to a Jacobite agent, that he had rather have his hands cut off than do any thing prejudicial to King James's cause! It may be observed, +

* The secret letter of Marlborough to King James is printed by Macpherson, vol. i. p. 485. Coxe (vol. i. p. 76.) endeavours to defend him, by alleging that Marlborough knew that he had sent his intelligence too late to be of any service to the French. But this would only be a further refinement of perfidy. That arch-traitor Fouché boasts of a similar course with respect to the plans of Napoleon, before the battle of Waterloo. See his Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 342. ed. 1824.

+ See Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. ii. pp. 442. and 488.

I.

1713.

however, that a correspondence with the exiled CHAP. family during the reign of Anne, though equally dangerous and hurtful to the public interests, was far less treacherous and disgraceful to the parties themselves than during the reign of William. The objects of the Jacobites had changed. Under William they wished to dethrone and expel the reigning monarch. Under Anne, on the contrary, their views were, in England at least, directed to the hope of her succession. When any of her ministers, therefore, concurred in these views, they, at least, did not concur in any personal injury or insult to the sovereign whom they served. Nay, these views were more than suspected to be in accordance with her Majesty's secret predilections.

It is to be observed, before I quit the subject of parties, that the Tories at this period were the more numerous, and comprised the bulk of the landed proprietors and parochial clergy. The Whigs, on the other hand, had in their favour nearly the whole monied interest.

The great majority of the English at this period firmly held the doctrines of the Established Church, and zealously supported its privileges. "The Church "for ever!" had become a favourite cry. During Sacheverell's trial the sedan chair of the Queen

It appears, also, from the Stuart Papers at Windsor, that the chief communications with the Duke of Marlborough, towards the close of Anne's reign, were carried on through the means of Mr. Tunstal, under the cant name of "Trevers." Marlborough's cant name was "Malbranche."