I. 1713. "at four or five per cent.; whereas, the finances of CHAP. "France are so much more exhausted, that they "are forced to give 20 and 25 per cent. for every 66 penny of money they send out of the kingdom, "unless they send it in specie." * In 1709, the supplies voted exceeded seven millions, a sum that was unparalleled, and seemed enormous.† In fact, though these sums at present may appear light in our eyes, they struck the subjects of Anne with the utmost astonishment and horror. 66 Fifty millions "of debt, and six millions of taxes!" exclaims Swift, "the High Allies have been the ruin of us!" Bolingbroke points out, with dismay, that the public revenue, in neat money, amounted, at the Revolution, to no more than two millions annually; and the public debts, that of the bankers included, to little more than three hundred thousand pounds. Speaking of a later period, and of a debt of thirty millions, he calls it "a sum that will appear incre"dible to future generations, and is so almost to "the present!" It is, I hope, with no undue partiality, that I venture to remark, how much juster and more correct on this point were the views of Secretary Stanhope. In the minutes of a conference which he held in 1716, with Abbé Dubois, I find the following remark recorded of him :"However large our national debt may be thought, “it will undoubtedly increase much more, and, be"lieve me, it will not hereafter cause greater diffi Letter to the Duke of Marlborough, dated Sept. 24. 1706, and printed in the 3d volume of Coxe's Life. + Somerville's Queen Anne, p. 334. CHAP. 1713. 66 culty to the government, or uneasiness to the "people, than it does at present."* But, though we might astonish our great-grandfathers at the high amount of our public income, they may astonish us at the high amount of their public salaries. The service of the country was then a service of vast emolument. In the first place, the holder of almost every great office was entitled to plate; secondly, the rate of salaries, even when nominally no larger than at present, was, in fact, two or three times more considerable from the intermediate depreciation of money. But even nominally, many offices were then of higher value, and, when two or more were conferred upon the same person, he, contrary to the present practice, received the profits of all. As the most remarkable instances of this fact, I may mention the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough. Exclusive of Blenheim, of parliamentary grants, of gifts, of marriage portions from the Queen to their daughters, it appears that the fixed yearly income of the Duke, at the height of his favour, was no less than 54,8251., and that the Duchess had, in offices and pensions, an additional sum of 9,500%.†—a sum, * See the Mémoires de Sevelinges, vol. i. p. 207. † A statement of the offices and emoluments enjoyed by the Duke of Marlborough: I. 1713.. I need hardly add, infinitely greater than could now CHAP. be awarded to the highest favour or the most eminent achievements. There can be no doubt that the former scale was unduly high: but it may be questioned whether we are not at present running into another as dangerous extreme; whether, by diminishing so much the emoluments of public service, we are not deterring men with genius, but without fortune, from entering the career of poli Travelling charges as Master of the Ordnance 1,825 (From Somerville, p. 260.) Lord Dartmouth, probably with party exaggeration, says, "Her Grace and the Duke together "had above 90,000l. a year salary." Note to Burnet's Hist. vol. vi. p. 33. ed. 1833. I. 1713. CHAP. tics, and forcing them rather to betake themselves to some lucrative profession; whether the greatest abilities may not thereby be diverted from the public service; whether we are not tending to the principle that no man, without a large private property, is fit to be a minister of state; whether we may not, therefore, subject ourselves to the worst of all aristocracies, an aristocracy of money; whether we may not practically lose one of the proudest boasts of the British constitution under which great talent, however penniless or lowborn, not only may raise, but frequently has raised, itself above the loftiest of our Montagus or Howards! In Queen Anne's time the diplomatic salaries were regulated according to a scale established in 1669. Ambassadors-ordinary in France, Spain, and the Emperor's Court, had 100l. per week, and 1500l. for equipage; in Portugal, Holland, Sweden, and the other Courts, 107. per diem and 1000l. for equipage. Ambassadors-extraordinary had every where the same allowances as the ambassadors-ordinary, and differed only in the equipage money, which was to be determined by the Sovereign according to the occasion.* Considering the difference in the value of money, such posts also were undoubtedly more lucrative and advantageous than at present. But, on the other hand, these salaries and sometimes even those of the civil government at home were very irregularly paid, and often in arrear. "I neither have received, * See Bolingbroke's Correspondence, vol. i. p. 114. I. 1713. "nor expect to receive," says Bolingbroke, in one CHAP. of his letters, "any thing on account of the "journey which I took last year by her Majesty's "order (into France); and, as to my regular appointments, I do assure your Lordship I have "heard nothing of them these two years." Ministerial or parliamentary corruption-at least so far as foreign powers were concerned-did not in this generation, as in the last, sully the annals of England. Thus, for example, Thus, for example, shamefully as the English interests were betrayed at the peace of Utrecht by the English ministers, there is yet no reason whatever to suspect that they, like the patriots of Charles the Second's reign, had received presents or "gratifications" from Louis the Fourteenth. Should we ascribe this change to the difference of the periods or of the persons? Was the era of the peace of Utrecht really preferable to that of 1679, hailed by Blackstone as the zenith of our constitutional excellence?t Or were Bolingbroke and Oxford more honest statesmen than Littleton and Algernon Sidney? In reviewing the chief characters which we find at this period on the political stage, that of the Queen need not detain us long. She was a very weak woman, full of prejudices, fond of flattery, always governed blindly by some female favourite, and, as Swift bitterly observes, "had not a stock * To Lord Strafford, Aug. 7. 1713, vol. ii. p. 466. |