CHAP. 1717. 66 66 "that therefore he would fain have kept the employment he had before, which was both more easy and profitable to him; but that he thought "it his duty to obey the King's commands; that, however, he would endeavour to make up, by "application, honesty, and disinterestedness, what "he wanted in abilities and experience; - that "he would content himself with the salary and "lawful perquisites of his office; and, though he "had quitted a better place, he would not quarter "himself upon any body to make it up; — that he "had no brothers, nor other relations, to provide 66 for; and that, on his first entering into the Treasury, he had made a standing order against "the late practice of granting reversions of places.' Walpole, stung by these insinuations, replied with great warmth, complaining, in the first place, of breach of friendship and betraying private conversation. He frankly owned that, while he was in employment, he had endeavoured to serve his friends and relations, than which, in his opinion, nothing was more reasonable or more just. "As "to the granting reversions," he added, "I am willing to acquaint the House with the meaning "of that charge. I have no objections to the "German ministers whom the King brought with "him from Hanover, and who, as far as I have observed, have behaved themselves like men of “honour; but there is a mean fellow" (alluding to Robethon), "of what nation I know not, who "is eager to dispose of employments. This man, 66 ❝son. VIII. 1717. having obtained the grant of a reversion, which CHA P. "he designed for his son, I thought it too good "for him, and therefore reserved it for my own On this disappointment, the foreigner was "so impertinent as to demand 2500l., under pre"tence that he had been offered that sum for the "reversion. But I was wiser than to comply with "his demands, and one of the chief reasons that "made me resign was, because I would not con"nive at some things that were carrying on." Stanhope answered, Walpole rejoined; several violent expressions passed; and it needed the interference of the House to prevent a hostile meeting between these former friends. Soon after this time, Pope writes, "The political state is under "great divisions; the parties of Walpole and Stanhope as violent as Whig and Tory." * 66 By the advice of the new Administration, the King, on the 6th of May, went to the House of Lords with a speech, in which were recommended a reduction of 10,000 men in the army, and an Act of Grace to many persons involved in the late rebellion. Under the circumstances of the country, the former was a very popular, and the latter a very wise measure. The two other most important proceedings of this session were the attack upon Lord Cadogan and the release of Lord Oxford. Cadogan, as am * To Lady Mary W. Montagu. Letters, vol. i. p. 119., ed. 1820. VIII. 1717. CHAP. bassador to the Hague, had superintended the transporting the Dutch auxiliaries at the time of the rebellion. A charge of fraud and embezzlement in these expenses was now brought forward against him by some of the Jacobite members of parliament, to whom his zeal and success against the rebels in Scotland had made him peculiarly obnoxious. In this spiteful attack, Shippen might smile to find himself backed by Walpole and Pulteney; the former speaking for nearly two hours, and making such violent exertions that the blood burst from his nose, and that he was obliged to retire from the House. They were answered by Stanhope, Craggs, Lechmere, and several others; and evidence in vindication of Cadogan was given at the bar,* Lechmere, who had lately been appointed Attorney-General, observed most truly that the inquiry was altogether frivolous and groundless, and the result of party malice; that it was of the same nature as those which had formerly been levelled against Marlborough, Townshend, and Walpole himself; and that those very persons who were now most clamorous for an inquiry had been wholly silent about these pretended frauds whilst they were in office. Notwithstanding, however, these home-thrusts, the spirit of faction was so strong that the motion was only negatived by a majority of ten. The proceedings in Lord Oxford's case seemed *See Lord Cadogan's Case in Boyer's Political State, 1717, vol. i. p. 697-702. 415 VIII. 1717. to partake of his character, and could scarcely CHAP. have been more slow and dilatory had they been directed by himself. For nearly two years had he now been in confinement, and no progress yet made in his trial. But on a petition from Lord Oxford complaining of the hardship, the business was taken up with vigour. The Lords appointed the 24th of June as the day for it. The Commons renewed the sittings of their Secret Committee; and as it was found that the zeal of Walpole had suddenly cooled on leaving office, and that he almost always absented himself, it became necessary to appoint another chairman in his place. In fact, he and Townshend, in their eagerness to thwart and embarrass the new administration at all risks, were now combining with the Tories to screen their former enemy from justice. They could not, after their own past accusations, openly appear as his defenders; such a change would have hurt their characters, and perhaps their consciences; and they accordingly took a more artful course, by inducing Oxford's friend, Lord Harcourt, to propose a specious alteration in the order of proceedings. When, therefore, the 24th of June had comewhen the Peers had assembled in Westminster Hall when the King, the royal family, and the foreign ministers were seated around as spectators when Oxford, brought from the Tower, stood bareheaded at the bar, with the fatal axe carried before him when the articles of impeachment and the Earl's answer had been read-when Hampden had 1717. 66 CHAP. harangued-when Sir Joseph Jekyll had just risen to VIII. make good the first article - Harcourt interposed, and stated that before the managers proceeded further he had a motion to make. The Peers accordingly adjourned to their own House, where Lord Harcourt represented "that going through all the "articles of impeachment would take up a great "deal of time to very little purpose. For if the "Commons could make good the two articles for high treason, the Earl of Oxford would forfeit "both life and estate, and there would be an end "of the matter; whereas, the proceeding in the "method the Commons proposed would draw the "trial into a prodigious length." He also observed" that a Peer, on his trial on articles for "misdemeanors only, ought not to be deprived of "his liberty nor sequestered from Parliament, and "is entitled to the privilege of sitting within the "bar during the whole time of his trial; in all "which particulars the known rule in such cases 66 may be evaded should a Peer be brought to his "trial on several articles of misdemeanors and of high treason mixed together, and the Commons "be admitted to make good the former before "judgment be given on the latter."* court, therefore, moved that the House should receive no evidence on the charges for misdemeanors until after the charges of high treason were 66 Har *This argument is more fully reported in the subsequent Lords' Reasons. (Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 459.) |