IX. 1718. CHAP. the Protestant churches, and the Archbishop of Canterbury become the patriarch of all the Protestant clergy. Lords Sunderland and Stamford made some observations (of these we have no record) in support of the motion. But a powerful combination immediately appeared against it. The Duke of Devonshire first complained that the House was taken by surprise, and that it was irregular to bring in a bill of so great consequence without previous notice, forgetting, until Stanhope reminded him, that he himself had pursued that very course two years before, in bringing forward a still more important measure, the Septennial Act. The Earl of Nottingham observed, with a sneer, that the Church of England was certainly the happiest church in the world, since even the greatest contradictions, two acts made for her security, and the repeal of those very acts, were all said to contribute to her support. Earl Cowper declared himself favourable to the repeal of the Schism Act, but apprehensive for the security of the Test and Corporation Acts, "because he looked "upon those acts as the main bulwark of our ex"cellent constitution in church and state, and "therefore would have them inviolably preserved "and untouched." The Earl of Isla said that he considered the measure a violation of the Treaty of Union with Scotland. The discussion being postponed till the 18th, was on that day almost entirely confined to the Right Reverend Bench. Both the Archbishops 66 IX. 1718. (Doctors Wake and Dawes) declared against the CHAP. measure; his Grace of Canterbury observing, that "the scandalous practice of occasional conformity was condemned by the soberest part of "the Dissenters themselves: and that he could "not forbear saying that some amongst them made "a wrong use of the favour and indulgence that "was shown them upon the Revolution, though "they had the least share in that happy event." He also derived an argument against the measure from the lenity of the Government; urging that since the Schism Act had never been enforced, and was, in fact, a dead letter, it seemed needless to make a law to repeal it. Several other prelates took the same course. On the other hand, the bill was strongly defended by Bishops Hoadley, Willis, Gibson, and Kennett.* The latter, however, hurried away by his zeal, was betrayed into some very unseemly remarks on the clergy in Charles the First's reign, who, he said, "had promoted "arbitrary measures and persecutions, until they "first brought scandal and contempt upon the 'clergy, and at last ruin both upon church and "state" — a reflection, which, as Lord Lansdowne smartly observed in his reply, would have much better become a descendant of Bradshaw than a successor of Laud! Bishop Kennett was rather less indulgent to Roman Catholics. In his MS. Diary he appears much displeased with Swift, whom he heard "instructing a young nobleman that the best poet in England was Mr. Pope, a papist!" (See Swift's Works, vol. xvi. p. 100.) CHAP. IX. 1718. 1719. The debate was continued on the following day, and was concluded by a division of 86 for the bill, and 68 against it-so large a minority that the Ministers felt themselves compelled, in Committee, to comply with Cowper's amendments, and to strike out the clauses referring to the Test and Corporation Acts. With this mutilation the bill was sent down to the Commons. A sharp debate ensued on the 7th of January, and in the list of those who spoke, we find the name of almost every man of any political note in the House; but even the meagre and scanty records which are usually given of speeches at this period fail us here, the gallery having been on that day closed against strangers. We only know that Walpole and his friends warmly opposed the bill, that some personal altercation arose between him and Lechmere, and that on a division there appeared 243 Ayes to 202 Noes. It was observed that even this small majority was gained chiefly by the Scotch members, for of 37 that were in the House, 34 voted for the Bill. It passed, however, without much further debate, and without any change. When we consider the powerful combination, by which this bill was opposed, and the narrow majority by which it was carried in both Houses, we can hardly doubt that Sunderland judged rightly in his wish to exclude the Test Act from its provisions, and that had Stanhope's vehemence prevailed, the whole measure would have miscarried. But the "more favourable opportunity" promised the Dis IX. 1719. senters for the repeal of the Test and Corporation CHA P. Acts never came. Those Acts remained on the Statute book one hundred and nine years more, but remained only like rusty weapons hung in an armoury, trophies of past power, not instruments of further aggression or defence. An Indemnity Bill, passed every year from the first of George the Second (there were some, but very few exceptions*) threw open the gates of all offices to Protestant Dissenters as fully as if the law had been repealed; and if they still wished its repeal, it was because they thought it an insult, not because they felt it an injury. The Parliament was prorogued on the 18th of April. In his Majesty's speech, allusion was made to his design of passing the summer in his German dominions, and he accordingly set out for them a few weeks afterwards. Stanhope, though appointed one of the Lords Justices, was the minister who attended the King abroad. The Duchess of Kendal also, as usual, accompanied his Majesty. No mention was made in the Regency of the Prince and Princess of Wales, who thereupon indignantly retired into the country. Nor were they deputed to hold levees during the King's absence, that duty to the great scandal of the public, and further divulgement of family discord, being assigned to the young Princesses. See Mr. Hallam's Const. Hist., vol. iii. p. 334. CHAPTER X. CHA P. In England, as in France, the hopes of Alberoni X. 1719. rested more on internal factions, than on foreign arms. He knew the numbers and influence of the English Jacobites; he heard the clamours of the opposition against the Spanish war, and he trusted that the party which so eagerly echoed his manifestoes in the House of Commons would be as ready to support him in his schemes against the reigning family. But in this he was certainly quite deceived. Most statesmen bred in despotic monarchies utterly mistake the nature of our Parliamentary warfare, and cannot distinguish between the loyal subject who declaims against a minister, and the traitor who plots against the throne. Flushed with vain hopes, and finding the prospect of the Swedish invasion closed by the death of Charles the Twelfth, Alberoni resolved to assist the Pretender with an expedition of his own. Accordingly, he gave directions for equipping a formidable armament at Cadiz, and offered its command to the Duke of Ormond, the same general |