senters to forego for the present a part of their pretensions. The Ministers promised that the repeal of the Test Act should be proposed at a future and more favourable opportunity; and the King himself, who had taken a much warmer interest in this than in most English questions, spoke in the same sense to Lord Barrington, one of the dissenting body: the Dissenters acquiesced, and it was determined that only some few of the less important clauses of the Test Act should be comprised in the measure of relief.

With this compromise, Lord Stanhope brought forward his measure in the Lords on the 13th of December, under the specious name of an Act for strengthening the Protestant interest. He endeavoured to show the reason and advantage of restoring Dissenters to their natural rights, and of easing them from these stigmatising and oppressive laws, which, he said, had been made in turbulent times, and obtained by indirect methods; and he argued, that by the union of all true Protestants, the Church of England would still be the head of all 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 66 looked upon those acts as the main bulwark of our excellent "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.

66

The discussion being postponed till the 18th, was on that day almost entirely confined to the Right Reverend Bench. Both the Archbishops (Doctors Wake and Dawes) declared against the 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

66

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 (1). 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!

66

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 Dissenters for the repeal of the Test and Corporation 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 ex

(1) Bishop Kennett was rather less indulgent to Roman Catholics. In his MS. Diary he appears much displeased with Swift, whom he heard "in

structing a young nobleman that the best poet "in England was Mr. Pope-a papist!" (See Swift's Works, vol. xvi. p. 100.)

ceptions (1)) 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 Prin

cesses.

CHAPTER X.

In England, as in France, the hopes of Alberoni rested more on internal factions, that 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 who some years before had led an English expedition against Spain, who had attempted Cadiz, and stormed Vigo! But such are only the common vicissitudes of exiles; they are used as tools by those who once felt them as foes. The Pretender himself was also invited to Spain, not indeed to head the vanguard of the invading army, but

(1) See Mr. Hallam's Const. Hist., Baudry's edit. vol. iii. p. 182.

to be able to join it speedily, in the event of its safe landing and prosperous progress.

Since the influence of France had compelled him to cross the Pyrenees, James had resided sometimes at Urbino and sometimes at Rome. He had lately, to the great joy of his party, contracted a marriage with Princess Clementina, the grand-daughter of John Sobieski, late King of Poland, and she was on her way to join her betrothed husband, when she was arrested and detained at Inspruck, in the Imperial territories: a favour of the Emperor to the English Government unworthy of them to solicit, and base in him to grant. The memory of John Sobieski, the heroic deliverer of Vienna, might have claimed more gratitude from the son of the Prince whom he had saved. The Chevalier did not hesitate to accept Alberoni's invitation to Spain; but knowing the great power of the Imperialists in Italy, and seeing by the affair at Inspruck how readily that power would be exerted against him, especially while a British fleet rode victorious in the Mediterranean, he thought stratagem requisite to effect his design. He pretended to set out to the northward with the Earls of Mar and Perth, and in reality despatched those noblemen and a part of his suite, who, as he expected, were arrested at Voghera, he being supposed to be amongst them. They were conveyed to the castle of Milan, and some time elapsed before the mistake was discovered and the prisoners were released. The news that the Pretender was taken had meanwhile spread abroad, and Lord Stair had written it in triumph to the Ministers in London. Under the cover of this report, James secretly embarked at the little port of Nettuno; and after touching at Cagliari, landed at Rosas in the beginning of March, 1719. There being then no further object in mystery, he was received at Madrid, not only publicly, but Royally; his residence was appointed in the palace of Buen Retiro, and visits were paid to him as to the King of England by Philip and his Queen. The magnificence of his entry and public reception is extolled by Spanish writers. But I may observe in passing, that the ancient splendour of the Court of Madrid had long since faded away, during the melancholy reigns of the last Austrian Princes, and that the subsequent accounts of it which the Spaniards are still inclined to utter and we to receive are often indebted to fancy for their brilliant colouring. Never, for example, was there an occasion when splendour would have been more natural and becoming—when it better accorded with the popular feeling, or had been ushered in by longer preparation-than the first public entry of Philip himself in February, 1701, four months after the death of Charles the Second; yet never was there a pageant more mean and unsightly. For when we discard the national exaggerations, and look to the impartial testimony of an Englishman, who happened to be present, we find that "his Majesty entered in a filthy old coach of the late

66

66

"King, without guards; his better sort of attendants, some on "horseback and some in coaches, at half an hour's distance from "one another; and divers of the inferior sort attending the baggage, in so very ragged clothes as exposed them extremely to the scorn of the Spaniards." At the same time order was so ill preserved, that "no less than forty men, women, and children, 66 were trod under foot and killed outright, and above one hundred "are now said to be languishing under their bruises, and dying "daily (1)."

It consisted of five men of 5000 soldiers, partly Irish, Several of the chief exiles Ormond himself was to

On James's arrival at Madrid, the orders for sailing were despatched to the armament at Cadiz. war and about twenty transports, with on board, and arms for 30,000 more. of 1715 took part in this enterprise. embark when the fleet touched at Coruña, and to assume its command with the title of Captain-General of the King of Spain (2). He was provided with a proclamation to be published at his landing, in the name of Philip, declaring that his Majesty had determined to send part of his forces as auxiliaries to King James; that he hoped Providence would favour so just a cause; but that the fear of ill success should not hinder any person from declaring for it, since he promised a secure retreat in his dominions to all that should join him; and in case they were forced to leave their country, he engaged that every sea or land officer should have the same rank as he enjoyed in Great Britain, and the soldiers be received and treated like his own.

In England, meanwhile, the King and Ministers were still more active for their own defence. The Duke of Orleans, eager to requite a similar favour, had sent them timely warning of the intended expedition (3); and he offered them the aid of any number of his troops. These were declined; but six battalions were accepted, and came over from the Austrians in the Netherlands, and two thousand men from the States-General-a very doubtful policy, where the strength of the foreign succour was by no means such as to counterbalance the disgrace of employing it. The English troops were disposed to the best advantage, especially in the north and west. A squadron of our ships, under Sir John Norris, rode in the Channel. Both Houses assured the King of their support, and a proclamation was issued offering 10,000l. for the apprchension of Ormond on his landing (4).

(1) Mr. Jackson to Mr. Pepys, Feb. 24. 1701. Pepy's offers as aid "tout ce que nous pourrions faire Correspondence.

(2) Duke of Ormond to the Pretender, March 17. and 27. 1719. Stuart Papers.

(3) Letter of Abbé Dubois to Earl Stanhope, March 15. 1719. Hardwicke Papers, vol. xxxviii. He gives all the details of the Chevalier's embarkation at Nettuno, says that Cammock had gone to him at Rome déguisé en matelot, and that Ormond passed the Pyrenees déguise en valet. He

46

I pour la conservation de la France si elle était "en danger."

(4) There were two proclamations, one at Dublin and the other in London; the one offering 10,000l. and other 5000l. A strange distinction! (Boyer's Polit. State, 1719, vol. i. p. 41. and 336.) The Duke's house, in St. James's Square, was about this time set up to auction by the Government; it was sold to a Mr. Hackett for 75001.