home, various measures of improvement and reform were introduced about this time. An excellent law was passed, that all proceedings of courts of justice should be in the English instead of the Latin language. "Our prayers," said the Duke of Argyle, "are "in our native tongue, that they may be intelligible; and why "should not the laws wherein our lives and properties are con"cerned be so, for the same reason (1)?" The charter of the East India Company was renewed on prudent and profitable terms (2). Some infamous malversation was detected in the Charitable Corporation, which had been formed for the relief of the industrious poor, by assisting them with small sums of money at legal interest; but which, under this colour, sometimes received ten per cent., and advanced large sums on goods bought on credit by fraudulent speculators. Penalties were now inflicted on the criminals, and Sir Robert Sutton, the late ambassador at Paris, being concerned in these practices, was expelled the House. An inquiry into the Public Prisons of London laid bare a frightful system of abuses; we find the Wardens conniving at the escape of rich prisoners, and subjecting the poor ones who could not pay heavy fines to every kind of insult, oppression, and want. The Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons is full of such cases: -thus one Captain Mac Pheadris, having refused to pay some exorbitant fees, had irons put upon his legs, which were too little, so that, in putting them on, his legs were like to have "been broken. . . . . He was dragged away to the dungeon, where "he lay without a bed, loaded with irons, so close rivetted that "they kept him in continual torture, and mortified his legs." From such usage the prisoner became lame and nearly blind; he had petitioned the Judges, who, as we are told, "after several "meetings and a full hearing," agreed to reprimand the gaoler, but decided, with infinite wisdom, that "it being out of Term, "they could not give the prisoner any relief or satisfaction (3)!”........ Another Report declares that "the Committee saw in the women's "sick ward many miserable objects lying, without beds, on the floor, perishing with extreme want; and in the men's sick ward yet much worse... On the giving food to these poor wretches, (though it was done with the utmost caution, they being only allowed at first the smallest quantities, and that of liquid "nourishment,) one died; the vessels of his stomach were so dis"ordered and contracted, for want of use, that they were totally "incapable of performing their office, and the unhappy creature 66 perished about the time of digestion. Upon his body a coroner's

σε

แ

66

66

66

(1) Most of the lawyers were greatly opposed to the change. Lord Raymond, in order to throw difficulties in the way of it, said, that if the Bill passed the law must likewise be translated into Welsh, since many in Wales understood no English. (Parl. Hist. vol, iii. p. 861.) The great

་

Yorkshire petition on this subject compiained that the number of attornies is excessive." (Ib. p. p. 844.)

(2) See Coxe's Walpole, vol. i. p. 326.

(3) First Report of the Select Committe, presonted Februrry 25, 1729.

66

66

inquest sat, (a thing which, though required by law to be always done, hath, for many years been scandalously omitted in this gaol,) and the jury found that he died of want. Those who were not so far gone, on proper nourishment given them, re66 covered, so that not above nine have died since the 25th of March last, the day the Committee first met there, though, before, a "day seldom passed without a death; and upon the advancing of "the Spring, not less than eight or ten usually died every twenty"four hours (1)."

66

Such atrocities in a civilised country must fill every mind with horror, and it is still more painful to reflect that for very many years, perhaps, they may have prevailed without redress. Thus, for example, in the session of 1725 I find a petition from poor ipsolvent debtors in the gaol of Liverpool, declaring themselves

reduced to a starving condition, having only straw and water แ at the courtesy of the sergeant (2)." How often may not the cry of such unhappy men have gone forth and remained unheeded! How still more frequently may not their sufferings have been borne in constrained or despairing silence! The benevolent exertions of Howard, (whom that family, fertile though it be in honours, might be proud to claim as their kinsman,) and still more the gradual diffusion of compassionate and Christian principles, have, we may hope, utterly rooted out from amongst us any such flagrant abuses at the present time. Yet let us not imagine that there is no longer any tyranny to punish, any thraldom to relieve. Let not the Legislature be weary in well doing! Let them turn a merciful eye not merely to the dungeon but to the factory, not merely to the suffering and perhaps guilty man but to the helpless and certainly unoffending child! For my part, I firmly rely on the progressive march of humanity. In a barbarous age it was confined to men of our country. In half barbarous age it was confined to men of our religion. Within our own times it extended only to men of our colour. But as time shall roll on, I am persuaded that it will not be limited even to our kind; that we shall feel how much the brute creation also is entitled to our sympathy and kindness, and that any needless or wanton suffering inflicted upon them will on every occasion arouse and be restrained by the public indignation and disgust.

From this disgrestion I return to the government of Walpole. -To detect and punish the cruelties of gaolers was undoubtedly a merit in any administration, and a happy consequence of tranquillity and leisure. In financial affairs, also, there was much cause for congratulation; the taxes were light, the trade thriving; the debt at least not increasing, and the predictions of impending ruin rather less common than usual. In vain did Lord Bathurst de

(1) Second Report, presented May 14. 1729.

(2) Commons' Journals, vol. xx. p. 375.

clare with awful forebodings, that "one of our best mathema"ticians has foretold, that if ever England raises above five mil"lions in a year it will infallibly be exhausted in a few years (1)!” For once, the people did not mistake gloom and melancholy for depth of thought. In short, looking to the state of the country, every thing seemed prosperous,-looking to the state of the Cabinet, every thing submissive. So brilliant appeared the fortune of Walpole at this period, that an old Scotch Secretary of State in the time of William, named Johnston, having been on a visit to his native country, and seeing the state of affairs at his return, could not forbear from earnestly asking the Minister, "What can you have done, Sir, to God Almighty to make him so much your "friend (2)?"

The two Secretaries of State were now Lord Harrington and the Duke of Newcastle-men of very opposite characters. Harrington, descended from a brother of the first Lord Chesterfield, was a man of very high diplomatic, but no Parliamentary, talents. He had skill and sagacity to unravel any negotiation, however perplexed, not readiness and eloquence to defend it. The observation of a Portuguese minister, that "Lord Harrington was not ac"customed to interrupt those who spoke to him (3),” paints his even and observing temper. An historian, writing shortly after his death, declares that "such was his moderation, good sense, "and integrity, that he was not considered as a party man, and "had few or no personal enemies (4)." Nor, indeed, would it be easy, even from the party libels of the time, to glean any invective against him. By great sagacity he had overcome great obstacles in the way of his advancement. The King disliked him on account of a Memorial written in the hand of his elder brother, Charles Stanhope, presented to George the First by Lord Sunderland, and containing some bitter reflections on the Prince of Wales (5). On coming to the throne, George the Second absolutely refused to employ the elder brother, and could only, by degrees, be reconciled to the younger. Walpole had also a prejudice against him, on account of his family; for though Sir Robert had professed a thorough reconciliation and friendship with Lord Stanhope, in 1720, he never forgave any contest for power, and his biographer informs us, that "he had taken an aversion to the "very name." Yet the prudence of Harrington surmounted all these difficulties, and raised him from a narrow fortune to the very highest offices.

(1) See Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 537.

(5) Coxe's Walpole, vol. i. p. 331. The memorial (2) Mr. Delafaye to Lord Waldegrave, Oct. 15. presented to George the First is distorted and ex

1731.

(3) Coxe's Walpole, vol. i. p. 332. Thus also Campo Raso says of him :-"Tenia el talento de "unir la mayor actividad con el exterior menos vivo." (Coment. vol. i. p. 35.)

(4) Tindal's Hist. vol. fil. p. 59.

aggerated by Horace Walpole, more suo, until it becomes an incredible proposal of Lord Berkeley, First Lord of the Admiralty, to kidnap the Prince of Wales and convey him to America! Such fables were too common with this writer in his latter years. See Works, vol. iv. p. 289.

:

Thomas Pelham, Duke of Newcastle, born in 1694, was a nephew of the last Duke of Newcastle of the Holles family he inherited its vast estates, of above 30,000l. a year, and the title was revived in his favour by George the First. From a very early age he applied to public life, and attached himself to the Whig party. When that party was rent asunder by the schism of 1717, Newcastle, though brother-in-law of Townshend, took the side of Stanhope, and accepted the office of Lord Chamberlain. But after the deaths of Stanhope and Sunderland he formed the closest connection with Townshend and the Walpoles. Through their influence he became Secretary of State in the place of Carteret; and though no man was ever more jealous of power, he was yet content to be a mere cipher under the brother ministers, and to fold his wings until he could expand them for a bolder flight.

No man, as I have said, loved power more, and certainly no man held it longer. For nearly thirty years was he Secretary of State; for nearly ten years First Lord of the Treasury. His character during that period has been, of course, observed and described by writers of every rank and every party; and it may well astonish us to find how much they agree in their accounts. His peculiarities were so glaring and ridiculous, that the most careless glance could not mistake, nor the most bitter enmity exaggerate them. There could be no caricature where the original was always ́more laughable than the likeness. Ever in a hurry, yet seldom punctual, he seems, said Lord Wilmington, as if he had lost half an hour in the morning which he is running after the rest of the day without being able to overtake it! He never walked, but constantly ran; insomuch," writes Chesterfield, "that I have sometimes “told him, that by his fleetness one should rather take him for "the courier than the author of the letters." His conversation was a sort of quick stammer-a strange mixture of slowness and rapidity; and his ideas sometimes were in scarcely less confusion : "Annapolis! Annapolis! oh yes, Annapolis must be defended; "to be sure Annapolis should be defended! Pray where is Annapolis (1)?" Extremely timorous, and moved to tears on even the slightest occasions, he abounded in childish caresses and in empty protestations. At his levees he accosted, hugged, clasped, and promised every body with a seeming cordiality so universal, that it failed to please any in particular. Fretful and peevish with his dependents; always distrusting his friends, and always ready to betray them, he lived in a continual turmoil of harassing affairs, vexatious opposition, and burning jealousies. In business, Lord Hervey thus contrasts him to Sir Robert Walpole :-"We have one minister that does every thing with the same seeming ease "and tranquillity as if he was doing nothing; we have another

.66

(1) Horace Walpole's Memoirs, vol. i. p. 344.

"that does nothing in the same hurry and agitation as if he did 66 every thing (1)!"

Yet in some points Newcastle might bear a more favourable parallel with Walpole. He built no palace at Houghton. He formed no splendid collection of paintings. He won no fortune in the South Sea speculations. In noticing his decease, Lord Chesterfield gives him this high testimony:-"My old kinsman and con"temporary is at last dead, and, for the first time, quiet. . . . "After all the great offices which he had held for fifty years, he “died 300,000l. poorer than he was when he came into them. A "very unministerial proceeding (2) !"

Nor was disinterestedness the only merit of Newcastle. In private life, though a bundle of weaknesses, his character was excellent. He had very great parliamentary interest, both of his own and through his friends; and his brother, Henry Pelham, now Secretary at War, was rising into high reputation as a speaker and a statesman. Newcastle himself was useful and ready in debate; always prepared for an answer, and with the same quality which the French have ascribed to his countrymen in battle-he never knew when he was beat! The same confident fluency is displayed in his dispatches. But what chiefly maintained him in power was his court-craft, his indefatigable perseverance, his devoting every faculty of his mind to discover and attach himself to the winning side; and we might admire his skill and success in these respects, had he ever shown the least hesitation in emergencies to renounce or betray his friends. "His name," said Sir Robert Walpole, “is

"Perfidy."

The Opposition at this time was very weak in the House of Commons, and seemed still weaker from the slack attendance of its members. There appeared so little prospect of success, that the Tories, losing spirit, could seldom be induced to remain in town, or appear in full force on any question. In fact, even at the present day, it may be observed, that many gentlemen of fortune seem to have two great objects in life-the first, to become Members of Parliament at any cost or exertion; the second, to stay away from the House of Commons as often and as long as possible! In 1730 Newcastle writes, "We look upon the enemy to be quite de"molished in the House of Commons (3)." They were, in truth, at a low ebb. They could not deny that the Ministers had been very successful in their foreign negotiations; and were reduced to argue that this advantage had accrued by chance, or might have been attained a shorter way. According to Pulteney," It is something like a pilot, who, though he has a clear, a safe, and a straight passage for going into port, yet takes it in his head to carry the ship a great way about, through sands, rocks and

(1) Lord Hervey to Horace Walpale, Oct. 21. 1735. Coxe's Walpole.

(2) To Colonel Irvine, November 21, 1768. (3) To Lord Harrington, March 16, 1730.