succour for the King his master, under the Treaty of Alliance, and a war seemed fixed and unavoidable. But the prudence of Walpole warded off the blow; he sent a fleet of twenty-five ships of the line to the Tagus, under Sir John Norris, but gave him orders to act only defensively, and to urge moderation and forbearance on the Cabinet of Lisbon. At the same time, the sailing of "so terrible a fleet," as Cardinal Fleury called it (1), produced a strong effect, both at Paris and Madrid; the French exerted all their influence in Spain to prevent a collision; and at length, under the pacific mediation of Fleury and Walpole, harmony was restored between the two Peninsular Courts.

1736.

In all these foreign negotiations the English ministers found in Fleury the same judicious and conciliatory, though sometimes a little timid, temper. They were also much assisted by the close friendship of Baron Gedda, the Swedish ambassador at Paris. But the case was far otherwise with M. de Chauvelin, the French Secretary of state, who laboured on every occasion to thwart the English councils, and to exasperate the Cardinal against them. He seems to have inherited the old maxims of Louis the Fourteenth; and was even engaged in a secret correspondence with the Pretender, as his own carelessness proved; for having, on one occasion, some papers to put into the hands of the English ambassador, he added, by mistake, one of James's letters to himself, which Lord Waldegrave immediately despatched by a messenger to England (2). Walpole had endeavoured to treat him in what might then perhaps, be termed a Parliamentary manner. He had instructed Lord Waldegrave to seize any favourable opportunity to offer him a bribe-a good round sum, he said," a compliment on the new year"-and not less than 5000l. or 10,000l., so as to secure his future friendship (3). But it appears that Chauvelin, though he showed some inclination to this disgraceful proposal, did not finally close with it, and became more than ever a declared enemy of England. Under these circumstances, Walpole availed himself of a secret correspondence which he had opened with Cardinal Fleury, to point out the animosity of Chauvelin, and its bad effects on the harmony between the two countries; and it was probably, in a great measure, to his remonstrances that we may ascribe the dismissal of Chauvelin, which occurred a few months afterwards. In England, the session of 1736 is chiefly remarkable for an attempt in behalf of the Dissenters, and for the passing of the Gin and Mortmain Acts.-I have already related the endeavours of Stanhope, in 1719, to include the Test Act in his measure of relief to the Protestant Dissenters, and how long he had struggled against the suggestion of "a more favourable

(1) Earl Waldegrave to the Duke of Newcastle, June 1. 1735. (Coxe's Walpole.)

(3) Sir Robert Walpole to Earl Waldegrave January 1. 1736. He shrewdly observes, that (2) Earl Waldegrave to the Duke of Newcastle, 50001, makes a great number of French crowns, October 11. 1736.

66

opportunity (1). This more favourable opportunity had ever since been held out to them by Walpole, in appealing to their patience; but, like the horizon, it seemed to recede as they advanced. They had given the Minister their zealous support; in the elections of 1734, for example, they had issued several Declarations, pledging themselves to vote for his candidates (2); and they had done so the more ostentatiously, as hoping to establish a claim to his future favour. Yet they still found Sir Robert immovable. Still did he reply to their deputations, that the time was not yet come. "You have so repeatedly returned us this answer," at last said Dr. Chandler, "that I trust you will give me "leave to ask you when the time will come? ""If you require "a specific answer," said the Minister, provoked into sudden frankness, "I will give it you in one word-Never (3)!" Thus disappointed in the government, the Dissenters began to court the Opposition, and, in 1736, induced Mr. Plumer to bring forward a motion for the repeal of the obnoxious statute. Sir Robert was much embarrassed, wishing neither to forfeit their support nor that of the Church; but at length, after a wavering and evasive speech, voted against them, in a majority of 251 against 123. For this conduct, Walpole has been severely censured; yet in justice to him, we should, perhaps, reflect, whether his ministerial power, great as it was, really sufficed to overthrow what most of the Churchmen of the time, however erroneously, respected as one of their principal bulwarks; whether, if not, it could be his duty to plunge, at all hazards, into a hopeless contest; and whether the Dissenters would not have acted far better, both for themselves and for their friends, had they shunned a struggle which afforded no chances of success, and which only retarded the march of their cause in popular opinion.

As a counterpoise to his vote on this occasion, Walpole gave his support to a Bill for the relief of Quakers in the recovery of tithes. The object was to render the proceedings against them less long and costly, and the Bill passed the House of Commons; but however well designed, it appears to have been loosely and hastily drawn. In the other House, both the Chancellor and Chief Justice (Lords Talbot and Hardwicke) pointed out its defects and opposed it, and under their guidance was the measure rejected. Walpole was much irritated at this failure, even on personal grounds, the Quakers in Norfolk being very numerous, and having always assisted him in his elections. His resentment was levelled especially against Gibson, Bishop of London, who had prevailed upon his Right Reverend brethen to declare against the measure, and who, in consequence, lost what he had hitherto enjoyed--the chief

(1) See suprà, p. 217.

(3) See Coxe's Life, p. 608. No date is assigned (2) Boyer's Political State, vol. xlvii. pp. 332, to this anecdote; but it must have happened either

and 436.

in 1736 or 1739.

confidence of the minister in all ecclesiastical affairs (1). Gibson was a prelate of eminent learning and talents, and so well known to be intended for the Primacy, on the next occasion, that Whiston used to call him the heir apparent to the See of Canterbury. But on the death of Archbishop Wake, the minister had not forgotten or forgiven the opposition to the Quaker's Tithe Bill, and the vacant dignity was conferred on Bishop Potter.

The Mortmain Act was a measure of which the necessity has often been proved in Roman Catholic countries, and seldom denied in ours: yet within the last hundred years we have seen but little cause to dread the excess of posthumous charity; and perhaps it might be said, that whenever the state of public feeling allows a mortmain law to be enacted, the same state of public feeling renders it unnecessary (2).

The Gin Act was not a ministerial measure, but proceeded from the benevolent views of Sir Joseph Jekyll. Drunkenness, a vice which seems to strike deeper root than any other in uneducated minds, had greatly augmented, especially in London, during the late years of peace and prosperity. In this session, the justices of Middlesex thought it their duty to present a joint petition to the House of Commons on this subject, stating that the evil had grown to an alarming pitch; "that the constant and excessive use of "Geneva had already destroyed thousands of His Majesty's subjects, "and rendered great numbers of others unfit for useful labour and "service, debauching at the same time their morals, and driving “them into all manner of vice and wickedness; and that this per"nicious liquor was then sold, not only by the distillers and Geneva "shops, but by many other persons of inferior trades, by which "means, journeymen, apprentices, and servants, were drawn in to taste, and by degrees to like, approve, and immoderately to "drink thereof." This petition having first been referred to a Committee, Sir Joseph Jekyll proposed to lay on gin, and other spirituous liquors, a tax so heavy as to amount to a prohibition for the lower classes, namely, a duty of 20s. on each gallon sold by retail, and 501. yearly for a licence to every retailer. Neither Pulteney nor Walpole approved of the scheme; the former complained of the invidious distinction between the poor and rich the latter foresaw that such exorbitant duties had a tendency to defeat themselves, and to encourage smuggling and fraud. Sir Robert made, however, no opposition to the passing of the Bill, merely predicting that his successors would be obliged to modify it, and providing that the Civil List should not lose in consequence. It was to the Civil List that the small duties hitherto levied had belonged, to the amount of above 70,0001. yearly; and this sum Sir Robert proposed

66

(1) According to Mr. Etough, Sir Robert was once reproached in conversation with giving Gibson the authority of a Pope. And a very good

:

"Pope he is!" said Walpole. (Coxe's Life, 479.) (2) See Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. ii. p. 273. ed. 1825,

should be granted to the King in compensation of the loss from the greatly reduced consumption of spirituous liquors. This clause, just and reasonable as it seems, was not carried without much altercation and difficulty in the House, or great clamour out of doors. To the lower classes the measure was already most unwelcome and it was now exclaimed, that Walpole was ready to sell the comfort of the people to the highest bidder, and indifferent who might suffer so that the Revenue did not!

:

This busy Session having closed in May, the King proceeded to visit his German dominions, as he had likewise done in the preceding year, taking with him Horace Walpole as a deputy Secretary of State, and leaving the Queen as Regent in England. During his absence, the tranquillity which England had now enjoyed for so many years was slightly ruffled. A great number of poor Irish having come over in the summer, not merely worked at the hay and corn harvest as was usual, but engaged themselves at the Spitalfields' looms at two thirds of the ordinary wages. The weavers, thus thrown out of employment, raised riots on several nights, and attacked a public house where the Irish resorted (1). Similar riots seemed impending about Michaelmas Day, when the new Gin Act was to come into operation. Some Jacobites hoped to avail themselves of the popular ferment for their own ends, and had planned that gin and strong waters should for two evenings be given without payment to the mob, and the latter thus spurred to any violence which their leaders might direct. Circular letters had been sent, and the watchword fixed-"Sir Robert and "Sir Joseph (2)." But the prudence of Walpole on both these occasions happily checked these riots without bloodshed or injury or danger.

A riot at Edinburgh (the celebrated Porteous Mob) was more singular in its origin and more serious in its consequences. Some years back, the real events might have excited interest: but the wand of an Enchanter is now waved over us; we feel the spell of the greatest writer that the world has yet seen in one department, or Scotland yet produced in any. How dull and lifeless will not the true facts appear when no longer embellished by the touching sorrows of Effie or the heroic virtue of Jeanie Deans! But let me proceed with the cold reality. Two noted smugglers from Fife, named Wilson and Roberston, being condemned to death for a robbery, were imprisoned together in the Tolbooth at Edinburgh, when they devised a plan of escape. They procured a file, with which they rid themselves of their irons and cut through the window bar; but Wilson insisted on making the first attempt, and being a man of unwieldy size, though of powerful strength, he stuck fast in the gap, and could neither advance nor retire. Next morning the

(1) Sir Robert Walpole to Horace Walpole, July 29. 1736.

(2) Sir Robert Walpole to H, Walpole, September 30, 1786.

prisoners were, of course, discovered and secured. Wilson, in whom an irregular life had not extinguished a noble nature, now lamented not so much his own fate as his comrade's. He felt, with bitter self-reproach, that had he allowed Robertson to go first, the other being slender and active would certainly have passed through, and he resolved at all hazards to atone for the injury he had done him. It was then usual, it seems, for the prisoners at Edinburgh to be led out with a strong guard to attend Divine Service in a church adjoining to the gaol. There, accordingly, Wilson and Robertson were brought in the ensuing week under the custody of four soldiers. The service having concluded, Wilson suddenly sprang forward, and seized a soldier with each hand, and, calling to Robertson to run for his life, secured a third by grappling his collar with his teeth. Robertson easily shook off the remaining soldier, and, leaping over the pews, made his escape, and was never again seen in Edinburgh. A feat so daring in its design and so generous in its motive, attracted, of course, no small degree of public interest. Wilson was universally praised and pitied; and this very pity, perhaps, gave rise to a vague rumour that an attempt would be made for his own rescue, on the day fixed for his execution, the 14th of April. The magistrates, thus forwarned, took every precaution for security, stationing a large detachment of the City Guard under the command of their captain John Porteous, a man of great activity as a police officer, but accused of being not only strict but harsh and brutal in his official duties, and certainly most unpopular with the lower orders. The execution took place without any interruption or disturbance (1), and it was not till the body had been cut down that some rabble began to attack the hangman, pelting him and also the soldiers with very large stones. Outrages of the same kind, though of less degree, were not uncommon on these occasions, and had usually been borne with patience; nor ought Porteous to have forgotten that the sentence was already fully executed, and that he should now attempt to withdraw his men but on the contrary, losing all command of temper, he snatched a musket from one of the soldiers, and fired at the crowd; the soldiers followed his example, and another similar discharge took place as the detachment retired to the guard-house.

For this violence was Porteous brought to trial before the High Court of Justiciary, found guilty of murder by an exasperated jury of citizens, and condemned to death. But his sentence being referred to the Government in London, and considered by Queen Caroline, as head of the Regency during the King's absence, seemed

(1)" That deluded man (Wilson) died with great "tranquillity, and maintained to the hour of his "death that he was most unjustly condemned : "he maintained this in a debate with one of the reverend ministers of Edinburgh.... He admitted that he had taken money from a collector of

"the revenue by violence, but that the officers of "the revenue had, by their practice, taught him "this was lawful, for they had often seized and "carried off his goods, etc." (Speech of Mr. Lindsay, May 16, 1737. Parl. Hist. vol. x. p. 254.)