1715.

PARTY VIOLENCE.

131

the transactions of a peace which had already been approved by two successive Parliaments. Even if I could admit the justice of such impeachments, I should still utterly deny their policy. From the violence of party feeling, the King could not, it is true, at first, call any even of the moderate Tories to his counsels; but he ought, nevertheless, to have applied himself to allay that violence, and to detach those Tories from their banner, instead of making them cling closely together by the point of honour and exasperation which always spring from persecution. Was it not his interest to invite faithful services in future by a generous oblivion to the past? Was it not the duty of his Ministers to draw at least one advantage from his foreign birth, and keep his name clear from their own party rancour and resentment? That resentment might, no doubt, be justifiable: they had, when out of office, undergone much personal persecution from their triumphant rivals; they had to avenge the exile of Marlborough and the imprisonment of Walpole. But they ought to have remembered that the only mode by which such injustice could be excused in the eyes of posterity was by its retaliation; and that their headlong vengeance would incur the charge of supplying the fuel and stirring the flames of the smouldering civil war.

But

And all this, let us ask, for what? Was any thing gained, or could any thing be gained, by these impeachments? We may, perhaps, be told of the demands of justice against the late Ministers-of the necessity of deterring future ones from similar misconduct. surely in this case, the failure of their misconduct, and their consequent exclusion from office, would have been sufficient as punishment for themselves or as warning to others. Unsuccessful guilt seldom makes imitators. Or if it be alleged that Bolingbroke or Oxford, by their popularity in the country, or the number of their friends in Parliament, might, perhaps, at some future time, overcome the Whigs and reinstate themselves in officecould there be a stronger argument to show the impolicy of assailing men so formidably backed, and of driving a large and formidable party to despair?

It is to be observed, however, that, in these impeach

ments, the Ministers, so far from outrunning the wishes and demands of their own party, rather fell short of them. The language of some of their adherents was much stronger than their own. Thus, for instance, Lord Stanhope of Shelford, afterwards the celebrated Earl of Chesterfield, making his first speech on one of these occasions, said," he never wished to spill the blood of any of "his countrymen, much less the blood of any nobleman; "but he was persuaded that the safety of his country required that examples should be made of those who "had betrayed it in so infamous a manner." To this speech, Lord Chesterfield, in after-life, looked back with just regret. "Had I not been a young member," he observes, "I should certainly have been, as I own I deserved, reprimanded by the House for some strong and "indiscreet things that I said.”*

.

Meanwhile, riots and outrages were increasing in several parts of the country. Staffordshire, above all, a county long remarkable for its Tory politics †, was the scene of disturbance. High Church, and Ormond for "ever!" was the cry. The mob, inflamed with zeal for their ecclesiastical establishment, and persuaded that its security would be very much promoted by pulling down Dissenters' meeting-houses, assembled in great numbers for that object. Many buildings were destroyed and many sectarians insulted. Against such proceedings it was thought requisite to point a sharper law; and recourse was had to the Riot Act—a statute passed in

* Letter to his son, March 15. 1754. Dr. Maty says in his Life,— "As soon as he had done speaking, one of the opposite party took him aside, and having complimented him upon his coup d'essai, "observed that he was exactly acquainted with the date of his birth, "and could prove that when he was chosen a member of the House "he was not come of age, and that he was not so now; at the same "time he assured him that he wished to take no advantage of this, "unless his own friends were pushed, in which case, if he offered to vote, he would immediately acquaint the House with it. Lord Stanhope, who knew the consequences of this discovery, answered nothing; but making a low bow, quitted the House directly, "and went to Paris !"

(૬

† Boswell observes in 1778: "I drank chocolate this morning "with Mr. Eld, and, to my no small surprise, found him to be a Staf"fordshire Whig- a being which I did not believe had existed!" Life of Johnson, Croker's ed. vol. iv. p. 185.

1715.

THE RIOT ACT.

133

the reign of Mary, and limited to the Queen's life; and, in like manner, enacted by Elizabeth, but never since revived. It was now made perpetual, and with increased powers. It provides, that if any twelve persons are unlawfully assembled to the disturbance of the peace, and any one Justice shall think proper to command them, by proclamation, to disperse; if they contemn his orders, and continue together for one hour afterwards, such contempt shall be felony without benefit of clergy. By a subsequent clause, the pulling down of chapels or houses even before the proclamation, is made subject to the same penalty. This Act, which still continues, though bearing a harsh and arbitrary aspect, has, I believe, in practice, never given rise to any deeds of oppression, nor well grounded causes of complaint.

From the great amount of public business, the Houses sat this year till the 21st of September. Even thenthe rebellion, which I shall detail in the next chapter, being on the point of rising-Parliament was not prorogued, but only adjourned at short intervals, till it met again next year; so that what is called its first Session extends from March, 1715, till June, 1716.

This spring, died two of the Ministers; first, the Marquis of Wharton, Privy Seal, a man of great talents but profligate character, and succeeded by a son still more able, and still more abandoned than himself; secondly, Lord Halifax. No one had basked more largely in the sunshine of the new Court: he had received from its bounty an Earldom, the Garter, and the office of First Lord of the Treasury. Other men murmured at this rapid accumulation of favours. To himself, on the contrary, they all seemed inferior to his merit. He aimed at the great post of Lord Treasurer -a post never revived under the Georges; and, finding this withheld from him, did not scruple to enter into negotiations with his political opponents, and plot with them against his party and his principles. Happily for his reputation, these cabals were interrupted by his death. Halifax was justly renowned for the literary talents which he possessed himself and patronised in others; for his skill in finance;

* Blackstone's Comment. vol. iv. p. 142. ed. 1825.

for his eloquence in debate; for his activity in business. He was, however, better fitted—in his later years, at least-to adorn than to lead a party. Marlborough, in his private letters, has, with his usual admirable discrimination of characters, touched upon the weak point of this: "I agree with you that Lord Halifax has no “other principle but his ambition; so that he would put "all in distraction rather than not gain his point." And again: “If he had no other fault but his unreasonable vanity, that alone would be capable of making him guilty of any fault."*

66

66

On the demise of Wharton and Halifax, the Privy Seal was put into commission; and the Earl of Carlisle, a respectable nobleman, with some taste but no talent for poetry†, was made First Lord of the Treasury. He was soon found, however, wholly unequal to that high office; and it was, in October, 1715, transferred to Walpole as a just reward for the talents he had displayed during the last Session, and especially in the impeachments.

* To the Duchess, February 7. 1709, and Nov. 28. 1708. † His Lordship continued rhyming till a few hours before his death, in 1738; and "it is a pity," says Horace Walpole, "that such "wholesome precepts were not couched in more harmonious num"bers." Royal and Noble Authors; Works, vol. i. p. 534.

1715.

PLANS OF THE JACOBITES.

135

CHAPTER V.

To those who attentively consider the state of parties at the accession of George the First, it will, I think, appear indisputable that the friends of the Pretender would, sooner or later, with more or with less resources, have attempted an insurrection in his cause. On the other hand, however, I am far from denying that this insurrection gathered strength from the vindictive measures of the Whig administration measures which tended to exalt the hopes, and increase the numbers, of the disaffected.

To their success, however, three things seemed essential: first, that the rising in England should take place conjointly with that in Scotland; secondly, the personal presence of the Pretender whenever his standard was first raised; and, thirdly, some assistance from France. It will be my task to explain how, partly from misfortune, but more from mismanagement, not one of these objects, though reasonably expected, was attained.

Lord Bolingbroke. on arriving at Paris, had by no means openly and at once attached himself to the Jacobite party. Still hoping for a favourable construction from his judges in England, he resolved not to provoke them by any fresh ground of accusation. He went to the Earl of Stair, the new British ambassador, and protested to him that he would enter into no disloyal engagements; and he wrote to Secretary Stanhope with similar assurances.

We learn, however, from the best authority, that Bolingbroke, with characteristic duplicity, at the very time that he made those professions to Lord Stair, and wrote thus to Stanhope, had a secret conference with Marshal Berwick, the Pretender's illegitimate brother; gave a flattering report of the Jacobite interest in England; and observed, that the time was not yet come for himself