1713.

ACT OF SETTLEMENT.

11

every duteous son of the Church! And how much has their wisdom been shown forth, not merely by contemporary arguments, but by subsequent results-by the long period of happiness and honour which this country, through the blessing of Providence, has enjoyed under the present reigning family!

A part of this happiness and honour should, no doubt, also be ascribed to the cautious limitations which accompanied the Act of Settlement. It was provided — 1. That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established. 2. That in case the Crown and imperial dignity of this realm shall hereafter come to any person, not being a native of this kingdom of England, this nation be not obliged to engage in any war for the defence of any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England, without the consent of Parliament. 3. That no person who shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown shall go out of the dominions of England, Scotland, or Ireland, without consent of Parliament. 4. That from and after the time that the further limitation by this act shall take effect, all matters and things relating to the well-governing of this kingdom, which are properly cognisable in the Privy Council by the laws and customs of this realm, shall be transacted there; and all resolutions taken thereupon shall be signed by such of the Privy Council as shall take, advise, and consent to the same. 5. That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, no person born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalised or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents), shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either house of Parliament; or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military; or to have any grant of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, from the Crown to himself, or to any other or others in trust for him.6. That no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons.-7. That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, Judges' com

missions be made QUAMDIU SE BENE GESSERINT, and their salaries ascertained and established; but upon the Address of both Houses of Parliament it may be lawful to remove them. 8. That no pardon under the Great Seal of England be pleadable to an impeachment by the Commons in Parliament.

The first of these articles was a safeguard of our national religion, as the second of our national independence. The want of some such restraint as the fifth had been felt very strongly in the case of William and his foreign favourites, his Portlands and his Albemarles; and its enactment proved most salutary during the reigns of the first two Georges. Great advantages would in like manner have been derived from the third article, had it not, as I shall afterwards have occasion to show, been too readily repealed on the accession of George the First. The sixth article, on the other hand, was hasty and illconsidered. There can be no doubt that, in the reign of William, as in the two preceding, the number of placemen in the House of Commons was dangerously and unconstitutionally large; nor can it be denied that a fearful degree of corruption and venality had grown out of that abuse.* But to extirpate that abuse by its opposite by the total and unconditional exclusion of all members of the Government- seems scarcely less absurd than a physician who should advise a glutton to touch no food at all. To pronounce the favour of the Crown to be of course incompatible with the confidence of the people, appears dangerous in theory. To determine that no Minister of State should bring forward and explain his measures to Parliament, would be ruincus in practice. So evident, indeed, were these and other such considerations, that, in 1706, after an interval of cool reflection, the article was repealed. But two provisions of great importance were established in its stead. First, that every member of the House of Commons accepting an office under the Crown, except a higher commission in the army, shall vacate his seat, and a new writ shall issue. Secondly, that no person, holding an office created since the 25th of October, 1705, shall be capable of being

* See, for instance, Parl. Hist. vol. v. pp. 886. 911, &c,

1713.

INCREASE OF THE JACOBITES.

13

elected at all.* These restrictions continued unchanged, and even unquestioned, during the reigns of the four Georges. It may be observed, however, that the vacating of seats by Members who take office might often have been productive of most serious injury, had it not in a great measure been neutralized by the effect of the smaller boroughs. For until our new constitution of Parliament in 1832, any eminent statesman, though he might be outvoted at one place, was perfectly sure of his election at another. The defeat of a great party leader, under any circumstances, such as that of Mr. Brougham in Westmoreland, or of Sir Robert Peel at Oxford, was speedily repaired at Winchelsea or Westbury.

The Act of Settlement, in favour of the House of Hanover, was, however, attended with one great but unavoidable evil-a large increase of the Jacobite party. Many of the Tories had been willing to concur in the exclusion of James the Second and his son, so long as the throne was held by other members of his family, but were most reluctant to admit so wide a departure from the hereditary line as the establishment of the House of Hanover. There was, also, a very general wish to see still upon the throne some descendant of Charles the First, a monarch whose memory had become hallowed in the minds of the people from the crime of their fathers against him, and from his consecration as the "Royal Martyr" by the Church. Under the influence of these feelings, a very considerable number of the landed gentry, and of the High Churchmen, began to cast a wistful look of expectation towards St. Germains. "Several in Eng"land," writes a Jacobite agent in 1711, "wish the King "well, who would not hazard their estates for him. If he came with ten thousand men it is 'thought there would not be a sword drawn against him. There are, besides, a set of men well dis

66

66

...

* See the excellent remarks of Mr. Hallam (Const. Hist. vol. iii. p. 257. 8vo. ed.). I would, however, presume to doubt whether that eminent writer be not mistaken when he says, that "at the same time "were excluded all such as held pensions during the pleasure of the "Crown." That clause seems to have been rejected in 1706, since ten years afterwards a Bill for that very object was brought in by General Stanhope. See the Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 374.

"posed, who have taken the oaths to the Government only "by form, and whom General Stanhope, in Sacheverell's “trial, called the Non-juror Swearers. These are very numerous in the two kingdoms."*

Besides these besides the steady old Jacobites besides the whole body of the Roman Catholics, the Court of St. Germains also received promises of support from several leading Ministerial statesmen. The extent of this infidelity, which has more recently come to light from the publication of original papers, is truly appalling. No feeling of attachment to party, nor of admiration for greatness, should make us shrink from exposing the shameful treachery of men who secretly kept up a treasonable correspondence with seals of office in their hands, and professions of loyalty on their lips. Amongst these, since 1688, had been Admiral Russell, Lord Danby, the Duke of Shrewsbury, the Lord Treasurer Godolphin, and, above all—it is with shame and sorrow that I write it the Duke of Marlborough. His conduct to the Stuarts is, indeed, a foul blot on his illustrious name. He had from early life been attached to James the Second. He had received high favours from that monarch. Yet he quitted that monarch at the very hour when fortune was turning upon him, and under all the circumstances that could add a sting to perfidy. I do not deny that a sense of patriotism, and a conviction of the dangers to which both religion and liberty were exposed under the government of James, would justify his conduct, and that he might be praised for remembering, with a truly Roman spirit, his duty to his country before his obligations to his patron. But, as Hume well observes, this defence requires that we should find on his part ever after the most upright, disinterested, and publicspirited behaviour. How difficult, then, does it become to excuse his defection when we find him, almost immediately after its success, taking measures to provide for a change of circumstances to stand well with the dethroned Court, should it be restored to have to plead the most ardent vows of repentance and attachment! How difficult when we find him betraying to the enemy

* Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. ii. p. 212, &c. ed. 1775.

1713.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH.

15

the secret expedition against Brest - when we find that expedition consequently failing and costing the lives of eight hundred British soldiers!* What defence can possibly be offered for such conduct! No other than that of Manlius when he pointed to the Capitol!

To the last, Marlborough persevered in these deplorable intrigues. To the last he professed unbounded devotion to the Courts both of Hanover and of St. Germains. Thus, for example, in April, 1713, he writes to the Elector: "I entreat you to be persuaded that I shall "be always ready to hazard my fortune and my life for "your service." In October of the same year we find him solemnly protesting to a Jacobite agent, that he had rather have his hands cut off than do anything prejudicial to King James's cause!† It may be observed, however, that a correspondence with the exiled family during the reign of Anne, though equally dangerous and hurtful to the public interests, was far less treacherous and disgraceful to the parties themselves than during the reign of William. The objects of the Jacobites had changed. Under William they wished to dethrone and expel the reigning monarch. Under Anne, on the contrary, their views were, in England at least, directed to the hope of her succession. When any of her Ministers, therefore, concurred in these views, they, at least, did not concur in any personal injury or insult to the sovereign whom they served. Nay, these views were more than suspected to be in accordance with Her Majesty's secret predilections.

It is to be observed, before I quit the subject of parties, that the Tories at this period were the more numerous,

*The secret letter of Marlborough to King James is printed by Macpherson, vol. i. p. 485. Coxe (vol. i. p. 76.) endeavours to defend him, by alleging that Marlborough knew that he had sent his intelligence too late to be of any service to the French. But this would only be a further refinement of perfidy. In the Memoirs alleged to be written by Fouché, and perhaps compiled in part from his notes, there is the boast of a similar course with respect to the plans of Napoleon, before the battle of Waterloo. See vol. ii. p. 342. ed. 1824.

† See Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. ii. pp. 442. and 488. It appears, also, from the Stuart Papers at Windsor, that the chief communications with the Duke of Marlborough, towards the close of Anne's reign, were carried on through the means of Mr. Tunstal, under the cant name of "Trevers." Marlborough's cant name was "Malbranche."