66

advantage by Baron Bothmar in England, and by the Duchess of Kendal at Hanover. The former, as Townshend vehemently declared, "has every day some infamous project or other on foot to get money;' ." * in which he was most properly, but sometimes perhaps a little roughly and unguardedly, checked by that Minister. At this time especially, he appears to have had hopes of a considerable sum from the French lands in the island of St. Christopher, which had been ceded to England at the Peace of Utrecht†; and there is no doubt that his private correspondence with the King afforded him a full opportunity of retaliating upon those who caused his disappointment. The Duchess of Kendal, on her part, had undertaken, for what contemporaries term a considera"tion," but posterity a "bribe," to obtain a peerage for Sir Richard Child, a Tory member of the House of Commons; and she was not a little displeased with Townshend for counteracting, or at least delaying, that measure, and representing to the King how greatly the interests of his administration would suffer from the promotion of a decided political opponent.

66

Another no less formidable antagonist of the Prime Minister remains to be mentioned in one of his own colleagues, Charles Earl of Sunderland, at this time Lord Privy Seal. It is remarkable how frequently that family has held a leading position in the councils of the empire.

66

Coxe's

* Lord Townshend to Stanhope, Oct. 16. 1716, O. S. Walpole. At a later period I find the following character of Bothmar in a letter from Craggs:-"C'est bien le plus faible raisonneur sur les affaires que j'aie à mon avis connu de ma vie. Quand les "petits genies veulent faire les habiles gens ils ne manquent jamais "de tomber dans la mauvaise foi, comme les femmes qui veulent mal'gré nature être spirituelles, se jettent à corps perdu dans la médi66 sance." To Mr. Schaub, July 21. 1719. Hardwicke Papers,

66

vol. xxxvii.

f Walpole says upon this, in a letter to Stanhope of Sept. 28. 1716, O. S.;-"I understand by Bothmar that the King is pretty much "determined to have the whole produce at his own will and private "direction; and what is suggested to bring this matter immediately "into a transaction is the danger there may be that the Parliament may by some act or vote lay their hands upon it and prevent the 'King's intentions."-I find from the Commons' Journals that full returns on the value of these lands were moved for and ordered. April 12. 1717.

66

66

1716.

*

LORD SUNDERLAND.

237

To say nothing of the honours of Marlborough by female descent, we find Robert, the father of this Lord Sunderland, Prime Minister under James the Second; we find his great grandson First Lord of the Admiralty under George the Third; and his next descendant leader of the House of Commons under William the Fourth. The character of Earl Robert-false to his religion, to his friends, and to his country-is undefended, and I think indefensible. But the character of Earl Charles has, in my opinion, been unjustly depreciated; he has been confounded with his predecessor, and the perfidy of the parent has cast its blighting shade over the fame of the son. The father was a subtle, pliant, and unscrupulous candidate for Royal favour. The son carried his love of popular rights to the very verge of republican doctrines. If he be sometimes open to charges of secret cabals, we find him much more frequently accused of imprudent vehemence and bluntness. According to Lord Dartmouth, "Queen Anne said Lord Sunderland always "treated her with great rudeness and neglect, and chose "to reflect in a very injurious manner upon all Princes "before her, as a proper entertainment for her."† Even his own father-in-law, the Duke of Marlborough, thinking him too hasty and incautious, had, in 1706, dissuaded his appointment as Secretary of State, and only yielded at length to the entreaties of his friends, and to the positive commands of the Duchess. The post of Secretary of State was filled by him till June, 1710, with much talent and success; and on being dismissed from office, he refused the Queen's proposal of a pension of 3000l. a year for life, declaring that if he could not have the honour of serving his country he would not plunder ita degree of generosity which, in those times, was very *"Lord Sunderland is said to have too much resembled, as a 'politician, the Earl his father." (Lord Orford's Works, vol. iv. p. 287.) This vague imputation is followed by a strange story about his consulting his rival Sir Robert Walpole, as to the restoration of the Stuarts; a story which I concur with Mr. Hallam (Const. Hist. vol. iii. p. 336.) in rejecting as utterly incredible.

† Note on Burnet's History, vol. vi. p. 9.

See Coxe's Life, vol. iii. p. 88., &c. Marlborough at length said to his wife, "I have writ as my friends would have me, for I had "much rather be governed than govern." August 9. 1706.

far from being common or expected. He was undoubtedly a man of great quickness, discernment, and skill; of a persevering ambition, of a ready eloquence. Under the snow of a cold and reserved exterior there glowed the volcano of an ardent and fiery spirit, a warm attachment to his friends, and an unsparing rancour against his opponents. His learning is not denied even by the enmity of Swift*, and his activity in business seems to be equally unquestionable. In private life he might be accused of extravagance and love of play†, and his conduct in more than one public transaction appears to me either equivocal or blamable; but I may observe that several points for which he was condemned by his contemporaries, would, on the contrary, deserve the approbation of more enlightened times. Thus, for example, I find in a letter from the Duke of Grafton when LordLieutenant of Ireland :— "Lord Sunderland carried the "compliment to this country too far, by choosing out of "the natives all the chief and most of the other Judges, "and the Bishops too, which has been attended with very "mischievous consequences to the English interest.”‡

At the accession of George the First, Sunderland, conscious of his talents and his services, proud of the high places he had already filled, and relying on the eminent claims of his father-in-law, had expected to be the head of the new administration. It even appears that he intimated to Baron Bothmar his wish of being appointed Secretary of State, and that Bothmar, at one moment, was inclined to recommend him for that office.§ It was with bitter disappointment that he found his name, and that of Marlborough, omitted in the list of the Lords Justices during the King's absence. It was with still more chagrin that he afterwards saw himself placed beneath Lord Townshend, who had hitherto, in all public transactions, been subordinate to him. The Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland, which was bestowed upon him, by no means satisfied his craving for power; he *See Swift's Works, vol. x. p. 304.

Coxe's Marlborough, vol. vi. p. 342.

This letter is dated Dec. 29. 1723, and is printed in Coxe's Walpole.

§ Macpherson's State Papers, vol. ii. p. 641.

1716.

SUNDERLAND AND STANHOPE.

239

accepted it with sullenness; he never went over for the discharge of its duties; and, on the death of the Marquis of Wharton, was permitted to exchange it for the post of Privy Seal and a seat in the Cabinet. Still, however, excluded from real authority, and still, therefore, discontented and restless, he, in a great measure, seceded from his colleagues, and took no part for their defence or assistance in the House of Lords. During the two first years of George's reign, his name scarcely ever occurs in the proceedings of that assembly. Meanwhile he attached to himself several of the seceders that now began, from various causes, to fall off from the great Whig party, more especially Lord Cadogan, Hampden, and Lechmere, and was prepared to use every opportunity for the overthrow of a Cabinet to which he still continued to belong.

In the month of July, Sunderland had been allowed by the King to go to Aix-la-Chapelle, to drink the waters. Walpole writes upon this to Stanhope: "Lord Sunder

"lands talks of leaving England in a fortnight, and, to "be sure, will not be long from you. He seems very "pressing to have instructions from us how to behave at "Hanover. His professions for an entire reconciliation "and a perfect union are as strong as words can express, "and you may be sure are reciprocal; and when I con"sider that common interest should procure sincerity 66 among us, I am astonished to think there is reason to "fear the contrary." ""* Accordingly, from Aix-la-Chapelle, Sunderland wrote for leave to proceed to Hanover; and this permission Stanhope used his influence to obtain from the King. An implied censure is cast upon Stanhope by a modern writer, as if he had acted treacherously towards Townshend and Walpole, in promoting instead of opposing, the application of their dissatisfied colleague.† But surely, on the contrary, it is evident, from the passage already cited in Walpole's letter, that such an application had been foreseen and reckoned upon in London—that Sunderland, far from making his journey to Hanover a secret, had asked Walpole for advice as to his conduct

*Walpole to Stanhope, July 30. 1716, O. S. In another letter of Aug. 30. O. S., he says still more positively, "Lord Sunderland has "left us, and will be soon with you."

† See Coxe's Walpole, vol. i. p. 96.

there-and that Walpole never requested Stanhope to hinder his progress. It is no less clear, from the mere fact of retaining this well-known antagonist in the Cabinet and in the office of Privy Seal, how necessary it was thought to keep on good terms with him. And, still further, Stanhope's recommendation rests on no external testimony, but on his own: he was so far from wishing to conceal it, as he might easily have done, had he pleased, that he mentioned it the same day to Lord Townshend's secretary with all the confidence of upright intentions. "I prevailed, this morning, for leave that Lord Sunder"land should come hither after drinking the waters of "Aix. He had writ to me for leave; and you will easily imagine, if it had not been granted, where the fault "would have been laid; so I did really press it, and ob"tained it with difficulty.'

When once at Hanover, Sunderland assiduously applied himself to gain the favour of the King and the friendship of Stanhope, and not without success. The misunderstanding which arose with Townshend gave him an excellent opportunity to fill up, as it were, the gap left vacant in the confidence of both the Monarch and the Minister. He attended the Court to Gohre, and was there when, on the 11th of November, Stanhope tendered his resignation. So far from accepting it, the King caused Stanhope to write, under his own eye, and in French, a letter to Townshend, expressing grave displeasure at the delays of the French treaty, and requiring an immediate explanation. Orders were, likewise, sent to prorogue the Parliament, and to postpone the public business, until His Majesty's return. On that day Sunderland also wrote to Townshend to the same effect, but without authority from the King, and in a very rough and peremptory tone, thus showing, at once, how imperious was his temper, and how great was the influence he had already acquired over the mind of his sovereign.† The explanations of the Prime Minister were not long

*Letter to Poyntz, September 8. 1716. Coxe's Walpole.

See Stanhope's and Sunderland's letters in Coxe's Walpole, vol. ii. p. 126-128. I have already made some extracts from the former in explaining the grounds for the suspicions of Lord Townshend. The King himself also wrote to Lord Townshend on the same day, but his letter is not preserved.