1713. THE NATIONAL DEBT. 19 with Gallicisms. The letters of Marlborough, especially, appear written by a Frenchman. Thus, for example, he uses the word "opiniatrety" for obstinacy, and "to defend" instead of to forbid.* At the peace of Utrecht, the population of England was not much above five millions.** It may be doubted whether that of Scotland exceeded one million***, or that of Ireland, two; although I need hardly observe how far less accurately and carefully such calculations were made in those days. It is certain, however, that the rural inhabitants of England then very far outnumbered those in the towns; but the latter having since increased in a much greater proportion, more especially in the manufacturing districts, the two classes have come nearly to an equality†; a change which has, I fear, involved within it the germ of other changes. The national debt, at the accession of Anne, had been only 16,000,000l., with an interest of 1,300,000l. In 1714, it had grown to 52,000,000l., with an interest of 3,300,000l.†† By the accounts presented to Parliament in that year, it appeared that the expense of the late war during twelve years, amounted to nearly 69,000,000l., making a yearly average of above five millions and a half.+++ The debts, during this period, seem to have been contracted on very moderate terms. Lord Treasurer Godolphin observes, in See Coxe's Life, vol. iv. pp. 229. 243, &c. The duty on the importation of unbound foreign books into England from June, 1711, to June, 1712, amounted only to 1201. 15s., and in the ensuing year to 192l. 3s. (Commons' Journals, vol. xvii. p. 605.) That duty which had been doubled in 1711, appears to have been 60 per cent. ad valorem. (Ibid. p. 642.) **See the Preface to the 1st. vol. of the Population Returns, 1831, p. 45. According to the calculations of Mr. Finlaison, the population of England and Wales in 1710 was 5,066,000, and in 1700, 5,134,000, thus showing a decrease of 68,000 in ten years. It is remarkable that all the periods of ten years between 1710 and 1830, when the population had grown to 13,800,000, exhibit, on the contrary, a steady and progressive increase. Will the wars of Queen Anne's reign account for the difference? But then, what shall we say to the wars of the French Revolution? *** Yet Fletcher of Saltoun estimated the number of gipsies in Scotland at not less than 200,000! A monstrous exaggeration! See Colquhoun's Wealth and Resources, p. 23. tt Ibid. p. 265. ttt Parliamentary History, vol. vi. p. 1346. one of his letters, in 1706: "Though the land and trade both "of England and Holland have excessive burthens upon "them, yet the credit continues good, both with us and with "them; and we can, either of us, borrow money at four or "five per cent.; whereas, the finances of France are so much "more exhausted, that they are forced to give 20 and 25 per "cent. for every penny of money they send out of the king"dom, unless they send it in specie."* In 1709, the supplies voted exceeded seven millions, a sum that was unparalleled, und seemed enormous.** In fact, though these sums at present may appear light in our eyes, they struck the subjects of Anne with the utmost astonishment and horror. "Fifty millions of debt, and six millions of taxes!" exclaims Swift: "the High Allies have been the ruin of us!" Bolingbroke points out, with dismay, that the public revenue, in neat money, amounted, at the Revolution, to no more than two millions annually; and the public debts, that of the bankers included, to little more than three hundred thousand pounds. Speaking of a later period, and of a debt of thirty millions, he calls it "a sum that will appear incredible to fu"ture generations, and is so almost to the present!" It is, I hope, with no undue partiality, that I venture to remark, how much juster and more correct on this point were the views of Secretary Stanhope. In the minutes of a conference which he held in 1716, with Abbé Dubois, I find the following remark recorded of him: "However large our national "debt may be thought, it will undoubtedly increase much "more, and believe me, it will not hereafter cause greater "difficulty to the government, or uneasiness to the people, "than it does at present." *** But, though we might astonish our great-grandfathers at the high amount of our public income, they may astonish us at the high amount of their public salaries. The service of the country was then a service of vast emolument. In the * Letter to the Duke of Marlborough, dated Sept. 24. 1706, and printed in the 3d volume of Coxe's Life. ** Somerville's Queen Anne. p. 334. *** See the Mémoires de Sevelinges, vol. i. p. 207. 1713. HIGH AMOUNT OF SALARIES. 21 first place, the holder of almost every great office was entitled to plate; secondly, the rate of salaries, even when nominally no larger than at present, was, in fact, two or three times more considerable from the intermediate depreciation of money. But even nominally, many offices were then of higher value, and when two or more were conferred upon the same person, he, contrary to the present practice, received the profits of all. As the most remarkable instance of this fact, I may mention the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough. Exclusive of Blenheim, of Parliamentary grants, of gifts, of marriage portions from the Queen to their daughters, it appears that the fixed yearly income of the Duke, at the height of his favour, was no less than 54,8257., and the Duchess had, in offices and pensions, an additional sum of 9,500 * a sum, I need hardly add, infinitely greater than could now be awarded to the highest favour or the most eminent achievements. There can be no doubt that the former scale was unduly high: but it may be questioned whether we are not at present running into another as dangerous ex * A statement of the offices and emoluments enjoyed by the Duke of Marlborough: Plenipotentiary to the States General for the English forces on Mr. How's establishment Travelling charges as Master of the Ordnance Colonel of the Foot Guards, being twenty-four companies Per annum. £7,000 5,000 5,000 3,000 1,825 2,000 5,000 From the States of Holland, as General of their Forces 10,000 15,000 1,000 £54,825 Lord Dartmouth, probably with party ex aggeration, says, "Her Grace and the Duke together had above 90,000l. a แ 'year salary." Note to Burnet's Hist. vol. vi. p. 33. ed. 1833. £1,500 1,500 1,500 3,000 2,000 £9,500 treme; whether by diminishing so much the emoluments of public service, we are not deterring men with genius, but without fortune, from entering the career of politics, and forcing them rather to betake themselves to some lucrative profession; whether the greatest abilities may not thereby be diverted from the public service; whether we are not tending to the principle that no man, without a large private property, is fit to be a Minister of State; whether we may not, therefore, subject ourselves to the worst of all aristocracies, an aristocracy of money; whether we may not practically lose one of the proudest boasts of the British Constitution under which great talent, however penniless or lowborn, not only may raise, but frequently has raised, itself above the loftiest of our Montagus or Howards. In Queen Anne's time the diplomatic salaries were regulated according to a scale established in 1669. Ambassadors-ordinary in France, Spain, and the Emperor's Court, had 1007. a day, and 1500 l. for equipage; in Portugal, Holland, Sweden, and the other Courts, 107. a day and 1000l. for equipage. Ambassadors-extraordinary had every where the same allowances as the Ambassadors - ordinary, and differed only in the equipage money, which was to be determined by the Sovereign according to the occasion.* Considering the difference in the value of money, such posts also were undoubtedly more lucrative and advantageous than at present. But, on the other hand, these salaries and sometimes even those of the civil government at home were very irregularly paid, and often in arrear. "I neither "have received, nor expect to receive," says Bolingbroke, in one of his letters,** "any thing on account of the journey "which I took last year by Her Majesty's order (into France); "and, as to my regular appointments, I do assure your Lord"ship I have heard nothing of them these two years." Ministerial or Parliamentary corruption-at least so far as foreign Powers were concerned - - did not in this genera See Bolingbroke's Correspondence, vol. i. p. 114. 1713. THE LORD TREASURER OXFORD. 23 tion, as in the last, sully the annals of England. Thus, for example, shamefully as the English interests were betrayed at the peace of Utrecht by the English Ministers, there is yet no reason whatever to suspect that they, like the patriots of Charles the Second's reign, had received presents or "gratifications" from Louis the Fourteenth. Should we ascribe this change to the difference of the periods or of the persons? Was the era of the peace of Utrecht really preferable to that of 1679, hailed by Blackstone as the zenith of our constitutional excellence? Or were Bolingbroke and Oxford more honest statesmen than Littleton and Algernon Sidney? In reviewing the chief characters which we find at this period on the political stage, that of the Queen need not detain us long. She was a very weak woman, full of prejudices, fond of flattery, always governed blindly by some female favourite, and, as Swift bitterly observes, "had not "a stock of amity to serve above one object at a time."** Can it be necessary to waste many words upon the mind of a woman who could give as a reason a lady's reason! for dismissing a Cabinet Minister, that he had appeared before her in a tie-wig instead of a full-bottom?*** Is it not evident that in such a case we must study the advisers and not the character of a sovereign that we must look to the setting rather than to the stone? Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford, and at this time Lord Treasurer and Prime Minister, is one of the most remarkable examples in history, how it is possible to attain both popularity and power without either genius or virtue. Born in 1661, and bred in Presbyterian principles, which, however, he was not slow in forsaking, he entered Parliament soon after the accession of King William, and was, during four Comment. vol. iv. p. 439. ed. by Coleridge, 1825. ** Memoirs relating to the Change, Works, vol. iii. p. 227. In his Journal to Stella, he describes Her Majesty's manner at a drawingroom: "She looked at us round with her fan in her mouth, and once a "minute said about three words to some that were nearest her, and then she was told dinner was ready, and went out." August 8, 1711 *** Scott's Life of Swift, p. 165. |