1719. RETURN OF KING GEORGE FROM HANOVER.

369

valent for their conquests. And thus, in 1720, of the five Powers leagued against Sweden, none except the Czar remained in arms.

It is not to be supposed that these negotiations, either with Spain or Sweden, were carried on without frequent rubs and jars from the Hanoverian faction. A letter of Craggs at this period lifts up a corner of the veil which the loyalty of the Ministers hung over the frailties of the favourites. He inveighs most severely against the undue power and selfish views of Bernsdorf, and the extreme rapacity of all the Germans. "It is incredible," he adds, "what prejudice all these sales of offices do to the King's "service; for, to complete our misfortunes, I have re"marked that there is no distinction of persons or circum"stances Jacobites, Tories, Papists, at the Exchange "or in the Church, by land or by sea, during the Session or "in the Recess; nothing is objected to, provided there is "money...... You see that at the rate we are now going on, "Lord Stanhope is on the point of resigning every day. It "is possible that his friends may continue in out of pure re"spect to the King, but without hoping to do the least "good." **There is certainly much passion and exaggeration in this picture; but still Lord Chesterfield's bitter sarcasm was not quite without some pretext, when he said some years afterwards, "If we have a mind effectually to "prevent the Pretender from ever obtaining this crown, we "should make him Elector of Hanover, for the people "of England will never fetch another King from thence!"***

King George arrived in London from his German states on the 14th of November, and opened Parliament in person nine days afterwards. The first and most important measure of the Session was the celebrated Peerage Bill, which had

* "S. M. Danoise qui n'a pas un ducat pour défrayer ses besoins, est-il 66 encore capable de refuser de bonnes sommes? Si on augmente la dose je 66 'ne le croirai jamais!" (Craggs to Schaub Oct. 13. 1719. Hardwicke Papers, vol. xxxvii.)

**Secretary Craggs to Mr. Schaub, June 30. 1719. Appendix. *** H. Walpole's Letters to Sir H. Mann, December 9. 1742. Mahon, History. I.

24

already been brought forward in the previous winter; but which I have not noticed till now, in order to present a more clear and connected account of it.

The creation of twelve Peers to establish a majority for the Court had been justly reprobated in Lord Oxford's administration, and had formed an article in his impeachment. The punishment of the wrongdoer might be sufficient to satisfy the multitude; but reflecting men would naturally consider whether any means existed to prevent the recurrence of the wrong, or whether the danger might not be more tolerable than the remedy. It was the remembrance of that outrage which first gave rise to the project of limiting the King's prerogative in the creation of Peers. But this, like other projects for the improvement of the constitution might have remained dormant for a considerable time, had it not been quickened by the personal difficulties and fears of Ministers. The German favourites, hungering for titles and honours, were constantly pressing to repeal the limitations of the Act of Settlement; and a restraint upon new creations of Peers would have been very useful as a further and final barrier against their selfish ambition. A still more powerful motive was supplied by the unhappy division in the Royal Family. The exasperation of the Prince of Wales, and some incautious expressions ascribed to him, made Stanhope and Sunderland apprehend his measures on coming to the throne; and Sunderland did not hesitate to tell Lord Midleton, the Chancellor of Ireland, when attempting to persuade him, that "ridiculous not to say mad "things would be done in case of a certain event."* Nor was it expected that the measure would encounter any very formidable opposition. The King was easily induced, by jealousy of his son, and the total absence of any arbitrary views on his own part, to consent to relinquish this great branch of the Royal prerogative; in fact, he gave the measure not merely his cold consent, but his hearty concurrence. The Lords, it was thought, would readily pass a * Lord Midleton's Minutes, Coxe's Walpole.

1719.

THE PEERAGE BILL.

371

measure which so highly raised their individual importance. In the Commons the Tories would no doubt oppose it; but the Whigs had a vast majority; and the chief members of that party, whether in office or in opposition, had repeatedly inveighed against the unconstitutional measure of Lord Oxford, and urged that the Crown ought in future to be debarred from a prerogative which had once so seriously endangered the liberties, not only of England, but of Europe. It was therefore with no unreasonable confidence of victory, that the measure was proposed.

On the 28th of February the Duke of Somerset, the first Protestant Peer, called the attention of the House of Lords to this subject, and gave the first idea of the intended Bill. He was seconded by the Duke of Argyle, and opposed by the Earl of Oxford. Two days afterwards Lord Stanhope brought down a Message from the King, that "His Majesty "had so much at heart the settling the Peerage of the whole "kingdom upon such a foundation as may secure the free"dom and constitution of Parliament in all future ages, that "he is willing his prerogative stand not in the way of so great "and necessary a work." Accordingly on the 3d of March, the Lords, in a Committee of the whole House, discussed eleven Resolutions, which were proposed as the ground-work of the future Bill. By these it was provided, that the English Peers should not be increased beyond six of their present number, with an exception in favour of Princes of the Blood; that for every extinction there might be a new creation; that no peerages should kereafter be granted for any longer tenure than to the grantee, and to the heirs male of his body; that instead of the sixteen elective Peers from Scotland, the King should name twenty-five as hereditary from that part of the kingdom; and that this number, on the failure of heirs male, should be supplied from the remaining Scottish Peers.

this

It is remarkable, that the debate which arose upon plan seems to have turned exclusively upon the Scottish portion of it. Lord Cowper forcibly argued that "what was in

"tended to be done with relation to the Scottish Peerage 66 was a manifest violation of the Treaty of Union, and the "highest piece of injustice; and that the Scottish Peers who "should be excluded from the number of the twenty-five "hereditary would be in a worse condition than any other "subject, since they would be neither representing nor re"presented." On the other part, it was maintained by the Dukes of Roxburgh and Montrose, "that the settling the "Peerage in the manner proposed was rather a benefit than "a disadvantage to the Scottish Peerage, whose representa"tives were thereby increased by nine; and as for those "Peers who, for the present, would be excluded, they would "afterwards have a chance to come in upon failure of any of "the twenty-five." Lord Townshend, the leader of the Whigs in opposition, and Lord Nottingham, who guided a small section of the Tories, both declared that they were not against limiting the Peerage, but only against the doing it in a manner which, in their opinion, was unjust; and in fact, it may be observed, that the Scottish clauses were by no means required for the general object of the Bill. On a division, however, the entire Resolutions were carried by 83 votes against 30.

A Bill on these principles was accordingly brought in, and it passed through most of its stages without further opposition. But a considerable ferment had meanwhile arisen out of doors; and on the 14th of April, the day appointed for the third reading, Stanhope declared, "that this Bill had "made a great noise and raised strange apprehensions; and "since the design of it had been so misrepresented, and so "misunderstood that it was likely to meet with great opposi"tion in the other House, he thought it advisable to let that "matter lie still till a more proper opportunity." The Bill was accordingly dropped for that Session, with the declared purpose of reviving it in the next.

During this interval it may well be supposed that neither the friends nor the adversaries of the Bill were idle. An eager war of pens had already begun. One of the pamphlets

1719.

TRUE OBJECT OF THE PEERAGE.

373

against the measure was written by Walpole; but the palms of this political controversy were undoubtedly borne away by Addison on the one side, and by Steele on the other. Addison supported the Bill in a paper called "The Old Whig;" a powerful argument, and his last dying effort, for he expired not many weeks afterwards. He was ably answered by Steele, under the name of the "Plebeian;" Addison rejoined; and it is painful to find that these two accomplished friends, after such long and cordial intimacy, should not only be estranged in sentiment, but indulge in personal reflections on each other. It was the object of the Old Whig to show that in ancient times no such unlimited prerogative of creating Peers had been vested in the Crown - that the abuse of that prerogative in the late reign called aloud for its limitation - and that the Commons would be more truly independent, and less liable to corrupt influence, when the Crown could no longer hold out to their chief members a prospect of hereditary honours. On the other hand, the Plebeian proved that the Bill tended to establish an unmitigated aristocracy, and pointed out the evils attendant on that form of government. The subject appears of so much Constitutional importance, that the reader will perhaps forgive me for offering some thoughts both on the question itself, and on the true principle and object of the Peerage.

Even in very early stages of society, the evils of pure despotism and of pure democracy were severely felt, and found to be nearly akin. The same violent bursts of passion, the same sudden changes of purpose, and the same blind fondness for favourites, which are the vices of a single tyrant, were seen no less to prevail in the assemblies of the sovereign people. "When once democracy," says Thucydides, "became unrestrained at Athens, rival statesmen ap"plied themselves only to please the multitude, and let go "the care of the commonwealth."* In absolute monarchies, likewise, men looked rather to the favour of the sovereign than to the service of the state. In both cases, therefore,

* Hist. lib. ii. c. 65.