THE

HISTORY OF ENGLAND

FROM

THE PEACE OF UTRECHT.

CHAPTER I.

THE administration of Marlborough and Godolphin, in the reign of Queen Anne, shines forth with peculiar lustre in our annals. No preceding one, perhaps, had ever comprised so many great men or achieved so many great actions. Besides its two eminent chiefs, it could boast of the mild yet lofty wisdom of Somers, the matured intellect of Halifax, and the rising abilities of Walpole. At another time, also, the most subtle statesman and the most accomplished speaker of their age, Harley and St. John, were numbered in its ranks. It had struck down the overgrown power of France. It had saved Germany, and conquered Flanders. "But at length," says Bishop Fleetwood, with admirable eloquence, "God for our sins permitted the spirit of discord to go forth, and, by troubling sore the camp, the city, and the country (and "oh that it had altogether spared the place sacred to his worship!) to spoil for a time this beautiful and pleasing prospect, and give us in its stead I know not what. "Our enemies will tell the rest with pleasure." To our enemies, indeed, I would willingly leave the task of recording the disgraceful transactions of that period. Let them relate the bedchamber influence of Mrs. Masham

66

66

66

with her sovereign, and the treacherous cabals of Harley against his colleagues by what unworthy means the great administration of Godolphin was sapped and overthrown - how his successors surrendered the public interests to serve their own-how subserviency to France became our leading principle of policy - how the Dutch were forsaken and the Catalans betrayed - until at length this career of wickedness and weakness received its consummation in the shameful peace of Utrecht. It used to be observed, several centuries ago, that as the English always had the better of the French in battles, so the French always had the better of the English in treaties.* But here it was a sin against light; not the ignorance which is deluded, but the falsehood which deludes. We may, perhaps, admit that it might be expedient to depart from the strict letter of the Grand Alliance to consent to some dismemberment of the Spanish monarchy to purchase the resignation of Philip, or allow an equivalent for the Elector of Bavaria by the cession of Sicily and Sardinia, or, perhaps, of Naples. So many hands had grasped at the royal mantle of Spain, that it could scarcely be otherwise than rent in the struggle. But how can the friends of Bolingbroke and Oxford possibly explain or excuse that they should offer far better terms at Utrecht in 1712, than the French had been willing to accept at Gertruydenberg in 1709? Or if the dismissal of the Duke of Marlborough had so far raised the spirits of our enemies and impaired the chances of the war, how is that dismissal itself to be defended?

It is at the conclusion of this unworthy treaty in March, 1713, and not till then, that I have fixed the commencement of my narrative.

At that period the two great contending parties were distinguished, as at present, by the nicknames of Whig and Tory. But it is very remarkable that, in Queen Anne's

66

"Jamais ne se mena traité entre les François et Anglois que le "sens des François et leur habileté ne se monstrat pardessus celle des Anglois, et ont lesdits Anglois un mot commun qu'autrefois m'ont "dit traitant avec eux; c'est qu'aux batailles qu'ils ont eues avec les François toujours, ou le plus souvent, ils ont eu le gain; mais en "tous traitez qu'ils ont eu à conduire avec eux, ils y ont eu perte et "dommage." (Mém. de Comines, liv. iii. ch viii.)

66

1713.

WHIGS AND TORIES.

7

reign, the relative meaning of these terms was not only different, but opposite to that which they bore at the accession of William the Fourth. In theory, indeed, the main principle of each continues the same.. The leading principle of the Tories is the dread of popular licentiousness. The leading principle of the Whigs is the dread of Royal encroachment. It may thence, perhaps, be deduced that good and wise men would attach themselves either to the Whig or to the Tory party, according as there seemed to be the greater danger at that particular period from despotism or from democracy. The same person who would have been a Whig in 1712, would have been a Tory in 1830. For, on examination, it will be found that, in nearly all particulars, a modern Tory resembles a Whig of Queen Anne's reign, and a Tory of Queen Anne's reign a modern Whig.*

It is, therefore, a certain and a very curious fact, that the representative at this time of any great Whig family, who probably imagines that he is treading in the footsteps of his forefathers, in reality, while adhering to their party name, is acting against almost every one of their party principles.

I am far, however, from wishing to impute this change as an inconsistency, or want of principle, in either Whigs or Tories. The current of party often carries men very far, and almost imperceptibly, from the point where they first embarked; and what we scarcely blame even in individuals, we cannot, of course, condemn in successive generations. And in all the variations the name is commonly the last thing that is changed: a remark which Paley makes of religion †, and which is equally true in politics.

Besides these two great party divisions, there was also, in the reign of Anne, a handful of Republicans and a large body of Jacobites. The former generally screened themselves under the name of Whigs, as the latter under the name of Tories. But the former, comprising at that time only a few of the more violent Dissenters, and a remnant of the Roundheads, possessed hardly any influence, and

* Some instances and illustrations of this remarkable counterchange will be found in the Appendix to this volume, ad fin. † Moral Philosophy, book v. ch. x.

deserves but little detail. Nay, even amongst that small party which was taunted as Republican, by far the greater number are not to be understood as positive enemies of the Throne. They wished both the monarchy and peerage to subsist, though with diminished authority. It is true, that the term of Republican Party was perpetually in the mouth of the Tories and the courtiers. But this, which at first sight might make us believe in its strength, is, in fact, only another proof of its weakness; since the idea of a Republic was so generally hateful to the nation as to afford a useful byword for crimination. "It may "be confidently asserted," says Mr. Hallam, of the reign of William, "that no Republican party had any existence, "if by that word we are to understand a set of men whose "object was the abolition of our limited monarchy. . . . "I believe it would be difficult to name five persons to "whom even a speculative preference of a Commonwealth may, with great probability, be ascribed."* It is surely no small proof how severely the people had suffered under the old Commonwealth, to find that, with all the misconduct of the succeeding reigns, that Commonwealth had left no roots nor offsets behind it.

The Jacobites, on the other hand, were at this time a most numerous and powerful party. To explain their principles and conduct will require a short historical retrospect.

The Revolution of 1688 is an event of which the English have long been justly proud. While James the Second continued a constitutional monarch, they continued a loyal people. They were neither rebellious under just authority, nor submissive under despotic encroachments. They took up arms neither too late nor too soon. If their conduct be compared with that of any other people, under similar circumstances, it may well be doubted whether any ever so completely and so admirably fulfilled their conflicting duties as subjects and as freemen.

On deposing and banishing James the Second, the proclamation of his infant son as King, with the Prince of Orange, or one of the Princesses as Regent, would un

* Constitutional Hist. vol. iii. p. 164. 3d ed.

1713.

THE JACOBITES.

9

doubtedly, in my opinion, have been the natural and proper course. But the doubts entertained at that time of the Prince of Wales's legitimacy - his removal into an enemy's country - the probability of his education as a Roman Catholic- the firm determination of William to decline a temporary trust — and the necessity of making England, in his hands, an active member of the Confederacy for maintaining the Liberties of Europe - all these prevented a compromise else so just and salutary. The result was, a vast extension of party feuds, sixty years of national division, and three civil wars. party of the Jacobites, which would otherwise have been utterly insignificant, and soon have ceased to exist at all, grew into a large and formidable power; and the discussion turned no longer, as it should have done, on the personal guilt of James, but on the inherent right of his

son.

The

It is also very remarkable, that even over those minds which had utterly disavowed any such inherent right, the tenet still exercised a latent but considerable influence. Compare the style of the leading statesmen of the day in addressing James the Second and his successor. Even in the worst actions of James, we find even the Opposition using more respectful and deferential language towards him than William, in the fulness of power, often received from his own official servants. They entertained, unconsciously, a sort of feeling that the Prince of Orange was not their rightful ruler. And how much stronger must that feeling have been amidst the multitude, which is so much less capable of appreciating arguments or drawing distinctions - which respects laws or institutions from their antiquity so much more than from their wisdom! How should this feeling warn the nations never lightly, nor without full provocation, to cast off the sway of their rulers! How does it show that, in many cases, a bad King with a good title may be happier for the state than a good King with a bad title!

Thus the Revolution, though undoubtedly a great and glorious event, was nevertheless attended with no small

* See especially the letters to the King of Admiral Russell in the Shrewsbury Correspondence, and those of Lord Sunderland in the Hardwicke Papers. Nothing can be more blunt and insolent.