CHAP. I. 1713. 66 culty 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 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 instances 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 54,8251., and that the Duchess had, in offices and pensions, an additional sum of 9,500%.t-a sum, * See the Mémoires de Sevelinges, vol. i. p. 207. † A statement of the offices and emoluments enjoyed by the Duke of Marlborough: I. 1713.. I need hardly add, infinitely greater than could now CHAP. 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 extreme; 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 poli Travelling charges as Master of the Ordnance 1,825 Pension From the States of Holland, as General of their 2,000 - 10,000 (From Somerville, p. 260.) — Lord Dartmouth, probably with party exaggeration, says, "Her Grace and the Duke together "had above 90,000l. a year salary." Note to Burnet's Hist. vol. vi. p. 33. ed. 1833. I. 1713. CHAP. tics, 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 100l. per week, and 1500l. for equipage; in Portugal, Holland, Sweden, and the other Courts, 107. per diem and 10007. 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, * See Bolingbroke's Correspondence, vol. i. p. 114. I. "nor expect to receive," says Bolingbroke, in one CHAP. of his letters*, "any thing on account of the journey which I took last year by her Majesty's 1713. "order (into France); and, as to my regular ap 66 66 pointments, I do assure your Lordship 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 generation, 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 * To Lord Strafford, Aug. 7. 1713, vol. ii. p. 466. CHAP. 1713. "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 ?t 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 years, Speaker of the House of Commons. On quitting the Chair, in 1704, he was made Secretary of State, through the recommendation of Marlborough. He was, however, an object of suspicion to his other colleagues. "His humour," says Lord Chancellor Cowper at the time, "is never to deal clearly or openly, but always with reserve, if not dissimu 66 Memoirs relating to the Change, Works, vol. iii. p. 227. In his Journal to Stella, he describes Her Majesty's manner at a drawing-room: "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. |