VIII. 1717. perhaps, private cabals, soon led to public reserve, CHAP. to utter silence in the House of Commons, or to faint and formal support. On the motion of granting his Majesty a supply against Sweden, it was expected by the Government that Walpole, named as he had been in the Swedish correspondence, would have felt it incumbent upon him to show peculiar zeal and energy. But, on the contrary, his unwillingness and dissatisfaction were apparent ; and though he himself spoke in favour of the motion*, yet he seems to have done so coldly and shortly; and all his and Townshend's personal adherents, known to act according to his advice and direction, voted on the opposite side. They were, of course, joined in this policy by the whole body of Jacobites, Tories, and discontented Whigs, and prevailed so far that, on the division, the motion for a supply was carried by a majority of only four- the numbers being 153 against 149. No Government could possibly close its eyes or restrain its hands from the authors of so insidious an attack; and coming as it did from the party of which Lord Townshend was called the leader, it was necessary to make an example of that nobleman. The state of the case was immediately laid before the King; and, according to his Majesty's directions, Secretary Stanhope, on the same evening * Coxe is mistaken in saying that Walpole in this debate "maintained a profound silence." (Life, p. 106.) Both Robert and Horace Walpole spoke for the Supply. (Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 439.) VIII. CHAP. of the division, the 9th of April, wrote a letter to Lord Townshend, acknowledging his past services, but announcing his dismissal from the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. If Stanhope and Sunderland had formed any similar intention against Walpole, it was anticipated by that minister, who, early next morning, waited on his Majesty to resign his places of First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. George showed great regret at parting with so able a servant, and endeavoured to persuade him to keep his post, using many kind expressions, and several times pressing the seals back upon him; but Walpole, though moved even to tears by his Majesty's goodness, remained firm in his determination. His example was followed the same morning by Methuen and Pulteney, and, a few days afterwards, by Lord Orford and the Duke of Devonshire. Stanhope was appointed First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sunderland and Addison Secretaries of State, James Craggs Secretary at War, the Earl of Berkeley First Lord of the Admiralty, the Duke of Newcastle Lord Chamberlain, and the Duke of Bolton Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland: Lord Cowper and the Duke of Kingston remaining in their places. The loss of Walpole was severely felt by the new administration. His influence with the House of Commons, and his reputation with the public, had greatly risen, and he was superior to Stanhope both in power of debate and in knowledge of VIII. 1717. finance. His late conduct, however, exposed him CHAP. to many angry reflections; his cabal against his colleagues was termed "a criminal conspiracy," and his withdrawing from the Government, “a "defection;" and these charges appear to have induced him, during the first few days, to pursue a very moderate course. When Stanhope proposed to fix the subsidy against Sweden at 250,000l., and when Pulteney thundered against "a German ministry," Walpole closed the debate, and turned it in favour of the Government by observing, that having already spoken in favour of the supply, he should now give the Court his vote. Soon afterwards he took an opportunity to promise in the House of Commons, that "the tenor of his con"duct should show he never intended to make "the King uneasy, nor to embarrass his affairs."* But never, certainly, was any profession so utterly belied in performance. Almost from the moment he left the Treasury until the moment he returned to it, he uniformly and bitterly opposed every measure of the Government. No regard for the public, no feeling for his own consistency, ever withheld him. He unscrupulously leagued himself with Shippen, Wyndham, Bromley, and other decided enemies to the reigning dynasty, insomuch that Shippen, on one occasion, expressed his satisfaction that his friend Walpole was no more afraid than himself of being called a Jacobite. * Parliamentary History, vol. vii. p. 446. and 449. VIII. 1717. CHAP. He had made a warm opposition to the Schism Bill at its passing, saying that it rather resembled a decree of Julian the Apostate, than a law of a Protestant Parliament; yet he no less strenuously resisted the repeal of that very law when proposed by Stanhope. We shall find him, who had been one of the prime movers of Oxford's impeachment, contriving a legal difficulty, and assisting that minister's escape. We shall find him joining the vulgar outcry against a standing army, and declaring that 12,000 men were fully sufficient at the very time when he well knew the country to be in danger of another insurrection, and of invasions both from Sweden and from Spain. We shall find him, so acute and practical a statesman, not ashamed to argue against that necessary measure the Mutiny Bill, and exclaiming, in the heat of debate, "He "that is for blood shall have blood!" In short, his conduct out of office is indefensible, or, at least, is undefended even by his warmest partisans *; and, in looking through our Parliamentary annals, I scarcely know where to find any parallel of coalitions so unnatural, and of opposition so factious.t The character of a statesman so reckless in opposition, but so eminent in office, deserves the most attentive consideration, and affords the best clue to the history of England for more than twenty * See the reflections of Speaker Onslow and of Archdeacon Coxe (Memoirs, vol. i. p. 110., and vol. ii. p. 551.) + This observation was written before February, 1835. VIII. 1717. years. During his life he was loaded with unme- CHAP. rited censures; since his death he has sometimes received exaggerated praise. Amidst the showers of invective which his enemies have poured, amidst the clouds of incense which his flatterers have raised, the true lineaments of his mind are dimly and doubtfully seen; and I should have failed far more completely in my attempt to give an impartial representation of them, but for the kindness of a most eminent man, who has condescended to point out several errors in my first impressions, and to send me his own matured reflections on this subject. Robert Walpole was born in 1676, of an ancient gentleman's family in Norfolk. His natural indolence would probably have overpowered and kept down his natural abilities, had he not been a third son, and seen the necessity of labour for his bread. At Eton, where he was the contemporary, and in some degree the rival of St. John, he was educated as one intended for the church, and used to say of himself afterwards, with perhaps no unreasonable vanity, that had he taken orders, he should have been Archbishop of Canterbury instead of Prime Minister. But, at the age of twenty-two, he found himself, by the death of his brothers, heir to the family estate, with a double advantage, - the inheritance of an elder and the application of a younger son. On the decease of his father in 1700*, * Horace Walpole says in one of his letters, "The other day "Sir Robert found an old account book of his father's, wherein |