II. 1713. was moved in the Lords by the Earl of Wharton, CHA P. on the 29th of June, without any previous notice. The Court party were taken completely by surprise. A pause ensued. At last, Lord North rose, and endeavoured to have the motion set aside, observing, that it would show a distrust of her Majesty's intentions. He asked, also, where, after all, they would have the Pretender live; since most, if not all, the powers of Europe were, like the Duke of Lorraine, on terms of friendship with her Majesty. But, no one venturing openly to oppose the motion, it was unanimously carried. On the 1st of July, General Stanhope brought forward the same motion in the Commons. Here also no opposition was attempted. But Sir William Whitlocke artfully threw out, that he "remem"bered the like address was formerly made to the "Protector for having Charles Stuart removed out "of France." This was meant to remind the House how soon afterwards, in spite of that vote, Charles had been restored to the throne. The Jacobites, however, having the fear of the approaching elections before their eyes, remained perfectly quiet; and the two addresses were carried up to her Majesty, whose answers were in the same sense, but evidently cold and constrained. The negotiation opened in consequence at Paris led to no good result. It was always skilfully eluded by the French ministers, and never heartily pressed by the English. Their agent, Prior, speaks of it with ridicule in his letters. "To 66 CHAP. say the truth, my dear Lord Bolingbroke, M. de II. 1713. 66 Torcy thinks us all mad. He asked me many "questions, which, for the best reason in the “world, I did not answer; as, for instance, how "we can oblige a man to go from one place when "we forbid all others to receive him ?” * But even further, it is asserted, in the secret correspond ence of Gaultier, that Bolingbroke himself had, with singular baseness, privately suggested to the Duke of Lorraine the pretexts for eluding his own public demands !+ Some other proceedings of this session seem to deserve attention. The House of Commons proposed to renew the duty on malt for another year. A question then arose whether or not this duty should be laid on the whole island; the Scotch members being most eager and vehement against bearing any share of it. Finding themselves outvoted, and the Bill passed the Commons, they held several private conferences with the peers of their party; sent an address to the Queen; and, finding this ineffectual, indignantly agreed to move for an act for dissolving the union between the two kingdoms. Such a motion was accordingly brought forward by the Earl of Findlater, on the 1st of June, and produced a long debate. Lord Peterborough indulged his lively fancy. He observed, "that though sometimes there happened a differ"ence between man and wife, yet it did not pre *Bolingbroke's Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 678. II. 1713. "sently break the marriage; so, in the like manner, CHÁ P. though England, who in this national marriage "must be supposed to be the husband, might, in "some instances, have been unkind to the lady, "yet she ought not presently to sue for a divorce, "the rather because she had very much mended "her fortune by this match." The Duke of Argyle said, "that it was true he had a great hand "in making the Union: that the chief reason that "moved him to it was the securing the Protestant "succession, but that he was satisfied that might "be done as well now if the Union were dissolved; " and that, if it were not, he did not expect long "to have either property left in Scotland or liberty "in England!"* It does not appear that Bolingbroke - undoubtedly the greatest orator of the time-took any part in the debate. But his remarks upon the subject in a letter to the Duke of Shrewsbury may excite some serious reflections at the present period: "Your "Grace will wonder when I tell you that they in"tend to move in our House, on Monday, to dis"solve the Union. You may be sure that all those "whose spirits are naturally turbulent and restless "all those who have languished under expectation, "and all those who have any personal resentment, "take this occasion to add to the cry and to pursue "their own views by intermingling them in this • Parliamentary History, vol. vi. p. 1217. See also Lockhart's Comment. (p. 414-437.) for a very full account of this proceeding. II. 1713. CHAP. "cause...... We shall, I believe, ground on this "motion a bill to make it high treason, by any overt "act, to attempt the dissolution of the Union. If, "after this, we go on to show them all reasonable indulgence, and at the same time to show to them "and to all mankind a firmness of resolution and a "steadiness of conduct, good will have come out “of evil, and we shall reap some benefit from this "CONTRETEMPS."* 66 To any one who considers either the nature of this question, or the usual feelings and conduct of the House of Lords, the division on Lord Findlater's motion will appear not a little surprising. Fifty-four peers voted for it, and exactly as many against it. Proxies were then called for; and, there being 13 in the affirmative, and 17 in the negative, it was rejected by a majority of only four. But the fact is, that this subject, like every other in the session, was considered not so much on national as on party grounds. And if such a course could ever deserve indulgence, it would surely be at a crisis when the fate of the Hanover succession hung trembling in the balance, and with it the fate of the Protestant establishment, of the British Constitution, of every thing that we cherish as dear, or respect as venerable!† * Bolingbroke's Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 409. † A curious account of this division is given in a letter to Swift from Erasmus Lewis, at that time M. P. for Lestwithiel. He tells us that both the Tory peers who voted with the Lord Treasurer against the dissolution of the Union, and the Scotch II. 1713. Another party matter was the favour shown by CHAP. the House of Commons to Dr. Sacheverell. The sentence of the House of Lords, forbidding him to preach during the space of three years, expired on the 23d of March; and on the Sunday following he held forth, for the first time, at his own church of St. Saviour's, and, taking for his text the words, "Father, forgive them, for they know "not what they do," drew an unseemly parallel between his own sufferings and the Redeemer's Passion. The House of Commons, anxious to show their disapprobation of the former proceedings against him, appointed him to the honour of preaching before them on the Restoration Day; and the Court was no less forward in conferring a rich benefice upon him. Never, perhaps, had any man attained a higher pitch of popularity. We are told, that as he passed to and from the House of Lords, on his trial, the by-standers used eagerly to press about him, and strive for the happiness of who voted for it, were "under agonies" lest they themselves should be victorious! "In all the time I have been conversant " in business, I never before observed both sides at the same time "acting parts which they thought contrary to their interests!" See Swift's Works, vol. xvi. p. 71. * St. Luke, ch. 23. v. 34. On this sermon we find in Swift's Journal to Stella, April 2.: "I went to Lord Treasurer's at "six, where I found Dr. Sacheverell, who told us that the book"seller had given him 1007. for his sermon preached last Sun"day, and intended to print 30,000. I believe he will be con"foundedly bit, and will hardly sell above half." |