66 VII. 1716. any interest or credit with them, for God's sake CHAP. "make use of it upon this occasion. They may 'possibly unking their master, or (which I do be“fore God think very possible) make him abdi. "cate England, but they will certainly not force "him to make my Lord Townshend Secretary. "I will not enter into the reasons which have engaged the King to take this measure, but it is "taken; and I will ask any Whig whether the dif"ference to the public between one man's being "Secretary or Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is of "such consequence that we ought to hazard every thing for the resentment of one man ? "* 66 66 The vindication of Stanhope appears to me complete; and with respect to Sunderland also, I see no foundation for any charge of treachery. I admit that, unlike Stanhope, he, far from striving to avert, probably promoted and co-operated in the fall of Townshend. But then his political position was very different from Stanhope's. He was not bound to Townshend by any ties of confidence and friendship. He had some grounds to complain of Townshend's jealousy, and of his own exclusion from power. He was considered by Townshend not as an ally, but as a rival; and his enmity was all along expected and foreseen. Now it surely must be owned that previous confidence is implied in a charge of treachery; and that where there was * Stanhope to Methuen, January 13. 1717. Coxe's Walpole. CHAP. no friendship there can be no breach of friend VII. 1716. ship. 66 In concluding my narrative of the various and intricate transactions which led to Lord Townshend's dismissal, I may observe that even had they not existed there seems great reason to doubt whether the ministry could have continued unchanged. We have some remarkable expressions to that effect in a letter written at a previous period under Townshend's own direction : -"His Lordship and "Mr. Methuen are sorry to observe that from the disposition of offices, and the behaviour of Lords "Sunderland and Cadogan before the King's going "over, as well as from the encouragement since given to the Tories by the Prince's counte"nancing Mr. Hill, Mr. Hutchinson, and the Dukes "of Shrewsbury and Argyle, the Whigs in general "are become so uneasy and divided, that should things continue upon the present foot, the prospect for the next session of Parliament would be "but melancholy." 66 66 * Mr. Poyntz to Secretary Stanhope, August 17. 1716, O. S. Coxe's Walpole. CHAPTER VIII. VIII. 1716. THE news of Lord Townshend's removal was CHAP. received in London with almost universal disapprobation. No clear and definite cause being then assigned for that measure, and its advisers being absent from England, a large field was left open to conjecture, exaggeration, and mistrust. It was commonly considered as a Hanoverian cabal, as a fatal proof of the ascendency of Continental politics; and the conduct of Stanhope, in being a party to it, was loudly and generally inveighed against. The Jacobites hailed this symptom of weakness in the Government as an omen of hope to their cause. The Whigs, who well knew the high worth and tried merit of Lord Townshend, felt no less sorrow than surprise at his dismissal; and the monied men foreboded the loss of public confidence, and the decline of public credit. "I will venture to say," writes Mr. Brereton, the same who brought these "It is difficult to trace the causes of a dispute between "statesmen." This was the remark of Sir Robert Walpole after his own quarrel with Lord Townshend in 1730. Coxe's Memoirs, vol. i. p. 339. VIII. 1716. 66 CHAP. despatches from Hanover, "the town is in greater "confusion now than it was in any part or at any "alterations whatsoever made in the late Queen's "reign... .. When I go into the City all the "considerable men there crowd about me, and press me in the most earnest manner to give some "reasons for these sudden and unexpected resolutions, and to tell them who I thought were the "advisers and contrivers of them."* It may be doubted, however, whether there is not some exaggeration in these statements, since, when we come to positive facts, we find that the fall in the funds did not amount to one per cent.t Townshend himself, and the Walpoles, were not among the least indignant. Their resentment was still further exasperated by a very intemperate letter from Sunderland to Lord Orford, directly accusing Townshend, Robert Walpole, and the Lord Chancellor, of having entered into engagements with the Prince and Duke of Argyle against the King's authority. No wonder that Townshend, perfectly innocent as he felt himself on that charge, Mr. Brereton to Mr. Charles Stanhope, December, 1716. Erasmus Lewis writes to Swift, Jan. 12. 1717, "The division "of the Whigs is so great that, morally speaking, nothing but "another rebellion can ever unite them." In this sense Lewis would probably not have been displeased at their union. + Letter from Mr. Charles Stanhope to Mr. Brereton. December, 1716. This letter itself is missing; but it is mentioned by Lord Townshend when writing to M. Slingeland, Jan. 1. 1717, O. S., and by Baron de Wassenaar when writing to Lord Townshend, Jan. 26. 1717. Coxe's Walpole. VIII. should have more than ever given the reins to his pas- CHAP. sionate temper, should complain of this "infamous "accusation" from the "villany and infatuation" of Lord Sunderland, and should impute to that nobleman "frenzy fits" in writing his letters.* Townshend lost no time in sending his answers to Hanover. To Stanhope he wrote only a few lines in a style of bitter irony; to the King his letter was couched in very loyal and becoming terms, respectfully but firmly declining the offer of Ireland. "My private affairs," says he in his correspondence with the Hague, "would not permit me to remove "to Ireland, any more than common honesty "would allow me to put the profits of that em 66 ployment in my pocket, without going over to do "the duties of it."+ This was intended as a severe reflection on Sunderland, for having acted in the manner here described; but it might have been more prudently omitted, since we shall find Townshend himself very shortly afterwards taking precisely that course which he had branded as repugnant to "common honesty." Both the Walpoles, on their part, wrote to Stanhope in very reproachful terms, declaring that he had acted "in a passion," and with "sudden changes "to old sworn friends; " and that, in their opinion, "the authors of this scheme did not expect that "Townshend would, nor desire that he should, * See Townshend's letter to Slingeland, Jan. 1. 1717, O. S. + Ibid. 1716. |