generally, and on good grounds ascribed to Sir Robert Walpole, the accusation was fully refuted; and indeed his enemies showed their inability to bring any thing like plausible proof by refusing to print the report of the committee appointed to examine into the matter. Godolphin did not long survive his disgrace. He died of the stone in September, 1712, at a seat of the duke of Marlborough's, and was buried in Westminster abbey.

The times in which Godolphin flourished were distinguished by a venality and baseness in public men, such as no other period of our history presents. There never was a race of politicians more totally destitute of any thing like high principle than that which figured in the two reigns preceding, and the two following the Revolution. The flood of iniquity, which coming in after the Restoration, had swept away all the landmarks of private morality, had extended its noxious influence equally to public life, and years elapsed before the councils of the realm, or even the courts of justice, were freed from its loathsome presence. It seemed as if the nation, in its ever-memorable struggle against the arbitrary designs of Charles the First, had drawn largely on the public virtue of many future years, and had entailed the evils of corruption and degeneracy on several succeeding ages, by its improvident expenditure. Entering into office at the time when this degeneracy was in the full plenitude of its power, it ought not, perhaps, to be matter of surprise that Godolphin's mind received an incurable warp from the principles of high unbending rectitude, nor indeed was there such an improvement in the breed of statesmen at the time of his death, as to make his want of consistency at all remarkable. We must, therefore, make large allowances in consideration of the circumstances in which he was placed. The evil times on which it was his lot to fall must palliate the sentence of condemnation which it would be right to pronounce on a man, who, at any other period, should have so far forgotten his integrity. It would be too much to expect every politician to be a Marvell or a Somers, in an age of Sunderlands and Churchills. Yet, after making all these allowances, it is impossible to entertain the slightest respect for Godolphin's character. In every sense of the term, he was a time-serving politician. An inherent littleness marks all his conduct. Not one action can be pointed out, in the whole of his long career, which savours of high or even determined principle. His maintenance of a correspondence with the court at St Germains, and his communication to our enemies of projects which he could have known only as a member of the government which planned them, are alone sufficient to cast a deadly blight on his character for honesty. Had it not been for his notorious caution and timidity of nature, it is evident that he would have been deeply engaged in the plots of the Jacobite party, to which, indeed, he was all along privy. But besides this, his acceptance of a place from a sovereign whom he had voted to exclude from the throne, his close adherence to James until the last shadow of his power had vanished, and his readiness to hold office under his supplanter in a few short months afterwards, his virtual approval of universal toleration under James, and his vehement support of the bill against occasional conformity under William,-his active promotion of the union, and his subsequent efforts to render it odious to the whole nation,—his bitter opposition to the whigs in 1702, and his unblushing desertion to them

in 1705, are traits in his conduct which at once quash all pretensions to honour or consistency. He was, in a word, deeply branded with the characteristic mark of the age,—a total disregard for personal reputation amidst the vehement struggles of party. Such men may be valuable for their talents, but they can never be respectable.

If this estimate of his character be correct, it is wonderful that he should have obtained so fair a reputation as is generally awarded to him. But he had a species of inferior virtue which not unfrequently receives a much higher meed of praise than it deserves. He was perfectly honest and incorruptible in the management of the treasury. During the whole time of his continuance in office, no charge of peculation having the least degree of plausibility, was brought against him; and at his death it was found, that although he had been in the treasury for the greater part of thirty years, during nine of which he was lord-treasurer, he had not increased his estate to the value of four thousand pounds. We are far from wishing to detract from the praise due to him on this account. It would, perhaps, be no high compliment to say of an English minister of the present day, that he had not enriched himself by embezzlement of the public funds; but in Godolphin's time, the rarity of such an occurrence makes it noteworthy. He was also remarkable for the careful fulfilment of his engagements. "He was a person of strict honour," says Shaftesbury in a MS. letter, "and usually performed more than he promised." So that, although the sternness of his countenance and his forbidding manners alienated the minds of spectators, yet men of all parties could not help respecting him. "His notions," writes Burnet, were for the court; but his incorruptibility and sincere way of managing the treasury, created in all people a very high esteem for him.” 8

Of Godolphin's abilities it is difficult to speak, for he has left behind him nothing save a few private letters, from which no estimate can be formed. He was never distinguished as a parliamentary speaker, and the reports of what he said on the few occasions when he overcame his natural taciturnity, are so meagre, that it is impossible to form a judgment from them. His talents were certainly more solid than brilliant. He had no great grasp, or acuteness of intellect; but he was endowed with a clearness of apprehension,-a steady application,-and a methodical arrangement of affairs,-which made him one of the most valuable working statesmen the country has ever seen. The high value set upon his services by four successive sovereigns, and the admirable condition into which he brought the treasury, are the surest evidence of his abilities. "By the regularity and exactness of his payments," says Somerville, “he raised the public credit to a higher pitch than had ever been known before. Under his direction the economy of the exchequer was exceedingly improved, and he had so entirely gained the confidence of the monied men, that supply was never wanting for the execution of any purpose adapted for the service of government."

Burnet's continuation is curious. "He loved gaming the most of any man of business I ever knew, and gave in reason for it,-that it delivered him from the obligation to talk much."

IV.

9 Somerville's History of the Reign of Queen Anne.

I

James, Earl of Derwentwater.

BORN A. D. 1691.-DIED A. D. 1715.

THIS nobleman was born on the 28th of June, 1691, and succeeded to the earldom in April, 1705. Although a catholic, and favourable to the chevalier, to whom he was distantly related, he appears to have taken but little share in the intrigues of the Jacobites during the reign of Queen Anne; nor is it satisfactorily shown that he had given any just cause of offence to the new government, although suspected of having secretly joined the parties of armed Jacobites who had traversed the country in August, 1715, when, in the following month, he received intelligence that a warrant had been issued by the secretary of state for his apprehension. Immediately proceeding to a justice-of-peace, he boldly demanded what charges existed against him, but the magistrate either could not or would not give him the information he desired. The earl then thought proper, imprudently perhaps, to evade capture by concealing himself in a cottage belonging to one of his tenants; and on Forster's appeal to the neighbouring Jacobites to appear in arms for James Frederick, he joined the disaffected at the appointed rendezvous near Greenrigg, with his brother, his servants, and a few of his tenantry, all well-armed and mounted.

The earl accompanied Forster to Preston, where he surrendered with the rest of the insurgents. On the 9th of December he entered London in custody, and after a brief examination before the privy-council, was committed to the Tower. On the 10th of January, 1715–16, he was impeached for high treason, and on the 16th of the same month thus addressed his peers, previously to pleading guilty :-" My lords, the terrors of your just sentence, which will at once deprive me of my life and estate, and complete the misfortunes of my wife and innocent children, are so heavy on my mind, that I am scarcely able to allege what may extenuate my offence, if any thing can do it. My guilt was rashly incurred, without any premeditation; for I beg to observe, that I was wholly unprovided with men, horses, or arms, which I could easily have provided had I formed any previous design. As my offence was sudden, so my submission was prompt; for when the king's general demanded hostages for insuring a cessation of arms, I voluntarily offered myself; and it was the repeated promises of mercy which I received that induced me afterwards to remain with the royal army. I humbly entreat your intercession with the king, and solemnly protest that my future conduct shall show me not unworthy of your generous compassion."

He received sentence of death on the 9th of February, and a warrant was soon afterwards issued for his execution. On the morning after it had been signed, his countess obtained an interview with the king in his bed-chamber, and pathetically entreated his majesty to spare her husband's life; and she subsequently went down to Westminster, accompanied by a great number of ladies, and personally implored both houses of parliament to intercede with the sovereign on his behalf. The public were strongly excited in favour of the condemned earl, and

his friends entertained a hope that he would be pardoned. But, notwithstanding several peers and commoners of distinction endeavoured to procure a remission of his sentence, it was carried into effect. His execution took place on the 24th of February.

After devotion, he advanced to the rails of the scaffold and read an address, in which he eulogised the pretender, and asked pardon of those whom he had scandalized by his plea of guilty, which, he stated, was a breach of loyalty to his lawful and rightful sovereign, King James the Third. He concluded by saying, that, had his life been spared, he should have considered himself bound in honour never again to take up arms against the reigning prince.

The earl appears to have been possessed of many good qualities. "He was formed by nature," says Patten, "to be universally beloved; for his benevolence was so unbounded, that he seemed only to live for others. He resided among his own people, spent his estate among them, and continually did them kindnesses. His hospitality was princely, and none in that country came up to it. He was very charitable to the poor, whether known to him or not, and whether papists or protestants. His fate was a misfortune to many who had no kindness for the cause in which he died."

Charles Ratcliffe, a brother of the earl of Derwentwater, was born in 1693, and evinced from his boyhood a most enthusiastic attachment to the exiled Stuarts. He acted with Forster throughout the whole of that inefficient leader's campaign, displaying a total disregard of personal danger, and a sincere devotion to the cause he had espoused, which threw a lustre over his rashness. Having surrendered with his confederates at Preston, he was arraigned for high treason in May, 1716, and was soon afterwards found guilty. He disdained to petition for mercy, but soon after the earl of Derwentwater had been executed, a free pardon was granted to Ratcliffe, which, however, he obstinately refused to accept. He was consequently detained in Newgate until the 11th of December, 1716, when he contrived to effect his escape. Patten, speaking of him about this period, says, "He is young and bold, but too forward: he has a great deal of courage, which wants a few more years and a better cause to improve it. There is room to hope he will never employ it in such an adventure again." Unfortunately, however, for himself, he continued to be an active partisan of the exiled prince.

In 1746 he received a naval commission from the king of France, and took the command of a vessel laden with arms for the use of the Jacobites in Scotland, which, however, never reached its destination, being captured at sea by an English cruizer. Ratcliffe was brought a prisoner to London, and arraigned on his previous conviction, which had never been reversed. He boldly denied the authority of the court, avowed himself to be a subject of the king of France, produced his commission, and declared that he was not Charles Ratcliffe, but the earl or Derwentwater. After some further quibbling on this and other points, his identity being satisfactorily proved, the attorney-general moved for the execution of his former sentence. The prisoner now attempted to set up his pardon in bar, but the judges being of opinion that such a plea could not, under the circumstances, be legally received, a writ was issued for his decapitation. His person and appearance on this occa

sion are thus described in the British Chronologist :-"He was about five feet ten inches high, upwards of fifty, dressed in scarlet faced with black velvet, and gold buttons,-a gold-laced waistcoat,-bag-wig, and had a hat with a white feather." He wore precisely the same dress on the scaffold, where he conducted himself with great fortitude. He was beheaded on Tower-hill on the 8th of December, 1746.

Thomas, Marquess of Wharton.

BORN A. D. 1640.-DIED A. D. 1715.

THOMAS WHARTON, marquess of Wharton, eldest son of Philip, the fourth lord of that name, who distinguished himself on the parliamentarian side during the civil wars, was born about the year 1640. Having in early life made the tour of the continent, he returned home and threw himself into public life; and in the year 1678 was chosen one of the representatives for Buckinghamshire, his colleague being Richard Hampden, son of the celebrated patriot.

It does not appear that he took any active part in the debates on the bill of exclusion, although he opposed the court-party during the reigns of Charles II. and James II., and joined in the presentment against the duke of York, before the grand-jury of Middlesex, in 1680. During James's reign he lived retired at Winchendon, not very happy, it was said by the gossips of the day, in the society of his wife, the daughter of Sir Henry Lee of Dichley. This lady was a rigid presbyterian, and much devoted to literary society; she versified a good deal herself, and Waller has eulogised her "divine compositions ;" but the match had, unfortunately perhaps for the peace of both, been arranged wholly by the fathers of the parties. An anonymous writer seems to hint that the marquess displayed not a little self-command in living the domestic life he did with her; but the weight of evidence strongly inclines against his lordship's alleged superiority as a domestic character. Be this as it may, Lord Wharton found ample employment in secretly supporting the measures of his party. He kept up a correspondence with the court of the Hague, and is supposed to have drawn the first draught of the invitation which was despatched to the prince of Orange from the peers and commoners of England; he is also said to have originated the address which was presented by Sir Edward Seymour, Sir William Portman, and other knights of the western shires, to his royal highness on his arrival at Torbay. On the accession of William and Mary, his lordship was made comptroller of the household, and member of the privy-council. In 1697 he was made chief-justice in Eyre on this side of the Trent, and lord-lieutenant of Oxfordshire. These appointments were highly agreeable to the majority of the nation. In a debate of considerable warmth in the house of peers, on an address respecting the partition-treaty, the marquess moved, in addition, "That whereas the French king had broken that treaty, they should advise his majesty to treat no more with him, nor rely upon his word without security;" and this, though much opposed by such of their lordships as were against engaging in a new war, was agreed to by a majority of the house. His lordship was also one of those who stood up for the association upon Sir