ure of the Crown. The preamble to the Septennial Act looks to its temporary expediency; to the evils that might have been produced in the agitated state of parties-(when the greater number of Tories had become Jacobites, as Bolingbroke asserts)—if a general election were to take place in 1717. The debates on this question had principally relation to the Septennial Bill as a permanent measure. It was introduced in the House of Lords, where it passed by no very preponderating majority. In the Commons the proportionate majority was much greater. Amongst the people generally the measure appears to have excited very little interest, and scarcely any opposition; there being only petitions against it from ten boroughs, half of these being places of small populations,* and open to that corruption which made frequent elections occasions for dishonest traffic. During the passing of the Bill lord Somers was in his last fatal illness. His intellect was sufficiently clear for a short time to give an opinion upon the measure to lord Townshend: “I think," he said, "it will be the greatest support possible to the liberty of the country." The great constitutional lawyer died on the day the Bill was read a third time in the House of Commons. Speaker Onslow often declared that the passing of the Septennial Bill formed the era of the emancipation of the British House of Commons from its former dependence on the Crown and the House of Lords. The period would arrive when this greater power of the House of Commons produced by the Septennial Act would be looked upon with jealousy by large portions of the middle classes, and of those beneath them in station; and when a principle even more democratic than that of triennial elections should be ardently desired, as one of the modes of converting the member of parliament into a delegate instead of a representative. Practically, very few parliaments of recent times have had a septennial existence; and many thinking persons have been disposed to agree with Mr. Hallam, that under the existing custom of considering six years as the natural life of a House of Commons, "the usual term of duration should be permitted to take its course, except in cases where some great change of national policy may perhaps justify its abridgment." Our constitutional historian holds that "the Crown would often obtain a very serious advantage over the House of Commons, if it should become an ordinary thing to dissolve Parliament for some petty ministerial interest; or to divert some unpalatable resolution.”‡ Whilst the Septennial Bill was passing through committee in the Commons, Mr. Lechmere desired to in ↑ Coxe's "Walpole." Lord Mahon-" History," vol. i. p. 307. THE KING LEAVES FOR GERMANY. 389 troduce a clause to disable the holders of pensions during pleasure from becoming members of either house of Parliament. This was opposed as interfering with the privileges of the Peers. But Stanhope, one of the Secretaries of State, brought in a Bill, which provided that no person having a pension from the Crown during pleasure, or for a term of years, either in his own name, or in the name of any person for his benefit, should sit or vote in the House of Commons, under a penalty of twenty pounds for every day in which he should so sit or vote. * By the Act of Settlement, the descendant of the princess Sophia of Hanover, who should be called to the throne of Great Britain, was restricted from going out of the kingdom without the consent of Parliament. A Bill was brought in to repeal that clause of the Act; and becoming law without opposition, the king prepared to set forth to his German dominions. Previous to his majesty's departure there was a creation of eight peers. The king's anxiety to visit Hanover at this juncture was extremely objectionable to his responsible advisers. But their remonstrances were useless. When Addison eulogized what he described as the "uniformity and firmness of mind" of George I.,† he, of course, did not recognize that family characteristic which carried firmness, too often, into obstinacy. "His majesty was bred up from his infancy with a love to this our nation," continues Addison. He did not speak of the greater love which the king, not unnaturally, bore to his own hereditary dominions. "By his succeeding to the dukedom of Zell," writes the political essayist, "he became one of the greatest princes of Germany, and one of the most powerful persons that ever stood next heir to the throne of Great Britain. The duchy of Bremen, and the bishopric of Osnaburg, have considerably strengthened his interests in the empire, and given a great additional weight to the Protestant cause." Happier might it have been if this great prince of Germany, and his successor, could have mitigated their excessive "predilection for their native country, which alone could endanger their English throne." There was' a constant suspicion, during their reigns, that continental alliances and wars were in the interests of Hanover rather than in that of Great Britain; and although this belief was in some instances unjust, every minister had to contend against the unpopularity which it threw upon the government. Every minister, from Walpole to Chatham, was, in his turn, obliged to yield, however unwillingly, to the "uniformity and firmness of mind" which gov erned the continental policy of these princes. Their repeated • Geo. I. stat. 2, c. 56. ↑ "Freeholder," No. z. + Hallam. absences from England were no light interruption to the tranquil progress of English affairs. These absences Lecame a pos itive danger when each of these kings was known to stand upon the worst terms with his eldest son. Speaking a foreign language, surrounded by foreign mistresses and favourites, and constantly called away to his foreign states, George I. never ceased to be regarded by the English people as a foreigner. He was imperfectly acquainted with the character of the people he had Leen called upon to govern; and he took no pains to understand their reasonable wishes, or to conciliate their unreasonable prejudices. The government of the kingdom naturally fell into the hands of the ministers who represented the stronger party. It was fortunate that eventually a minister obtained almost exclusive power, who for many years kept the nation quiet, and allowed its growing industry to become the source of great material prosperity. The system of sir Robert Waipole was little fitted to call forth any high political aspirations; to originate any great reforms; to widen and deepen the foundations of freedom and toleration. But it preserved the country from convulsions, if it failed to destroy the bitterness of parties. Walpole was neither tyrannous nor unjust. He governed by corruption, in our present improved view of what is corruption, when a bribe is no longer termed “a consideration;" but having obtained his parliamentary supremacy by unworthy methods, he did not employ his venal instruments to trample upen the liberties of his country. He laughed at the noisy patriots whom he did not care to buy, or was unable to buy; but during the twenty years of his unassailable possession of power, amidst the constant sense of danger from the tendency of Toryism to identify itself with Jacobitism, he proscribed no political enemy... It has been truly said, "Sir Robert Walpole was the minister who gave to our government that character of lenity which it has since generally preserved."* Before Walpole became the supreme director of affairs, there was much complication of foreign policy, which we will endeavour to relate as succinctly as the necessary details will permit. In the spring of 1716, defensive alliances had been concluded by the British government with the States-General and with the Emperor, to operate in case of aggression on either by France or other powers. The issue, however, of the rebellion of 1715 had entirely indisposed the government of the Regent of France to any rupture with England. The duke of Orleans was moreover anxious to procure the support of England to his succession to the • Macaulay-"Essay on Horace Walpole." NEGOTIATIONS FOR A FRENCH ALLIANCE. FRENCH 391 crown of France, in the event of the death of Louis XV., a sickly boy. The claim to that crown had been renounced by the Bourbon king of Spain; but Philip V. might interpret that renunciation according to the power which he might possess cf setting his agreement at nought. Whilst George I. was at Hanover this summer, negotiations were going forward between Stanhope, his Secretary of State and the Abbé Dubois, the profligate but most able servant of the Regent. The English government desired the expulsion of the Pretender from France and its dependencies; and was anxious to stipulate that a new harbour should be abandoned which Louis XIV. had begun to construct at Mardyke, to serve the same warlike purposes as Dunkirk, which had been demolished according to the terms of the treaty of Utrecht. The agent of the regent was ready to yield these points, to secure the friendship of the govern ment of king George. Thus the policy of England and France tended towards peace and a more intimate alliance. On the other hand, the continental objects of George I. threatened to involve his island subjects in a war, in which they would certainly not have engaged had their king not also been Elector of IIanover. When Charles XII. of Sweden, in 1714, after those five years of seclusion at Bender which followed the disastrous day of Pultowa, Lurst upon Europe again, he found a large part of his territories divided among many rapacious neighbours, with whom he would have to fight if Sweden were to regain any semblance of her old power. Frederick IV. of Denmark, in 1712, had conquered Schleswig and Holstein, Bremen and Verden. To strengthen himself against Charles, "the Swedish-iron hero"-as Mr. Carlyle calls him,Frederick bartered away Bremen and Verden to the Elector of Hanover, in 1715, for a hundred and fifty thousand pounds, on condition that George should join a coalition against Sweden. George's son-in-law, Frederick William of Prussia, had gone to war that same year, with his giant grenadiers, to compel Charles to resign his pretensions to Stettin, which Prussia had obtained in pawn for a payment of sixty thousand pounds. The northern war blazed furiously. The Elector of Hanover sent a British fleet into the Baltic to coerce Sweden; and with six thousand Hanoverians joined the Prussians, Danes, and Russians, against "the Lion-king." At Stralsund Charles made his last effort. He was overpowered; and getting away to Sweden, meditated schemes of vast import, Lut thoroughly impracticable. Charles endeavoured to gratify his revenge against England in stirring up another Jacobite insurrcc. tion. Northern Europe was now still more agitated; for the Czar Peter had marched with his Muscovites into Mecklenburg, and was threatening Denmark. George was for violent measures against Russia, which his minister Stanhope very wisely discountenanced. This smoke did not burst into flame. In the conduct of the negotiation with France there was a difference of opinion Letween Stanhope at Hanover, and Townshend at home; and this, with other less dignified causes, produced a partial-breaking-up of kirg George's first Whig ministry. The history of the schism which drove Townshend from the helm is given with great minuteness by the excellent descendant of Stanhope; and with a laudable anxiety to acquit his ancestor of any paltry attempt to abuse the confidence of George I., to the prejudice of his honest and able minister at home.* It is scarcely necessary for us to enter generally upon these details. One point, however, connected with this ministerial change is of importance, as a characteristic of the domestic politics of the first, second, and third princes of the House of Brunswick who were kings of England. From the second year of George I. may be dated the manifestation of that național calamity which our country had to endure during three successive reigns,-the hateful exhibition of a party in opposition to the government of the actual sovereign gathering round the heir apparent. When king George set cut for Hanover in the summer of 1716, he was extremely jealous of entrusting, during his absence, any special power and authority to the prince of Wales. The king wished to join others in commission with the prince. Townshend opposed this. The king so far yielded as to appoint his son Guardian of the Realm and Lieutenant; but he withheld the title of Regent from him, and imposed several restrictions upon his administrative power. The popularity which the prince acquired during the king's absence was looked upon with fear and suspicion at Hanover. He was affable; appeared fond of English customs; spoke our language tolerably well; and went amongst the people in a free and unreserved manner. Party-writers began to contrast the son with the father. The prince was not discreet in a position where discretion was so essential. He manifested an eagerness to open the parliament in person during the king's absence; whilst the king desired that the prorogation might be extended, to enable him to remain longer at Hanover. Townshend, in his communications with Stanhope, had pressed that the king should speedily decide as to his return; intimated the prince's wish to open parliament; and suggested that in certain emergencies a larger discretionary power should be given to the "Guardian of the Realm." The king was enraged; and avowed his determina*Lord Mahon-" History," vol. i. ch. vii. |