in these respects, had he ever shown the least hesitation in emergencies to renounce or betray his friends. "His name," said Sir Robert Walpole, "is Perfidy."

The Opposition at this time was very weak in the House of Commons, and seemed still weaker from the slack attendance of its members. There appeared so little prospect of success, that the Tories, losing spirit, could seldom be induced to remain in town, or appear in full force on any question. In fact, even at the present day, it may be observed, that many gentlemen of fortune seem to have two great objects in life the first, to become Members of Parliament at any cost or exertion; the second, to stay away from the House of Commons as often and as long as possible! In 1730 Newcastle writes, "We look upon the enemy "to be quite demolished in the House of Commons."* They were, in truth, at a low ebb. They could not deny that the Ministers had been very successful in their foreign negotiations; and were reduced to argue that this advantage had accrued by chance, or might have been attained a shorter way. According to Pulteney, "It is something like a pilot, "who, though he has a clear, a safe, and a straight pas"sage for going into port, yet takes it in his head to carry "the ship a great way about, through sands, rocks and "shallows, and thereby loses a great many of the seamen,

แ

destroys a great deal of the tackle and rigging, and puts "the owners to a vast expense; however, at last, by chance, "he hits the port, and then triumphs in his good conduct." According to Wyndham, "We have been like a man in a "room, who wants to get out, and though the door be open, "and a clear way to it, yet he stalks round the room, breaks "his shins over a stool, tumbles over a chair, and at last, "rumbling over every thing in his way, by chance finds the "door and gets out, after abundance of needless trouble "and danger."**

In proportion, however, as the Opposition flagged in ar

*To Lord Harrington, March 16. 1730.

**Speeches on the Address, January 13. 1732.

gument, they (as usual in such cases) increased in virulence. The Craftsman still continued his weekly attacks with unabated spirit and with growing effect. Other pamphlets also appeared from the same quarter, under the name of Caleb Danvers; and one of these lashed the character of Lord Hervey with such asperity, that Hervey called on Pulteney to declare whether he was the author of the libel. After some altercation, Pulteney replied, that whether he were or not, he was ready to justify and stand by its truth: a duel ensued, and both combatants were slightly wounded.* Hervey was a young man of considerable wit and ability, but most infirm health, insomuch that he found it necessary to live only on asses milk and biscuits. Once a week he indulged himself with an apple; emetics he used daily.** He attracted ridicule by the contrast between his pompous solemn manner and his puny effeminate appearance; and still more unhappily for himself, he attacked Pope, who, in return, has sent down his name to posterity as a monster of profligacy, and a "mere white curd of asses' "milk!"

Another pamphlet which Pulteney published in the same year, and in which he did not conceal his name, brought down upon him the full tide of Ministerial resentment. He had disclosed some former private conversation between him and Walpole, in which Sir Robert had not spared the character of George the Second as Prince of Wales. However blamable this breach of confidence, Walpole ought not to have mixed the King in the quarrel; but he now prevailed upon His Majesty to strike Pulteney's name out of the list of Privy Councillors, and to order that the several Lords Lieutenant who had granted him commissions of the peace should

* Mr. Thomas Pelham to Lord Waldegrave, January 28. 1731. Pulteney suspected Lord Hervey of having written a scurrilous pamphlet against him and Bolingbroke, called "Sedition and Defamation Displayed." The real author was Sir William Yonge.

*See a note to Coxe's Walpole, vol. i. p. 362.

revoke them. It should be observed also, that Pulteney's breach of confidence was not without justification. For the libel which he was answering contained a like disclosure of other conversations between him and Walpole; and as the former declares in his preliminary address, "these passages "of secret history, however, falsely stated and misrepre"sented, could come from nobody but yourself.”.

The year 1733 was marked by two great financial measures of Walpole, the first certainly wrong, but carried by large majorities; the latter as certainly just and wise, but repelled by the overpowering force of public indignation. The first was his proposal to take half a million from the Sinking Fund for the service of the current year. The Sinking Fund, established by Stanhope and Walpole himself in 1717, had been kept sacred during the whole reign of George the First. Since 1727, however, various encroachments had been made upon this surplus, and now in 1733, it received an open attack. It was truly urged by the Opposition, and especially by Sir John Barnard, member for London, a man of the greatest weight on all financial questions, that this precious fund ought never to be applied to any other purpose than that of discharging debts, except in the case of some extreme emergency; that to ease ourselves by loading our posterity is a poor, short-sighted expedient; “and "the author of such an expedient," emphatically added Barnard, “must expect the curses of posterity." "The "Right Honourable Gentleman," said Pulteney, "had once "the vanity to call himself the Father of the Sinking Fund; "but if Solomon's judgment was right, he who is thus for "splitting and dividing the child can never be deemed to be "the real father." But Walpole had a most irresistible argument for the country gentlemen: he declared that if his posal were not carried, he must move for a land-tax of two shillings in the pound and his proposal was carried by a majority of 110! His biographer and warm admirer admits, on this occasion, "a dark speck in his financial administra* Tindal's Hist. vol. viii. p. 104.

pro

"tion."* For the example once set was too tempting not to follow. Next year 1,200,000l., the whole produce of the fund, was taken from it; in 1735 and 1736 it was mortgaged and alienated. Our debts were always augmented in moments of difficulty, never diminished in a period of peace, until the Sinking Fund was restored, in a different era and on a new foundation, by the genius and integrity of Pitt.

It may be observed, however, in justice to Walpole, that many persons in the reign of the two first Georges entertained an idea, however erroneously, that the public debt was a main pillar of the established Government by interestiug so many persons in its support, and were therefore extremely unwilling to take any measures for an effectual reduction.** This idea was founded on the fear of the Pretender, who it was thought if once enthroned in the kingdom would never acknowledge the debts contracted mainly to keep him out of it. In an allegory of Addison, accordingly, we find James introduced as a young man with a sword in his right hand and a sponge in his left.*** Several Jacobites disclaimed any such intention, while the majority, no doubt, looked to it as an unfailing resource against all future financial difficulties. We may notice, also, that the fundholders, probably from the same apprehension, were very moderate and reasonable in their views, and that even the reduction of their interest in 1717 was not unpopular amongst them; at least one of their chief men, Mr. Bateman, told Lord Stanhope that he was glad the resolution had been taken, because though his interest was diminished, he should think his principal more secure than ever.†

Walpole's next financial measure was the famous EXCISE

*Coxe's Walpole, vol. i. p. 371. See also Sinclair's Public Revenue, part ii. p. 108. ** Sinclair's History of the Revenue, part ii. p. 75.

*** Spectator, No. iii.

Bolingbroke on the State of the Nation. (Polit. Works, vol. iv. p. 150. ed. 1773.)

SCHEME. The excise duties, first levied in the civil wars, and continued, but curtailed at the Restoration, were progressively increased during the stormy reigns of William and Anne. The chief articles subject to them were malt, salt, and the distilleries: their average yearly proceeds rose, under William, to nearly one million; under Anne, to nearly two millions. No additional excise was laid on during the whole reign of George the First, except a small duty on wrought plate by Stanhope.* From the progress of consumption, however, they had come in 1733 to produce about 3,200,0007.** But, meanwhile, the frauds and abuses in other parts of the revenue had become so great, and so repeatedly forced upon the consideration of Walpole, as to turn his thoughts to the whole subject, and induce him to frame a comprehensive measure upon it.

Early intelligence reached the Opposition that some such plan was brewing, and they took care to poison and prepossess the public mind against it even before it was known. When the Sinking Fund was discussed, Pulteney pathetically cried, "But, Sir, there is another thing, a very terrible "affair impending! A monstrous project! yea, more mon"strous than has ever yet been represented! It is such a "project as has struck terror into the minds of most gentle"men within this House, and of all men without doors!. "I mean, Sir, that monster the Excise! That plan of arbi"trary power which is expected to be laid before this House "in the present Session!"*** The sensible advice of Mr. Pelham, to wait till the plan was disclosed, and not "to enter "into debates about what we know nothing of," was utterly unheeded; and while the secrecy of the plan did not suspend the censures of the Opposition, it enabled them to spread throughout the country the most unfounded and alarming rumours respecting it. A General Excise is coming! was the cry; a tax on all articles of consumption; a burden to grind

See the motive of this duty explained, vol. i. p. 308. **Walpole's Speech, March 15. 1733. *** Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 1203.