and disappoint the machinations of their common enemies. Sure I am, at least, that if Wesley himself were now alive, he would feel and act in this manner; had the Church been in his time what it is in ours, he would never have left it; and were he to behold these times, he would acknowledge, that the establishment which once wanted efficiency, now stands in need of nothing but support.

Were Wesley himself alive in these latter times, he would surely exclaim, though in words more impressive than mine - Happy they who have grown up in the creed of their fathers, and who join in communion with the great body of their countrymen! To them the church bells are music, to them the church path is a way of pleasantness and peace! Long may they look with veneration and attachment to that time-worn spire where their infancy was blessed in baptism, where their manhood has drawn in the words of consolation, and where their remains will finally repose!

CHAPTER XX.

THE death of Queen Caroline, like that of George the First, produced no such effect as the Opposition had expected: each of those events had been hailed as the sure forerunner of disgrace to Walpole, yet each left him unshaken and secure. After the loss of his Royal patroness he continued to enjoy the same place as before in the King's confidence, while that in His Majesty's affections was speedily filled up by Sophia de Walmoden. George had known her at Hanover in his latter journeys during the Queen's life; now however she was brought to England, and created Countess of Yarmouth the last instance in our annals of a British peerage bestowed upon a Royal mistress. Her character was quiet and inoffensive; and though she did not at first possess, she gradually gained considerable political influence over the King. "The new northern actress," writes Lady Mary Wortley, "has very good sense; she "hardly appears at all, and by that conduct almost wears "out the disapprobation of the public."*

At nearly the same period the gossips at Court were gratified with another topic for their comments; the marriage of Sir Robert to his mistress, Miss Skerrit, who had already borne him a daughter. This marriage appears to have taken place immediately on the death of the first Lady Walpole, but was at first kept secret**; nor did Miss Skerrit survive her new honours above a few months. For her daughter

*To Lady Pomfret, 1739. Letters, vol. ii. p. 213. ed. 1827. It appears, however, that the grief of the King for his consort continued a considerable time. One day, on playing at cards, some queens were dealt to him, "which," as we are told, "renewed his trouble so much, and put him into "so great a disorder, that the Princess Amelia immediately ordered all the "queens to be taken out of the pack." Opinions of the Duchess of Marlborough, p. 40.

** Mr. Ford to Swift, Nov. 22. 1737.

Swift's Works, vol. xix. p. 192.

Walpole afterwards obtained from the Crown a patent of the same rank and precedence as though a legitimate child; a favour it is said that had never yet been granted to any person but a Prince.* — It is remarkable that Mr. Coxe, while devoting three volumes to the memoirs of Walpole, refrains, in his partiality to his hero, from any allusion whatever to this second marriage.

On the meeting of Parliament in January 1738, the "Patriots," bereft of their expectations from the Court, could only turn their efforts to reduce the army, or to inflame the national quarrel with Spain. Their clamours, at the same time, for a diminution of troops, and for a renewal of war, might have appeared a little inconsistent to any men less maddened by their party zeal. Nevertheless, a motion to substitute the number of 12,000 for 17,000 soldiers was made by Shippen, and seconded by another ardent Tory, Lord Noel Somerset. The reply of Walpole was amongst the ablest he ever delivered: piercing through the subterfuges of his opponents he avowed his fear of the Pretender, and expressed his regret that so many Members should affect to turn that fear into ridicule. "No man of common pru"dence," added he, "will now profess himself openly a "Jacobite: by so doing he not only may injure his private "fortune, but must render himself less able to do any "tual service to the cause he has embraced; therefore there แ are but few such men in the kingdom. Your right Jacobite, "Sir, disguises his true sentiments, he roars out for Re"volutionary principles; he pretends to be a great friend to "liberty, and a great admirer of our ancient Constitution; "and under this pretence there are numbers who every day "endeavour to sow discontent among the people. These 66 men know that discontent and disaffection are like wit and "madness, separated by thin partitions, and therefore they "hope that if they can once render the people thoroughly "discontented, it will be easy for them to render them dis

effec

Lady Louisa Stuart, Introductory Anecdotes to the Wortley Correspondence, p. 35.

"affected. By the accession of these new allies, as I may "justly call them, the real but concealed Jacobites have "succeeded even beyond their own expectation."* So crushing was this retort, that the Patriots prudently refrained from dividing. But in a subsequent debate they derived great advantage from the folly of Colonel Mordaunt, who, speaking on the Ministerial side, narrowed the question to a party one, by declaring that he thought "the keep"ing up an army absolutely necessary for supporting the "Whig interest against the Tory." Lord Polwarth immediately rose, and, in a speech impressive both from its eloquence, and as coming from the heir of one of the first Whig families in Scotland, exclaimed that this argument could mean only that because the people were discontented, therefore they must be oppressed. "For my part," said he, "I think no interest nor any party of men ought to be sup"ported if a standing army becomes necessary for their support."** The division which ensued gave 164 votes to the Opposition, but 249 to the Minister.

In their second object, to embroil their country with Spain, the mock-Patriots were more successful. For many years had the traders to South America complained of grievances; for many years had the desire of Walpole to adjust them amicably been branded as tameness and timidity. Imperious as he seems at home, cried the Opposition, he is no less abject and crouching abroad! Some powerful lines, ascribed to Bishop Atterbury, and therefore written before 1732, sum up Sir Robert's character by calling him "the cur dog of Britain and spaniel of Spain!"*** This cry was now revived as the commercial complaints increased. Yet a careful and dispassionate inquiry may convince us, that this case of the merchants was mainly founded on error and exaggeration; that no allowance was made for the counter claims on the side of Spain; and that in many instances their alleged hardship, when stripped of its colour*Parl. Hist. vol. x. p. 400. ** Ibid. p. 460.

*** Atterbury's Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 414.

ing, amounts only to this that they were not permitted to smuggle with impunity.

The commercial relations between Spain and England had been regulated by treaties in 1667 and 1670. In neither were the expressions sufficiently clear and well defined; the jealousy of the Spaniards inducing them rather to connive at than to authorise the commerce of strangers, and to withhold a plain acknowledgment even where they could no longer refuse the practical right. The second treaty, however, distinctly recognises the British dominions in America, but provides that our ships shall not approach the coasts of the Spanish colonies, unless driven thither by stress of weather, or provided with a special license for trade. The first treaty as distinctly admits the liberty of seizing contraband goods, and of searching merchant vessels sailing near the ports or in the seas of the respective nations. It was afterwards contended that this right applied only to the mother countries, and not to the colonies of either;* nevertheless, it is certain that this right was constantly exercised by the Spanish Guarda Costas (or Guard Ships), in the West Indies, with greater or less severity, according to the fluctuations of Spanish policy, or the changes of Spanish governors. Sometimes the right of search dwindled into a mere form, sometimes it swelled into a vexatious and oppressive grievance.

The treaty of Seville, in 1729, professed to replace the trade to America on its former footing. But the development of British commerce and the ingenuity of British merchants were always overleaping the narrow bounds prescribed to them, and whenever they received a short indulgence, next claimed it as a constant right. Every artifice was employed to elude the Spanish regulations, and a vehement clamour

*The Opposition in 1738 were by no means unanimous on this point. Lord Carteret, in his speech of May 2., maintains, that the stipulations of 1667 are only for Europe, while Pulteney, on the 16th of March, had contended, in the other House, that "this treaty of 1667 is a general treaty, "which comprehended America as well as every other part of the world." However, both speakers took care to come to the same conclusion.