was that, after all, the ultimate loss must fall not on them but on the public. This happy termination is mentioned by Walpole, with much satisfaction and high praises of Lord Isla: he adds, "I think we have once more got Ireland and "Scotland quiet, if we take care to keep them so."

The Session of Parliament, which began in November, 1724, was distinguished by three important transactions the impeachment of the Lord Chancellor, the partial restoration of Lord Bolingbroke, and the first public breach between Walpole and Pulteney.

Enormous abuses had crept into the Court of Chancery: the offices of Masters were set up to sale; and the buyers, in consequence, attempted to turn them to their own advantage. The price of these offices having latterly been augmented, the extortions of the holders grew in the same proportion. The suitors' money, the estates of widows and orphans, became a source of private peculation; and the public voice was loud against the Chancellor, Parker, Earl of Macclesfield. In January, he resigned the Great Seal, but did not thereby escape the national resentment. His impeachment was moved in the House of Commons by Sir George Oxenden; his trial took place at the Bar of the House of Lords, and continued twenty days. He was unanimously found Guilty, and sentenced to a fine of 30,000 l.; a motion to disable him from sitting in Parliament, or holding any future office, being, moreover, very nearly carried. His Majesty struck off his name from the List of Privy Counsellors; and Sir Peter King, now created Lord King, was appointed Chancellor in his place. The unanimity of his judges might seem decisive as to his guilt; yet it may perhaps be doubted, whether they did not unjustly heap the faults of the system on one man; whether Parker had not rather, in fact, failed to check gradual and growing abuses, than introduced them by his authority or encouraged them by his example.

Lord Bolingbroke was still at Paris. "Tired," as he says, "with suspense, the only insupportable misfortune

"of life, and with nine years of autumnal promises and "vernal excuses," he had, early in 1724, another painful subject of embarrassment in the villany of a banker. His wife, Madame de Villette, had invested 50,000l. in the English funds through the hands of Sir Matthew Decker, who now pretended to make a discovery of it to the Government as a forfeiture, upon proving her married to Lord Bolingbroke. This brought the lady to England under the name of Villette, and ready, if required, to deny her marriage; and Lord Townshend, who abhorred all dishonesty, and considered Decker's reasons "very bad ones," gave her his zealous and successful aid.** But she also seized the opportunity to ingratiate herself at Court, and obtain Bolingbroke's long-desired restoration. The King was by no means fascinated with her; he declared that she talked too much, and without respect ***; but a well-timed present of 11,000l. to the Duchess of Kendal smoothed many difficulties. A complete restoration was now earnestly and positively pressed upon Walpole by the Court. Walpole, seeing the unpopularity of the measure among his own friends, and afraid of Bolingbroke's future ascendancy, for a long time refused, and made every opposition in his power; but at length, being threatened with dismissal, compromised matters by agreeing to a restoration of fortune, though not in peerage. Bolingbroke, on his part, thought it best to take what he could, if not what he would; but as might be expected, he never forgot or forgave the resistance of the Minister. "Here I am, then," he writes to Swift, "two "thirds restored; my person safe, and my estate, with all "the other property I have acquired, or may acquire, se"cured to me. But the attainder is kept carefully and pru"dently in force, lest so corrupt a member should come

*To Swift, July 24. 1725.

** Lord Townshend to Horace Walpole, April 2. 1724.

***Elle parle trop, et sans respect." (Lord Lansdowne to James, July 10. 1724. Appendix.) He adds, "You can tell, Sir, whether that is a 66 just character; she is your old acquaintance."

"again into the House of Lords, and his bad leaven should "sour that sweet untainted mass."*

Even this partial restoration, however, could not pass Parliament without some resistance from two opposite quarters the staunch Whigs and the decided Jacobites. When the Bill was brought in by Lord Finch, seconded by Walpole, Methuen, though filling an office in the Household, warmly opposed it, declaring, that the crimes of Bolingbroke were so heinous and flagrant as not to admit of any expiation or atonement. He was backed by Lord William Powlett, by Onslow (afterwards Speaker), and by several other usual friends of Government. In like manner was the Tory camp divided; several, such as Lord Bathurst and Sir William Wyndham, were personal friends of Bolingbroke, and eager to promote his interests; while others, recollecting how ill the Pretender had used him, and how great must be his resentment, thought it necessary (as is too commonly the case), because one injury had been inflicted to inflict another, and to thwart his restoration as much as possible. The Duke of Wharton, who, at this period frequently appears in the Stuart Papers as foremost amongst James's correspondents, relates a curious conversation which he had upon the subject with Lord Bathurst. Having pressed him to give no aid to Bolingbroke, and urged the wish of the Pretender, Bathurst demurred, and at last said that he had not yet learnt JURARE IN VERBA MAGISTRI, to which Wharton only answered JURAVI, and left him.** Shippen, and some more, steered clear of the difficulty by staying away from the debate. But, as Wharton writes, "Sir Christopher "Musgrave, Sir Thomas Sebright, and Sir Jermyn Davers, "out of their utter detestation for your Majesty's enemies, "bravely opposed the very bringing in of any Bill whatso

*Coxe states this erroneously in his Memoirs of Walpole; he speaks of Bolingbroke's obligations to Walpole, his want of gratitude, &c. But in his Life of Horace Lord Walpole (p. 70.), he admits his mistake, observing, that papers have since fallen under his notice, proving the vehement opposition of Walpole to the restoration, and accounting for the bitter and well-founded enmity of Bolingbroke.

**Duke of Wharton to James, Feb. 3. 1725. Appendix.

"ever." Yet notwithstanding this motley combination of ardent Whigs and ardent Tories, the minority could only muster 113 votes against 231. In the Lords, a strong protest against it was signed by Lechmere and four other Peers. Lechmere had been created a Peer by Walpole, but was now indignant at not succeeding Macclesfield as Chancellor: "he votes and speaks with us," says Wharton; "but I am afraid from resentment, and not principle."

On the passing of the Act Bolingbroke returned to England. He appears to have made one more effort to gain the friendship of Walpole, and his support in completing his restoration; but being repulsed, he plunged decisively into cabals against that Minister. Still retaining his influence with the Duchess of Kendal, he endeavoured to combine a strong opposition in Parliament, and in the country, under the convenient name of PATRIOTS, and he found an unexpected and most powerful ally in William Pulteney. This celebrated party leader was born in 1682: his family was old, his fortune immense. He early distinguished himself in Parliament; during the last years of Queen Anne, he was one of the most steady and able supporters of the Whigs, and on the accession of George, became Secretary at War. Walpole and he were especially intimate. When Walpole was sent to the Tower, for corruption, Pulteney had spoken in favour of his friend; when a schism broke out in the Government of 1717, Pulteney was one of the few who adhered to Walpole, and left office with him.* He had, therefore, the strongest claims, political and personal, upon Walpole, when Walpole returned to power. But he had two great faults in Walpole's eyes ability and independence. In fact, there is nothing more remarkable throughout all Walpole's administration, than his extreme jealousy of any colleague who could possibly grow his rival near the throne. Considering the very favourable circumstances under which

*It appears, however, that Pulteney did not approve of the factious course which Walpole took in opposition. See in the Appendix to this volume Lord Stair's letter to Lord Stanhope, January 23. 1718.

the deaths, in such rapid suc

he became Prime Minister cession, of all his chief competitors the re-union of the great Whig party- the insignificance and division of the Tories in Parliament the readiness of the chief remaining statesmen to act under him — we can scarcely doubt, that a liberal encouragement of rising talents, and toleration of high-minded colleagues, would have secured his power through his life, without serious difficulty, and averted that fearful tempest which, during his last years, howled around his head, and at length overthrew, not only him, but, in its violence, almost the monarchy itself. But such liberality did not belong to Walpole he would be all or nothing. He could be kind to a dependent, or generous to an enemy; not fair to a colleague. He could forgive great faults, but never great talents. We have already seen his conduct to Stanhope, to Sunderland, and to Carteret; we shall hereafter see it to Townshend and to Chesterfield; and it may truly be said that the opposition under which he fell at last, was one raised and fostered by his own inordinate ambition.

With this feeling Walpole, instead of proposing any office to Pulteney, tendered him a peerage, wishing to withdraw him from a House where his talents and influence were already feared. This offer Pulteney, as might have been expected, indignantly declined. He still continued, however, to expect a junction with Walpole, and two years afterwards consented to take (no doubt as a step to a higher) the very subordinate post of Cofferer of the Household. But finding himself disappointed, he silently brooded over his wrongs, and watched a favourable opportunity to attack the Minister in Parliament. Such an opening occurred in the Session of 1725, on a motion for discharging the debts of the Civil List, when Pulteney expressed his wonder how so great a debt could be contracted in three years' time, but added, that he was not surprised some persons were so eager to have the deficiencies of the Civil List made good, since they and their friends had so great a share in it. After one