land and the charming essayist, Joseph Addison, as the two secretaries of state. The resignation of Walpole was regarded as a grave loss to the country. As chief of the Treasury and chancellor of the exchequer, he had inspired the commercial classes with confidence; and since fiscal matters were his especial forte, he had introduced various beneficial financial reforms, notably one which had for its object the reduction of the national debt. The nation was now to be deprived of his services, and it was felt by all who had the real interests of the people at heart that Stanhope, who candidly admitted "his incapacity for the affairs of the Treasury," was indeed a miserable substitute for the man who was looked upon as the first financier of the day. Irritated at the conduct of Sunderland and Stanhope in having plotted to overthrow the cabinet of which they had once been members, Walpole, who was never burdened with many scruples, coalesced with the Opposition, and became one of the most formidable of the antagonists which the new government had to encounter. He had but one object in view, to hamper the actions of the two leading ministers so as to embarrass their direction of affairs and oust the intriguers from the confidence of their king. As he had been bitten so would he bite. It mattered little to effect this purpose that he had to ban what he once blessed, or to thwart what he once advocated. Every expedient he considered fair, provided he could shatter the cabinet of Stanhope and play tit for tat. And here for the first time in a political career that had hitherto been highly honourable we meet with the two great faults in the character of Walpole-his intense selfishness and his boundless ambition. He loved office, not wisely, but too well; not as the statesman whose sole policy is to rule for the welfare of his country, for the prosperity of its people, and for the honour of its flag, but as the statesman who so keenly appreciates the

office, that to possess himself of its advantages there is little he will not dare and do. To Walpole politics was only another word for the Treasury bench-for the identification of his own good with that of the country. In after years, when placed at the head of the nation, his policy was guided solely by the light of self-interest. If a certain line of action would strengthen his administration he pursued it, indifferent whether such a course was of advantage or of disadvantage to the country. If a measure was calculated to relax his hold of power, no matter how beneficial such a measure might be to the nation, he never scrupled to raise his voice in opposition. The safety of his own administration was his first thought; all other matters were subservient. Seldom has a statesman been influenced by a narrower and more selfish creed; yet never has such a creed, in spite of its selfishness, ministered so much to the peace and prosperity of a people.

It was in the famous debate on the Peerage Bill-the first great debate since the exchange of government by prerogative for government by Parliament-that the opposition of Walpole put forth all its strength, and showed of what it was capable; since the days when Halifax "the Trimmer" defeated the Exclusion Bill, never has the influence of one man been more conspicuously displayed. The ministry, desirous of frustrating the attempts of the German favourites to obtain English titles, had resolved upon introducing a measure limiting the royal prerogative in the creation of peers. As it was known that the Prince of Wales, when he ascended the throne, had given out his intention of raising various of his friends and adherents to the peerage, the king, who hated his son more cordially every day, was only too glad to abandon any part of the royal power, provided by such conduct he could baffle the design of the heir-apparent. Accordingly, when the scheme was laid before him, he offered to support it with all his

authority. Thus no difficulty was apprehended. The House of Lords would, of course, readily further the measure, since it tended to raise considerably their individual importance. In the House of Commons opposition was to be expected from the Tories; but as the Whigs, who had never ceased to declaim against the unconstitutional conduct of Harley (Lord Oxford) in creating twelve peers so as to have a dominant influence in the Upper House in order to pass the hated Treaty of Utrecht, were in the majority, and were sure to vote for the bill, the resistance of the Tory party would be useless. An easy triumph was therefore anticipated.

It was

A bill framed on these principles was accordingly brought in by the government, and debated in the Upper House. But the subject had now given rise to considerable agitation. The public were not in favour of it, the pulpits preached against it, the press flooded the country with pamphlets hostile to the ministerial scheme. said there would be opposition from quarters hitherto unexpected in the House of Commons. Thus warned Stanhope took his place in the House of Lords on the day appointed for the third reading of the bill, and in the presence of a full chamber said, "That this bill had made a great noise and raised strange apprehensions; and since the design of it had been so misrepresented and so misunderstood that it was likely to meet with great opposition in the other House, he thought it advisable to let that matter lie still till a more proper opportunity." The bill was therefore dropped for that session on the understanding, however, that it would be revived in the next.

The scheme of the government was introduced by the Duke of Somerset in the House of Lords. He was supported by the Duke of Argyll, and opposed by the Earl of Oxford. Whilst the proposal was being discussed Stanhope, who had recently been raised to the peerage as Baron Stanhope, came down to the House with a message from the king, to the effect that "his Majesty had so much at heart the settling the peerage of the whole kingdom upon such foundation as may secure the freedom and constitution of Parliament in all future ages, that he is willing his prerogative stand not in the way of so great and necessary a work." Thus encouraged, the Lords went into committee, and agreed to the following resolutions as the basis of their bill:-The peerage was not to be increased beyond six of its present number, with an exception in favour of princes of the blood. In cases of extinction a new creation might be asked for. All future peerages were not to be granted for any longer tenure than to the grantee and to the heirs male of his body. And in the stead of the sixteen elective peers from Scotland, the king was to nominate twentyfive as hereditary peers, who, on the failure of heirs male, were to be supplied from the remaining Scottish aristocracy. On division these resolutions were carried by a majority of fifty-three.

VOL. I.

The enemies of the measure, however, had no intention of allowing their opposition to grow cool. During the recess the subject was defended and attacked with considerable warmth. Sunderland, who was the chief author of the bill and most anxious for it to become law, used all his arts to obtain a majority in its favour. Addison was commissioned to defend the scheme, and in a pamphlet entitled "The Old Whig" displayed his wonted literary skill in showing that the unlimited power of the crown in the creation of peers was a comparatively modern innovation, and should be curtailed, as it tended to tamper with the independence of the House of Commons by holding out to its leaders the temptation of hereditary honours. The arguments of Addison were well refuted by Steele in the "Plebeian," who proved how the bill, if it became law, would establish a close aristocracy, and inflict a severe blow upon the freedom of the British constitution. Walpole himself

4

poet

'Et genus et proavos, et quæ non fecimus ipsi, Vix ea nostra voco;'

yet the claim derived from that advantage, though fortuitous, is so generally and so justly conceded that every endeavour to subvert the principle would merit contempt and abhorrence. But though illustrious birth forms one undisputed title to preeminence and superior consideration, yet surely it ought not to be the only one. The origin of high titles was derived from the will of the sovereign to reward signal services or conspicuous merit by a recompense which, surviving to posterity, should display in all ages the virtues of the receiver and the gratitude of the donor. Is merit, then, so rarely discernible, or is gratitude so small a virtue in our days that the one must be supposed to be its own reward, and the other limited to a barren display of impotent good-will? Had this bill originated with some noble peer of distinguished ancestry, it would have excited less surprise; a desire to exclude others from a participation of honours is no novelty in persons of that class: Quod ex aliorum meritis sibi arrogant, id mihi ex meis ascribi nolunt. But it is a matter of just surprise that a bill of this nature should either have been projected or at least promoted by a gentleman [Lord Stanhope] who was not long ago seated amongst us, and who, having got into the House of Peers, is now desirous to shut the door after him.

"When great alterations in the constitution are to be made, the experiment should be tried for a short time before the proposed change is finally carried into execution, lest it should produce evil instead of good; but in this case, when the bill is once sanctioned by Parliament, there can be no. future hopes of redress, because the Upper House will always oppose the repeal of an Act which has so considerably increased their power. The great unanimity with which this bill has passed the Lords ought to inspire some jealousy in the Commons;

for it must be obvious that whatever the Lords gain must be acquired at the loss of the Commons, and the diminution of the regal prerogative; and that in all disputes between the Lords and Commons, when the House of Lords is immutable, the Commons must, sooner or later, be obliged to recede.

"The view of the ministry in framing this bill is plainly nothing but to secure their power in the House of Lords. The principal argument on which the necessity of it is founded is drawn from the mischief occasioned by the creation of twelve peers during the reign of Queen Anne, for the purpose of carrying an infamous peace through the House of Lords; that was only a temporary measure, whereas the mischief to be occasioned by this bill will be perpetual. It creates thirty-one peers by authority of Parliament; so extraordinary a step cannot be supposed to be taken without some sinister design in future. The ministry want no additional strength in the House of Lords for conducting the common affairs of government, as is sufficiently proved by the unanimity with which they have carried through this bill. If, therefore, they think it necessary to acquire additional strength, it must be done with views and intentions more extravagant and hostile to the constitution than any which have yet been attempted. The bill itself is of a most insidious and artful nature. The immediate creation of nine Scotch peers, and the reservation of six English peers for a necessary occasion, is