66 XII. 1722. conspiracy:-"I should less wonder at it," he CHAP. said, "had I, in any one instance since my acces"sion to the throne, invaded the liberty or pro"perty of my subjects." With equal justice he observed on the infatuation of some Jacobites and the malice of others, -"By forming plots they depreciate all property that is vested in the "Public Funds, and then complain of the low state “of credit; they make an increase of the national 66 expences necessary, and then clamour at the "burthen of taxes, and endeavour to impute to my "government, as grievances, the mischiefs and "calamities which they alone create and occasion." The first business of the Commons, after again placing Mr. Compton in the Chair, was to hurry through a bill suspending the Habeas Corpus Act for one year. Mr. Spencer Cowper, and Sir Joseph Jekyll, observed that the Act had never yet been suspended for so long a period, and proposed six months, declaring, that at the end of that period they would, if necessary, readily agree to a further suspension. Yet notwithstanding the popularity and plausibility of this amendment, it was rejected by 246 votes against 193. The next subject with both Houses was the Pretender's declaration. It appears that James had been so far deluded by the sanguine hopes of his agents, or by his own, as to believe that the British people were groaning under a state of bondage and oppression, and that the King himself was ready to cast off an uneasy and precarious Crown. Under XII. .1722. CHAP. these impressions, he issued from Lucca, on the 22d of September, a strange manifesto, proposing, that if George will quietly deliver to him the throne of his fathers, he will, in return, bestow upon George the title of King in his native dominions, and invite all other States to confirm it; with a promise to leave his succession to the British dominions secure, if ever, in due course, his natural right should take place. This declaration was printed and distributed in England. Both Houses expressed their astonishment at its "surprising insolence: " it was ordered to be burnt by the common hangman; and a joint address was presented to His Majesty, assuring him that the designs of the public enemy shall be found "impracticable against a "Prince relying on and supported by the vigour "and duty of a British Parliament, and the af"fections of his people." Walpole, availing himself of the general resentment, next proposed to raise 100,000l. by a tax upon the estates of Roman Catholics. The project of Stanhope to relieve them from the Penal Laws, which was still on foot at the beginning of the South Sea Scheme *, had been arrested, first by the crash, and then by his death. Moderation to been one of his leading principles of government. Other maxims now prevailed; a system of general and indiscri the Roman Catholics had always * Mr. Brodrick to Lord Midleton, January 24. 1720. Refer to my first vol. p. 489. XII. 1722. minate punishment, which was, at least, nearly CHAP. allied to persecution, and which, if it did not find every Roman Catholic a Jacobite, was quite sure to make him so. Many, said Walpole, had been guilty - an excellent reason for punishing all! With a better feeling did Onslow (afterwards Speaker) declare his abhorrence of persecuting any others on account of their opinions in religion. Sir Joseph Jekyll, after praising the moderation and wisdom of the King, wished he could say the same of those who had the honour to serve him. But the proposal of Walpole was quite in accordance with the temper of the times; it was not only carried by 217 against 168, but, on a subsequent motion, was even extended to all nonjurors.* The House, however, favourably entertained a singular petition from the family of the Pendrills, praying to be exempted from the tax on account of the services of their ancestors in preserving Charles the Second after the battle of Worcester.t Amongst the foremost evils (and they were many) of this persecuting spirit, was the frightful degree of perjury which it produced. For as the estates of nonjurors were to be taxed, it became necessary to determine precisely who were non * I am sorry to find Coxe assert, in a blind panegyrical spirit, that "though scarcely conformable to justice, the policy "of this measure was unquestionable." How far more correct and enlightened were the views which he himself has published of Speaker Onslow! See Coxe's Walpole, vol. i. p. 175., and vol. ii. p. 555. † Commons' Journals, vol. xx. p. 210. XII. 1722. CHAP. jurors or not; in other words, almost the whole nation was to be summoned to swear allegiance to the Government. Nor was it explicitly stated what would be the consequence of this refusal, but a sort of vague threat was hung over them; and it seemed a trap in which, when once caught, men might hereafter be subjected not only to the largest fines, but even to forfeiture and confiscation. "I saw a great deal of it," says Speaker Onslow, "and it was a strange, as well as ridi 66 culous, sight to see people crowding at the "Quarter Sessions to give a testimony of their alle giance to a Government, and cursing it at the same time for giving them the trouble of so doing, "and for the fright they were put into by it; and "I am satisfied more real disaffection to the King "and his family arose from it than from any thing "which happened in that time.". Some of the Jacobites consulted their Prince as to the course which they should pursue in this emergency, but he prudently avoided any positive answer.* It was thought very desirable that they should act together as a body, in one course or the other, but no such general arrangement could be compassed. The greater number were inclined to swear, and did so, saying that they had rather venture themselves in the hand of God than of such men as they had to do with. Yet they still retained all * Mr. Lockhart to James, Sept. 10. 1723. James's answer, Nov. 24. 1723. † Lockhart's Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 108. 63 XII. their first principles; and the oath, however it might CHAP. torture their consciences, did not influence their conduct. Such is, I fear, the inevitable result of 1722. any oath imposed by any government for its security. Examples of that kind are too common in all countries. Swearing allegiance to King George did not shut out all the Jacobites from Parliament; swearing allegiance to King Louis Philippe does not shut out all the Carlists from the Chambers. Nay more, so far may right principle be distorted by faction, that such breach of faith is not only excused but even praised by the party which it aids. The Jacobites, beyond all doubt, applauded their leader, Mr. Shippen-that worthy, public-spirited man, they probably said, who has had the courage to swear against his conscience on purpose to serve the good cause! There were, of course, numerous exceptions; but I am speaking of the general effect. And though we might reasonably infer from theory that men whom we find honourable and high-minded in private life, and in far more trifling transactions, would be scrupulously bound by the solemn and public obligation of an oath, yet experience, I apprehend, would teach the very reverse. It was not till after these preliminaries, that a Select Committee was appointed to examine Layer and others, in relation to the plot. The Report of this Committee, drawn up by Pulteney, their chairman, and read to the House on the 1st of 1723. |