XVII. 1736. to England.* Walpole had endeavoured to treat CHAP. him in what might then, perhaps, be termed a Parliamentary manner. He had instructed Lord Waldegrave to seize any favourable opportunity to offer him a bribe-a good round sum, he said,"a compliment on the new year"- and not less than 5000l. or 10,000l., so as to secure his future friendship. † But it appears that Chauvelin, though he showed some inclination to this disgraceful proposal, did not finally close with it, and became more than ever a declared enemy of England. Under these circumstances, Walpole availed himself of a secret correspondence which he had opened with Cardinal Fleury, to point out the animosity of Chauvelin, and its bad effects on the harmony between the two countries; and it was probably, in a great measure, to his remonstrances that we may ascribe the dismissal of Chauvelin, which occurred a few months afterwards. In England, the session of 1736 is chiefly remarkable for an attempt in behalf of the Dissenters, and for the passing of the Gin and Mortmain Acts. I have already related the endeavours of Stanhope, in 1719, to include the Test Act in his measure of relief to the Protestant Dissenters, and * Earl Waldegrave to the Duke of Newcastle, October 11. 1736. + Sir Robert Walpole to Earl Waldegrave, January 1. 1736. He shrewdly observes, that 5000l. makes a great number of French crowns. XVII. CHAP. how long he had struggled against the suggestion of "a more favourable opportunity." This 1736. more favourable opportunity had ever since been held out to them by Walpole, in appealing to their patience; but, like the horizon, it seemed to recede as they advanced. They had given the Minister their zealous support; in the elections of 1734, for example, they had issued several Declarations, pledging themselves to vote for his candidates t; and they had done so the more ostentatiously, as hoping to establish a claim to his future favour. Yet they still found Sir Robert immovable. Still did he reply to their deputations, that the time was not yet come. "You "have so repeatedly returned us this answer," at last said Dr. Chandler, "that I trust you will give "me leave to ask you when the time will come?" If you require a specific answer," said the Minister, provoked into sudden frankness, “I will give it you in one word - Never!" Thus disappointed in the government, the Dissenters began to court the Opposition, and, in 1736, induced Mr. Plumer to bring forward a motion for the repeal of the obnoxious statute. Sir Robert was much embarrassed, wishing neither to forfeit their support nor that of the Church; but at length, after a wavering and evasive speech, voted against 66 * See Vol. I. p. 490. + Boyer's Political State, vol. xlvii. pp. 332. and 436. See Coxe's Life, p. 608. No date is assigned to this anecdote; but it must have happened either in 1736 or 1739. XVII. 1736. them, in a majority of 251 against 123. For this CHAP. conduct, Walpole has been severely censured; yet in justice to him, we should, perhaps, reflect, whether his ministerial power, great as it was, really sufficed to overthrow what most of the Churchmen of the time, however erroneously, respected as one of their principal bulwarks; whether, if not, it could be his duty to plunge, at all hazards, into a hopeless contest; and whether the Dissenters would not have acted far better, both for themselves and for their friends, had they shunned a struggle which afforded no chances of success, and which only retarded the march of their cause in popular opinion. As a counterpoise to his vote on this occasion, Walpole gave his support to a Bill for the relief of Quakers in the recovery of tithes. The object was to render the proceedings against them less long and costly, and the Bill passed the House of Commons; but however well designed, it appears to have been loosely and hastily drawn. In the other House, both the Chancellor and Chief Justice (Lords Talbot and Hardwicke) pointed out its defects and opposed it, and under their guidance was the measure rejected. Walpole was much irritated at this failure, even on personal grounds, the Quakers in Norfolk being very numerous, and having always assisted him in his elections. His resentment was levelled especially against Gibson, Bishop of London, who had prevailed upon his Right Reverend brethren to declare against the XVII. 1736. CHAP. measure, and who, in consequence, lost what he had hitherto enjoyed · the chief confidence of the minister in all ecclesiastical affairs.* Gibson was a prelate of eminent learning and talents, and so well known to be intended for the Primacy, on the next occasion, that Whiston used to call him the heir apparent to the See of Canterbury. But on the death of Archbishop Wake, the minister had not forgotten or forgiven the opposition to the Quaker's Tithe Bill, and the vacant dignity was conferred on Bishop Potter. The Mortmain Act was a measure of which the necessity has often been proved in Roman Catholic countries, and seldom denied in ours: yet within the last hundred years we have seen but little cause to dread the excess of posthumous charity; and perhaps it might be said, that whenever the state of public feeling allows a mortmain law to be enacted, the same state of public feeling renders it unnecessary.t The Gin Act was not a ministerial measure, but proceeded from the benevolent views of Sir Joseph Jekyll. Drunkenness, a vice which seems to strike deeper root than any other in uneducated minds, had greatly augmented, especially in London, during the late years of peace and prosperity. According to Mr. Etough, Sir Robert was once reproached in conversation with giving Gibson the authority of a Pope. "And a very good Pope he is!" said Walpole. (Coxe's Life, p. 479.) † See Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. ii. p. 273. ed. 1825, 66 66 XVII. In this Session, the justices of Middlesex thought CHAP. it their duty to present a joint petition to the House of Commons on this subject, stating that 1736. the evil had grown to an alarming pitch; "that "the constant and excessive use of Geneva had already destroyed thousands of his Majesty's subjects, and rendered great numbers of others "unfit for useful labour and service, debauching "at the same time their morals, and driving them "into all manner of vice and wickedness; and "that this pernicious liquor was then sold, not only by the distillers and Geneva shops, but by many other persons of inferior trades, by which means, journeymen, apprentices, and servants, "were drawn in to taste, and by degrees to like, approve, and immoderately to drink thereof." This petition having first been referred to a Committee, Sir Joseph Jekyll proposed to lay on gin, and other spirituous liquors, a tax so heavy as to amount to a prohibition for the lower classes, namely, a duty of 20s. on each gallon sold by retail, and 50%. yearly for a licence to every retailer. Neither Pulteney nor Walpole approved of the scheme; the former complained of the invidious distinction between the poor and rich the latter foresaw that such exorbitant duties had a tendency to defeat themselves, and to encourage smuggling and fraud. Sir Robert made, however, no opposition to the passing of the Bill, merely predicting that his successors would be obliged to modify it, and providing that the Civil List should not |