innocent sources of enjoyment had been dried up; that very many persons have been tormented with dreadful agonies and pangs; that the Church has been weakened by so large a separation. Yet it is cheering to reflect, that while the good seems lasting and secure, the ill effects have much diminished, and we may hope will wholly dis

appear.

Thus, then, stands the case. A hundred years ago the churchman was slack in his duty, and slumbering at his post. It was the voice of an enthusiast that roused the sleeper. Truth must condemn alike the over-strained excitement of the one, and the untimely supineness of the other. But the progress of time, and, still more, of mutual emulation, has corrected the defects of each. Sleep has never again fallen on the churchman; enthusiasm has, in a great degree, departed from the Methodist. So closely have the two persuasions drawn to each other, that they are now separated on no essential points, and by little more than the shadowy lines of prejudice and habit. It might be well for the followers of Wesley seriously to ponder whether, in still continuing apart from the Church, they do not keep up a distinction without a difference; whether, by joining the Church, they would not best serve the cause of true religion, 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 later 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!

[Note referred to on page 457.

Bishop White has left the following narrative of his intercourse with Dr. Coke, the friend and biographer of Wesley:

"In the spring of the year 1791, the author received from that gentleman (Dr. Coke), a letter containing a plan of what he considered as an union of the Methodistical Society with the Episcopal Church. The plan was, in substance, that all the Methodist ministers, at the time in connection, were to receive Episcopal ordination, as also those who should come forwards in future within the connection; such ministers to remain under the government of the then superintendents and their successors. Dr. Coke's motive to the proposed union, as stated in his letter, was an apprehension entertained by him that he had gone further in the separation than had been designed by Mr. Wesley, from whom he had received his commission. Mr. Wesley himself, he was sure, had gone further than he would have gone, if he had foreseen some events which followed. The Doctor was certain, that the same gentleman was sorry for the separation, and would use his influence to the utmost, for the accomplishment of a re-union. Dr. Coke's letter was answered by the author with the reserve which seemed incumbent on one who was incompetent to decide with effect on the proposal made."-p. 168.

In the appendix to his volume, Bishop White has published both letters. Dr. Coke's letter is dated "Richmond, April 24, 1791," and is addressed to "The Right Rev. Father in God, Bishop White." It introduces the subject of re-union as follows:

"Right Rev. Sir,

"Permit me to intrude a little on your time upon a subject of great importance.

"You, I believe, are conscious that I was brought up in the Church of England, and have been ordained a presbyter of that Church. For many years I was prejudiced, even I think to bigotry, in favour of it; but through a variety of causes or incidents, to mention which would be tedious and useless, my mind was exceedingly biassed on the other side of the question. In consequence of this, I am not sure but I went further in the separation of our church in America than Mr. Wesley, from whom I had received my commission, did intend. He did indeed solemnly invest me, as far as he had a right so to do, with Episcopal authority, but did not intend, I think, that an entire separation should take place. He, being pressed by our friends on this side of the water, for ministers to administer the sacraments to them (there being very few of the clergy of the Church of England then in the States), went further, I am sure, than he would have gone, if he had foreseen some events which followed. And this I am certain of,-that he is now sorry for the separation.

"But what can be done for a re-union, which I much wish for; and to accomplish which, Mr. Wesley, I have no doubt, would use his influence to the utmost? The affection of a very considerable number of the preachers, and most of the people, is very strong towards him, notwithstanding the excessive ill usage he received from a few. My interest also is not small; and both his and mine would readily, and to the utmost, be used to accomplish that (to us) very desirable object; if a readiness were shown by the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church to re unite."

After speaking of the numbers of the Methodists in America, and of some of the hindrances in the way of his plan, Dr. Coke adds,

"My desire of a re-union is so sincere and earnest, that these difficulties almost make me tremble; and yet something must be done before the death of Mr. Wesley, otherwise I shall despair of success; for though my influence among the Methodists in these States as well as in Europe is, I doubt not, increasing, yet Mr. Asbury, whose influence is very capital, will not easily comply; nay, I know he will be exceedingly averse to it. In Europe, where some steps had been taken tending to a separation, all is at an end. Mr. Wesley is a determined enemy of it, and I have lately borne an open and successful testimony against it." Appendix, No. 21, pp. 343-5.

In 1787, when Dr. White was in England to receive consecration as one of the first American bishops consecrated by the Church of England, he sought, during his stay there, an interview with John Wesley, "with a view of stating to him some circumstances, of which he might be uninformed, in reference to the design then lately adopted of withdrawing the Methodist Societies in America from the communion of the Episcopal Church." Circumstances prevented this meeting, but Dr. White mentions that he "had a conversation on the same subject with the Rev. Charles Wesley, who expressed himself decidedly against the new course adopted, and gave the author a pamphlet published by his brother and himself, in the earlier part of their lives, against a secession from the Church of England; which, he said, was at that time proposed by some. And he remarked that the whole of the pamphlet might be considered as a censure on what had been done recently in America."-pp. 170-1. Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. By William White, D. D., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Second Edition. New York, 1836.

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 Lady Pomfret, 1739. Letters, vol. ii. p. 213, ed. 1837. 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 imme diately ordered all the queens to be taken out of the pack." Opinions of the Duchess of Marlborough, p. 40.

[In a note to Lord Hervey's Memoirs, Mr. Croker has given another evidence, of a more solemn character, of the King's grief.

"The Queen was buried on Saturday, the 17th of December, in a new vault. in Henry VII.'s Chapel, where the King himself was afterwards buried by her side. Mr Milman, Prebendary of Westminster, has favoured me with the following interesting note on this subject:

"George II., as the last proof of his attachment, gave directions that his remains and those of Queen Caroline should be mingled together. Accordingly, the two coffins were placed in a large stone sarcophagus, and one side of each of the wooden coffins withdrawn. This was a tradition at Westminster Abbey, of which I myself have seen the confirmation, in my opinion conclusive; and as the royal vault in Westminster Abbey may never be again opened, it may be curious to preserve the record. On the occasion of the removal, in 1837, of a still-born child of the Duke of Cumberland (King of Hanover), to Windsor, a Secretary of State's warrant (which is necessary), arrived, empowering the Dean and Chapter to open the vault. I was requested by the Dean to superintend the business, which took place by night. In the middle of the vault, towards the further end, stands the large stone sarcophagus, and against the wall are still standing the two sides of the coffins which were withdrawn. I saw and examined them closely, and have no doubt of the fact. The vault contains only the family of George the Second.' H. H. MILMAN." Note, Chapter xl. of Hervey's Memoirs.]

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, 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.t-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 prudence," 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 effectual service to the cause he has embraced; therefore there are but few such men in the kingdom. Your right Jacobite, sir, disguises his true sentiments, he roars out for revolutionary 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 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 disaffected. 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 keeping 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 discon

* Mr. Ford to Swift, Nov. 22, 1737. Swift's Works, vol. xix. p. 192.

† Lady Louisa Stuart, Introductory Anecdotes to the Wortley Correspondence, p. 35. Parl. Hist. vol. x. p. 400.

tented, therefore they must be oppressed. "For my part," said he, "I think no interest nor any party of men ought to be supported 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 colouring, 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 authorize 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 recognizes 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 over

*Parl. Hist. vol. x. p. 460.

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

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,