1753, AND PART OF 1754.
Vernon. Then for the truth and plainness of the case,
I pluck this pale and maiden blossom here,
Giving my verdict on the white rose’ side.
Lawyer. Unless my study and my books be false,
The argument you held, was wrong in you;—(To Somerset)
In sign whereof I pluck a white rose too.
Shakesp. first Part of Henry VI.
[CHAPTER X.]
Debates in Parliament at the commencement of the year 1753—The King of Prussia stops the payment of the Silesian Loan—The fictitious Memorial of several Noblemen and Gentlemen on the Education of the Prince of Wales—History of Lord Ravensworth and Fawcett—The latter’s charge of Jacobitism against persons holding situations under the Crown—Debate in the House of Lords on Fawcett’s testimony—Speeches of the Duke of Bedford, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Harcourt, Lord Talbot, the Bishops of Norwich and Gloucester, and the Duke of Newcastle.
This year, soon made remarkable by some extraordinary occurrences, opened quietly; at least with events scarcely worth recording. A few independents of Westminster attempted, on the death of their representative, Sir Peter Warren, to revive an opposition to the Court, by again presenting Sir George Vandeput to the mob; but the idol’s holiday was past; and he himself soon declined the contest. The Earl of Marchmont, adopted into the Court, moved the Address in the House of Lords, but coldly and unanimated; the fire and acrimony which made him shine in Opposition were gone, and no grace had succeeded. In the other House, Lord Egmont reflected on the Address, which he said, he expected would have been prudent and discreet, but found some parts of it improper and vain-glorious: that he believed the measures were well intended, but would prove unsuccessful; that the College of Princes had objected to an election of a King of the Romans; that the new memorial of the King of Prussia, outwardly relative to the Silesian loan, was founded, he believed, on that Prince’s dissatisfaction with our conduct in the affair of the election; that he desired to avoid petulance, but thought it improper to give approbation to measures as wise, in which no wisdom had appeared, and that therefore, in wording the Address, he would omit the words wisdom as well as goodness; that he acknowledged the goodness, not the wisdom. Mr. Pelham replied, that he thought the noble Lord (who was as accurate as anybody in writing)[220] had made a false emendation; that the purpose of maintaining peace was all that was aimed at in the speech; who would not own the wisdom as well as the goodness of his Majesty in this? This is all the speech says: is it good in the King or in Ministers to pursue bad measures? there cannot be great goodness and little wisdom.
Feb. 9th.—Lord Egmont, in the course of the Mutiny Bill, moved to have oaths administered to evidences on regimental Courts Martial. He still combatted the giant of military power: Sir Henry Erskine, the old companion of his chivalry, was now the first to oppose him. The consideration, at the motion of Lord George Sackville, was deferred till the report.
13th.—The Duke of Bedford moved to have the accounts of Nova Scotia laid before the House. Lord Halifax added, that all letters to and from the Secretary of State relative thereto should be produced. The Duke of Newcastle opposed this, and desired that only extracts might be brought. The Duke of Bedford artfully inflamed this contest, praised Lord Halifax, and acquiesced.
15th.—Was published the Duke of Newcastle’s answer to the Memorial presented by Mons. Michell, Secretary of the embassy from the King of Prussia. This Memorial and other papers had been presented in November and December of the preceding year, and was a pretended justification of the Prussian King’s conduct in stopping the last payment of the money due to the subjects of Great Britain on the Silesian loan. This money had been borrowed of private persons in the year 1734 by the Emperor Charles VI., and he had mortgaged to them as a security his Revenues arising from the Duchies of Upper and Lower Silesia, for payment of principal and interest, till the whole debt should be discharged, which was fixed to be in the year 1745. But no sooner was the Imperial debtor dead, than the King of Prussia seized the province of Silesia, on the cession of which to him in form by the treaty of Breslau in 1742, he agreed to take the debt upon himself, and to stand exactly in the place of the Emperor; and actually did continue to discharge part of it; but being intent on erecting himself into a naval Power, and as intent on traversing the views of his uncle, he had involved himself in squabbles with England by transporting and furnishing naval and hostile stores to France on board his Embden ships, some of which had been taken by our men of war, some condemned, some restored. These discussions not turning out to his satisfaction, or he being determined not to be satisfied, at length resolved to detain the last payment on the Silesian loan; that is, after a certain balance had been liquidated by his own Ministers, he stopped about 30,000l. of 45,000l. which were due, and offered to our subjects to pay the remainder, provided they would give a full and authentic discharge for the whole debt: a transaction the more arbitrary and unjustifiable, as his complaints were not dated till 1746, and the whole debt ought to have been discharged the year before. The measure was violent and insulting, and a glaring comment on the inconveniences resulting from our connexions with the Continent. The great superiority of the navies of Great Britain over the baby fleet of Prussia, the only arms by which nations so separated could come to any discussion of interests, was too evident for that Prince to have dared to hazard his infant hopes in so unequal a contest, had he not been sensible that we had a pawn on the continent with which he might indemnify himself for any exertion of British resentment;—and indeed, while we have this pledge staked for our good behaviour, every petty Prince who is a match for Hanover is too powerful for England; nor is it a question any longer what nations can cope with Great Britain, but, what little Landgrave is too formidable to the Electorate?
With the Duke of Newcastle’s letter was delivered a confutation of the Memorial, drawn up by Sir George Lee, Dr. Paul, the King’s Advocate for Civil Law, Sir Dudley Rider, Attorney, and Mr. Murray, Solicitor General. The examination was made in concert by all, the composition solely by the last; and perhaps few pieces in any language can stand in comparison with it, for elegance, perspicuity, art, and argument. The genius of the author did honour to his country in a performance of such notoriety; but perhaps the dignity of England had been less hurt, if we had been made appear to be less in the right. What advantage was there in having the better of the argument against a Prince, who lay out of danger from the resentments of Great Britain, while Hanover lay at his mercy? It is unseemly for great nations to combat with the pen; and except in the scholastic reign of James the First, England never dictated to other kingdoms by a superiority in controversy. What is still more striking, and a remark that I might, but will not often make, scarce a murmur followed this supineness of conduct. Even those who suffered in that tender point, their interest, seemed contented with our pedantic victory. In the year 1743, a yellow sash worn by the King in the field, and one or two Hanoverian prejudices as trifling, were on the brink of raising a Civil War in this country. In the year 1753, both national honour and national avarice could not, did not attempt to raise so much as a Debate in the House of Commons in their own defence! A little spark, in comparison, kindled the flame that followed.
At the end of the last year, while the dissensions in the tutorhood had been carried so high, an anonymous Memorial,[221] pretended to have been signed by several Noblemen and Gentlemen of the first rank and fortune, had been sent to five or six particular persons: it ran in these words:
A Memorial, &c.
The Memorialists represent,
That the education of a Prince of Wales is an object of the utmost importance to the whole nation.
That it ought always to be entrusted to Noblemen of the most unblemished honour, and to Prelates of the most disinterested virtue, of the most accomplished learning, and of the most unsuspected principles, with regard to government both in Church and State.
That the misfortunes, which this nation formerly suffered or escaped under King Charles the First, King Charles the Second, and King James the Second, were owing to the bad education of those Princes, who were early initiated in maxims of arbitrary power.
That, for a Faction to engross the education of a Prince of Wales to themselves, excluding men of probity, property, and wholesome learning, is unwarrantable, dangerous, and illegal.
That, to place men about a Prince of Wales, whose principles are suspected, and whose belief in the mysteries of our Holy Faith is doubtful, has the most mischievous tendency, and ought justly to alarm the friends of their country, and of the Protestant Succession.
That, for Ministers to support low men, who were originally improper for the high trust to which they were advanced, after complaints made of dark, suspicious, and unwarrantable means made use of by such men in their plan of education; and to protect and countenance such men in their insolent and unheard of behaviour to their superiors, is a foundation for suspecting the worst designs in such Ministers, and ought to make all good men apprehensive of the ambition of those Ministers.
That, it being notorious that books inculcating the worst maxims of government, and defending the most avowed tyrannies, have been put into the hands of the Prince of Wales, it cannot but affect the Memorialists with the most melancholy apprehensions, when they find that the men who had the honesty and resolution to complain of such astonishing methods of instruction are driven away from Court, and that the men who have dared to teach such doctrines are continued in trust and favour.
That the security of this Government being built on Whig principles, and alone supported by Whig zeal; that the establishment of the present Royal Family being settled on the timely overthrow of Queen Anne’s last Ministry, it cannot but alarm all true Whigs, to hear of schoolmasters of very contrary principles being thought of for Preceptors; and to see none but the friends and pupils of the late Lord Bolingbroke entrusted with the education of a Prince, whose family that Lord endeavoured by his measures to defeat, and by his writings to exclude from the Throne of these kingdoms.
That, there being great reason to believe that a noble Lord has accused one of the Preceptors of Jacobitism, it is astonishing that no notice has been taken of a complaint of so high a nature; on the contrary, the accused person continues in the same trust, without any inquiry into the grounds of the charge, or any steps taken by the accused to purge himself from a crime of so black a dye.
That no satisfaction being given to the Governor and Preceptor, who, though a nobleman of the most unblemished honour, and a Prelate of the most unbiassed virtue, have been treated in the grossest terms of abuse, by a menial servant in the family, is derogatory to his Majesty’s authority, under which they acted, is an affront to the Peerage, and an outrage to the dignity of the Church.
That whoever advised the refusal of an audience to the Lord Bishop of Norwich, who was so justly alarmed at the wrong methods which he saw taken in the education of the Prince, is an enemy to his country, and can only mean at best to govern by a faction, or is himself influenced by a more dangerous faction, who intend to overthrow the Government, and restore the exiled and arbitrary House of Stuart.
That to have a Scotchman of a most disaffected family, and allied in the nearest manner to the Pretender’s First Minister, consulted on the education of the Prince of Wales, and entrusted with the most important secrets of Government, must tend to alarm and disgust the friends of the present Royal Family, and to encourage the hopes and attempts of the Jacobites.
Lastly, the Memorialists cannot help remarking, that three or four low, dark, suspected persons are the only men whose situation is fixed and permanent, but that all the great offices and officers are so constantly varied and shuffled about, to the disgrace of this country, that the best affected apprehend that there is a settled design in those low and suspected persons to infuse such jealousies, caprices, and fickleness into the two Ministers whose confidence they engross, as may render this Government ridiculous and contemptible, and facilitate the Revolution, which the Memorialists think they have but too much reason to fear is meditating.
God preserve the King!
Of these papers, one had been sent to General Hawley, and another to Lord Ravensworth. The former immediately carried one copy of his to the Duke, who gave it to the King, and another to the Duke of Newcastle, whose fright was only equalled by the noise raised by other copies of the Memorial, which was soon dispersed. Whoever was ill at or discontented with the Court, whoever was popular, whoever was remarkably Whig, were said to be in the number of the Memorialists. But why Hawley was selected for one of the first copies, was not so easily guessed. It was well said, by somebody, that it was judiciously intended by the author, if he meant to have it propagated; for as Hawley could not read, he must of necessity communicate it to others. Why Lord Ravensworth received one was obvious. He was reckoned one of the warmest and honestest Whigs in England. His being reckoned so, was a reason for the authors of the Memorial to address one to him; perhaps not their only reason; perhaps their thinking him rather a factious and interested, than an honest Whig, was the chief inducement to them to sow their seeds of discontent in a rank soil, which did indeed produce an ample crop.
In the beginning of February, Lord Ravensworth came to town, and acquainted Mr. Pelham that he had strong evidence of Jacobitism to produce against Stone, Murray, the Solicitor-General, and Dr. Johnson, Bishop of Gloucester. The notification was not welcome; yet could not be overlooked nor stifled. Lord Ravensworth had already communicated his intention of having the affair sifted to the Duke of Devonshire, the Chancellor, Lord Anson, and Mr. Fox, the latter of whom he had consulted, whether he should carry the notice to the King or to the Duke. Mr. Fox told him that the Duke never meddled out of his own province, the Army. The Ministry determined, against the opinion of Lord Granville, that the Cabinet Council should hear Lord Ravensworth’s information.
On the 15th, 16th, and 17th, the Cabinet Council sat long and late, but with much secrecy, inquiring into this affair. The first night Lord Ravensworth was heard for four hours. The purport of his accusation was, that some few weeks before at Durham, one Fawcett, an Attorney, reading the newspaper which mentioned the promotion of Dr. Johnson to the Bishopric of Gloucester, said “He has good luck!” Being asked what he meant by that expression, he had replied, “Why, Johnson has drunk the Pretender’s health twenty times with me and Mr. Stone and Mr. Murray.” Dr. Cowper, Dean of Durham, who had been present at this dialogue, was called, and in a short and sensible manner confirmed Lord Ravensworth’s account. The conversation made no noise at the time; only Dr. Chapman, master of Magdalen College in Cambridge, gave private intelligence of it to Harry Vane, a creature of the accused triumvirate, and he, by Mr. Pelham’s order, wrote to Fawcett to know the meaning of this imputation. Fawcett denied what he had said, and acquitted the Bishop of the charge. The clamours against Stone, on his quarrel with the Bishop of Norwich and Lord Harcourt, and the Memorial reaching Lord Ravensworth soon after this conversation happened, he determined to signalize his zeal, and hastened to London, Fawcett having confirmed to him what he had denied to Vane, but begging not to be produced as an accuser.
16th, Fawcett was examined: never was such an instance of terror and confusion! yet with reluctance and uncertainty he owned that what he had uttered at Durham was true. The substance of his evidence was, “that, about twenty years ago, Murray, then a young Lawyer, Stone, then in indigence, and himself, had used to sup frequently at one Vernon’s, a rich Mercer, a noted Jacobite, and a lover of ingenious young men. The conversation was wont to be partly literature, partly treason; the customary healths, The Chevalier and Lord Dunbar.”
Had the greater part of the Council not wished well to the accused, it must have shocked them to hear a charge of such consequence brought after an interval of twenty years, brought on memory, the transactions of a private company, most of them very young men, at worst flattering an old rich bachelor of no importance, and, in their most unguarded moments, never rising beyond a foolish libation to the healths of their imaginary Monarch and his Minister. Considering the lengths to which party had been carried for the last twenty years; considering how many men had been educated at Oxford about that period, or had been in league with every considerable Jacobite in the kingdom, if such a charge might be brought after so long a term, who almost would not be guilty? Who almost would be so innocent as not to have gone beyond a treasonable toast? It was necessary to be very Whig to see Lord Ravensworth’s accusation in an honourable light.
17th, Lord Ravensworth and Fawcett were called to sign their Affidavits: the latter asked if he might alter his? The Chancellor told him he might add for explanation, but not make two Affidavits. He said, “My lords, I am fitter to die than to make an Affidavit.” He contradicted many things that he had told Lord Ravensworth, and behaved so tragically, yet so naturally, that the Council were too much moved to proceed, and adjourned.
The accused were warm and earnest in denying the charge: Stone in particular affirming, that he would allow the truth of all that had been alleged against him for the last six months, if he had so much as once drunk the Pretender’s health in the most envenomed companies, even when a student at Oxford; adding many menaces of prosecuting Fawcett for calumny. Such minute assurances from one so suspected, or such strains of prudence in his very youth, did not much contribute to invalidate Fawcett’s testimony in the eyes of the world.
19th, the House of Commons went on the supply for Nova Scotia, as opened by Lord Duplin. Colonel Cornwallis, just returned from that Government, gave a short and sensible account of the colony, where, he said, the trade and improvements had been carried to as great a height as could be expected in the time. Beckford spoke strongly in behalf of the colony, and for attending to the West Indies, where all our wars must begin and end; that till we attended to our Navy, we had done nothing in the last war; how preferable this, to flinging our money into the gulf of Germany! He commended Cornwallis, and the Board of Trade. Sir Cordel Firebrace inquired into the state of the civil government; Cornwallis gave it. Gray spoke for improving it. Mr. Pelham desired to have it remembered, that the support of the colony was the sense of the House; and he told Beckford, that if he would praise oftener where it was deserved, his reproofs would be more regarded.
The Council sat late again that night: Fawcett collected more resolution; said, that Lord Ravensworth had been in the right to call upon him; that it was fact that he had been with the three accused when the treasonable healths were drunk; that at such a distance of time, he could not swear positively that they drank them; but he would endeavour with time to recollect particular circumstances.
21st and 22nd, the Council continued sitting, and heard Mr. Stone purge himself, who, with other articles of defence, called Bishop Hay Drummond to the character of his principles.
On the 23rd, Mr. Murray appeared before them, but rejected impetuously the reading of the Depositions: he said, he was positive to their falsehood, be they what they might: as he was aware that suspicions might arise from the connexions of his family, he had lived a life of caution beyond even what his principles would have dictated.
Lord Ravensworth grew unquiet. Fawcett’s various and uncertain behaviour distressed him: though the world was willing to believe the accused Jacobites, the evidence did not tend to corroborate the opinion: was drinking a treasonable health all the treason committed by men from whom so much danger was apprehended? Were no proofs of disloyalty more recent than of twenty years to be found against men who were supposed involved in the most pernicious measures? If no acts of a treacherous dye could be produced against them since they came into the King’s service, might it not well be supposed, that their views and establishment under the present Government had washed out any stains contracted by education or former adulation? and it did appear that Vernon the Mercer had actually made Murray the heir of his fortunes. Lord Ravensworth consulted the Speaker, who advised him to establish his own truth, in having received the advertisement from Fawcett—but neither was that denied, nor the drinking the healths disbelieved, though both Stone and Murray at the last session of the Council on the 26th, when the latter made an incomparable oration, took each a solemn oath, that the charge was absolutely false.
The Council made their report to the King, signed unanimously, that Fawcett’s account was false and scandalous—yet the Duke of Grafton, one of the unanimous, owned to Princess Emily, that Fawcett being asked if he had seen Mr. Murray since he had been in town, confessed he had, that he had been sent to him by Harry Vane. “What did Mr. Murray say to you?” “He advised me to contradict what I had said.” And the Chancellor, who communicated the whole transaction to the Duke of Bedford, seemed to own Mr. Murray guilty. How his jealousy of Murray, and his mean court to Stone, made him choose to distinguish between them, will appear still more strongly hereafter.
The King’s acceptance of Lord Ravensworth’s zeal was by no means gracious. Whether those frowns provoked, whether the Cabinet censure might inflame, whether disappointment from the ill success of such notable policy had soured, or whether he was still persuaded that the House of Hanover was in danger by employing men who had had such dangerous connexions in their youth with a Jacobite Mercer, Lord Ravensworth was eager and busy in blowing up farther and more public inquisition. His temper was naturally hot; he was reckoned honest; two strong motives to prevent his acquiescing calmly to the disgrace he had received. His manner of prosecuting his measure, whatever was the end, was neither warm nor over-righteous. He tampered with the Duke of Bedford, communicated his papers to him, and even told him that it would not be disagreeable to him to be called upon in the House of Lords to explain his conduct. Yet to others he protested that he had no dealings with the Duke. His Grace was warned of this intricate behaviour; yet being still warmer than Lord Ravensworth, and incapable of indirect policy himself, he slighted the notice; and on March 16th, acquainted the Lords, that on the Thursday following he should move for the papers relating to the examination of Stone and Murray. This was a strain of candour a little beyond what was exacted by honour or policy. If the notification exceedingly embarrassed the Ministry, it must be owned that the measures they concerted, from the time given them by the Duke, were as discreet and artful as could be devised.
The 22nd was the day of expectation. The House was crowded. The Duke of Bedford began with observing that the public attention had been so engrossed by the late Cabinet Councils, that he was not surprised at the multitude he found assembled to hear the discussion, or at least to get some light into an affair, which, though touching the public so nearly, had been wrapt in such mysterious secrecy: such solemn councils held on treason, yet so little known of either accusation or process!—the effects indeed, the acquittal and the continuation of confidence, were divulged and notorious. His difficulties in a disquisition of this tender nature were great; difficult it was for him, after repeated obligations, to name the name of his Majesty—yet, if ever he should suggest a doubt, he could only mean his Majesty’s Ministers. It is the very spirit of the Law, the King can do no wrong—and not only the language of Law and of Parliament, it was the language of his heart—his experience of the King had taught it him: his Majesty cannot err, but when facts are not fairly stated to him. Those who state them unfairly, may misrepresent me. “The notoriety,” said the Duke, “that an inquest of treason had been in agitation, made me conclude that it must be brought hither for our advice—could I doubt but it would? What other Judicature is there for crimes and criminals of this high nature? The incompetence of the Lords who had been assembled for this trial was evident: can the Cabinet Council condemn? Can they acquit? if they cannot condemn nor acquit, can they try? or who that is accused, is innocent, till he has had a more solemn purgation than their report can give him? But if no character can be purified by their verdict, what becomes of their own? My Lords, what a trust is reposed in the Cabinet Council! Can they be at peace till their opinions are sanctified by our sentence? But why do I talk of their satisfaction? the nation has a right to be satisfied. Here is an accusation of treason brought against men in such high and special trust, that the Councils of his present Majesty, and the hopes of the nation in the successor, are reposed in them: and this charge brought by a Lord of Parliament, who—but it is not for me to enter upon facts; the Lord himself is present, and has given me leave to call upon him: he showed me papers, though he said, he was fully satisfied that he had cleared his own character—I call upon that noble Lord to give your Lordships the necessary information.”
Lord Ravensworth, not from want of any facility of expressing himself, for his manner was natural and manly, but from perplexity of mind, whether to own or not to own that he had instigated the Duke of Bedford to this examination, was ambiguous and unsatisfactory; and he endeavoured to cover his ungenerous behaviour to that Duke with frankness and candour. He said, that by the King’s consent, he had received what papers he thought necessary, that is, he had received his own examination and the report—indeed, he had not been permitted to have a copy even of Harry Vane’s letter. For his part, he had determined to proceed no farther. When the Duke of Bedford asked him, he had shown him the examination, not the report. That he had told his Grace that it would not be disagreeable to him to have the whole world know the story, and let them judge on it. That he should never have sought this discussion, yet could not but be glad of it. That so many aspersions had been thrown on him, that he believed his story had never been twice told in the same manner. That he had represented to the Ministers, as was his duty, what he had heard, and had left it to them to proceed upon as they should think proper—that, now he was called upon, he was willing to lay open the whole to their Lordships, provided they would allow him to name a Lord of Parliament, who was concerned in the affair, and was now present—but must first desire that they would let himself be sworn to the strict veracity of what he should say.
The Duke of Bedford told him, that as the Lord was present, he might name him, unless it was opposed; that the Lord, if he thinks proper, may retire: that it would be very irregular for Lord Ravensworth to be sworn. The Duke of Newcastle said, that he supposed it proceeded from the Bishop’s ignorance of the forms of the House, that he had not risen and given leave to be named; but that he would answer for his Lordship’s permission. The Bishop of Gloucester (the person hinted at) pleaded ignorance of forms, and consented to the free mention of his name. Lord Ravensworth told him, that as he was perfectly acquitted, the Lords would be ready to do him justice. Lord Ravensworth then told the story shortly, clearly, well: that company having dined with the Dean at Durham on the King’s birth-day, as two of them, Fawcett and a Major Davison, were drinking coffee with the Dean in the evening, and reading a newspaper which mentioned a report that Dr. Johnson was to be Preceptor[222] to the Prince of Wales, Fawcett said, “He has good luck! twenty years ago he was a Jacobite.” That this conversation had seemingly been forgot: but that on the 12th of January following, as he (Lord Ravensworth) was at a Club at Newcastle with Fawcett, the latter had showed him a letter from Harry Vane, inquiring into the meaning of those words. That he recollected no particulars of the letter—and he said with emphasis, This letter, my Lords, I have not. It only, as far as he remembered, expressed that Mr. Vane was desired and authorized by Mr. Pelham to inquire into that conversation, as it had occasioned some talk. He dwelt on his great regard to Mr. Pelham, and said, that urged by that motive, he had desired Fawcett to come to him the next day; that he had exhorted him to stick to the truth, and in four several conversations had always found him uniform. In those conversations he added the names of Mr. Stone and Mr. Murray—then, my Lords, I took it up; it then grew important. I feel none higher, none of more moment than Mr. Stone. That he had advised Fawcett to write no answer, but to go to Mr. Pelham; he went. That what tended to confirm his own suspicions, and led him to believe the imputed connexion, was his finding, upon inquiry, that Vernon had been a notorious Jacobite; that Mr. Murray had been Vernon’s sole heir. That some other incidents had not weakened his doubts; that Mr. Murray had advised Fawcett to let the affair drop; that Bishop Johnson said Fawcett had acquitted him in a letter written to him; the letter had been written to the Bishop, but his Lordship stood by while Fawcett wrote it. That soon afterwards the Bishop would have persuaded Mr. Fawcett to add these words, and this is all I can say consistent with truth. Fawcett refused. He concluded with saying, “My Lords, I was not the accuser; I told the Ministers, that, having come to the knowledge of the accusation, I was determined to bring the affair to light in some shape or other. I did it from duty and from zeal, not, as has been said, to revenge the quarrel of a noble Lord,[223] my friend, who has quitted a shining post on some disgusts with some of the persons involved in this charge.”
The Duke of Bedford observed, that Lord Ravensworth had made some omissions in his narration, of which, as he had given him leave, he would put him in mind—to which the other replied hastily, that he had communicated nothing to the Duke from the last papers he had received, only from his own examination. The Duke owned that he had not seen the report; but took notice that Lord Ravensworth had forgot to mention that Fawcett had kept no copy of Vane’s letter, and that Fawcett had owned to the Council that he had given Lord Ravensworth all the information which the latter affirmed to have received from him. The Chancellor, who was to conduct the solemn drama of the day, took care to keep off all episodes that might interfere with the projected plan of action, and interrupted the two Lords, by laying it down for order, that Lord Ravensworth must not repeat what he had only heard passed in Council. But this authoritative decision was treated as it ought to be by the Duke of Bedford, who with proper spirit launched out upon the indecent assumption of power in the Council, a step that added double weight to the reasons for bringing this matter before Parliament. That indeed even the Chancellor’s supposing it had been brought before the Council was an unfounded assertion; that he denied its being the Council; it was only a private meeting of certain Lords—were they a Committee of Council? as such was it, that they arrogated the power of tendering oaths, and listening to voluntary evidences? if they were, the President of the Council should have presided—but here was no President, no forms, no essence, no authority of Council. In their own persons only these Lords were respectable. The Secretary of State is no Justice of Peace. An unheard-of jurisdiction had been attempted to be erected, unknown to this country, derogatory from the authority of this House! Before this revived Star-chamber, this Inquisition,—different indeed from the Inquisition in one point, for the heretics of this court were the favourites of it!—before this court the accused were admitted to purge themselves upon oath—a leading step to the introduction of perjury! But what was the whole style of their proceedings? mysterious! secret! arbitrary! cruel! The minutes are secreted; the witnesses were held in a state of confinement:[224] Lord Ravensworth was required to deliver up letters: orders for filing informations against Fawcett were given—or said to be given—“for I doubt the intention of carrying them into execution,” said the Duke: “though, if they are pursued, the hardship on Fawcett will be the greater, as he is already pre-judged.” The report, concise as it was, was three-fold: it pronounces Fawcett’s accusation false and malicious; it pronounces the accused innocent; it justifies Lord Ravensworth, the accuser! how many powers assumed! Fawcett, though a lawyer, was terrified at such a court!
“It was their proceedings,” the Duke said, he blamed; he had great regard for more than half of the Lords concerned, yet he must say they had erred greatly, if their proceedings were anything more than preparatory. However, these transactions did not strike him more than the high rank of the accused. Mr. Stone stands in as public a light as any man in Britain—there are other points in which the public should be satisfied too—for his part he had never conferred with the reverend and noble Lords,[225] who had lately retired from that important turbulent scene, yet he owned their resignations had already filled him with suspicions. They had been dismissed for no misbehaviour: he hoped they would vouchsafe to lay their motives before the House, that, in this acquitting age, they too may be disculpated—nay, the Council too should be disculpated; it should be manifest that they were not biased, and that their report is fit to see the light. Seen to be sure it will be; it cannot be meant to be secreted. Till it is produced, the world is left to perplexity, to argue in the dark—till more is known, one is apt to dwell on the uniformity of Fawcett’s behaviour for four different times—no deviation, no inconsistence in his narrative, till after his interviews with Bishop Johnson and Mr. Murray—then it grew retrograde—then he faltered in his evidence—this gives suspicion; this calls for the whole system of the Council’s procedure—how to produce that properly he did not know.
“You all wish the accused may be cleared; assist me, my Lords, in dragging into light every testimonial of their innocence: it is our natural business; and at the same time no business more arduous on which to give the King advice. Here he may want it; sinister advices may make our unbiased, honest opinions more necessary, more welcome.” The noble Lord who presided lately over the education of the Prince, has been as well replaced as possible; the choice was the more acceptable, as it was his Majesty’s own—he can do no wrong; he always acts right, when he acts himself. The time is proper for inquiring into this affair; it is no longer under examination; nor could he be told, as he generally was, “we have a clue: don’t stop us: these are the King’s secrets.” This inquiry can be attended with no inconvenience; it may be attended with good: the King desires to have the accused persons cleared. For the papers that are denied, they must be produced in Westminster-hall, if Fawcett is prosecuted—there the King’s secrets must come out. That now was not merely the proper, it was the only time for searching into the character of the person entrusted with the education of the Prince—should a minority happen (and sorry he was he had not been able to be present and to give his dissent to a Bill of so pernicious a precedent and nature as the Regency Bill!) if that dreaded contingency should happen, might not they who are possessed of the person and authority of the King,—might not they, however suspected, however accused, shelter themselves under the clause of præmunire; a clause calculated not to guard the person of the Prince, but the persons of his Governors from danger? He moved for all the papers, examinations, and letters, that had been before the Cabinet Council.
The Chancellor, with acrimonious tenderness, began with protesting, that he should have taken this for a factious motion, had it not come from a Lord of so unsuspected a character—but he would enter at once into the matter. Lord Ravensworth had applied to have the affair examined, and his Majesty had ordered his Council to inquire into it. Mr. Stone had made the deepest asseverations of his innocence; nay, he went so far as to beg that the distance of time might be thrown out of the question, and that if the least tittle of the accusation could be proved against him, his guilt might be considered as but of yesterday. That the term Cabinet Council, said to be borrowed from France, was no novelty; that it was to be found in the Journals of Parliament. That the Duke of Devonshire being added by his Majesty’s particular order on this occasion, was not unprecedented. That it had been called by our ancestors, sometimes the Cabinet for Foreign Affairs; sometimes the Cabinet for Private. How they corresponded as a Council in Queen Elizabeth’s time might be seen in Forbes’s State Papers. That they had not proceeded by compulsory summons: that it had been determined in Westminster-hall, that a Secretary of State may administer oaths. That Magistrates indeed might not accept the oath of an accused person: here in truth their oaths had been accepted now by an act of grace, which was the more excusable, as they were subject to no punishment from the Council that examined them. That this had been an inquiry for satisfaction, not for prosecution: that their oaths was the only satisfaction to be obtained: Vernon was dead; nobody else was present at these pretended treasonable meetings, (this was false, for he presently afterwards urged in their favour, that Mr. Cayley, who is living, and used to be present, had been examined, and could remember no such passages;) that the oaths had not been administered by authority, but admitted at their own desire. He commended the great solemnity of the proceedings, and added, we have all of us the King’s leave to answer any questions.
He dwelt on the prevarications and inconsistence of Fawcett’s behaviour, who had often said that he could not charge anybody but himself. He then turned to encomiums on the zeal and conduct of Mr. Stone during the Rebellion; and mentioned Mr. Cayley’s evidence. Slightly he mentioned Mr. Murray, who, he said, had always behaved in his court in an irreproachable and meritorious manner from the year 1742. (Servile was this court to Stone; envious this transient approbation of Murray!) He added, that no orders had been given for the prosecution of Fawcett—but in a higher tone he talked of the impropriety of the Motion: that no prerogative was so appropriate to the King as the government of his own family: that ten Judges had declared for it[226]—therefore, you will not wantonly invade it—have you any distrust of the Lords who have sifted this matter? to what good end would further inquiry tend? That much he was surprised how the Regency Bill came to be drawn into the question! Is there one word in that Bill of the Governors of the Prince of Wales? He never knew that the noble Duke had disapproved that Bill. He reflected with pleasure on the many converts that had been made from Jacobitism, and hoped that by raking into old stories their Lordships would not prevent and discourage change of principles: that it would make those who were willing to come over to the pale of loyalty dread parliamentary inquiries hanging over their heads: they would never think themselves safe: and it would be ungenerous to exclude men of any principles from enjoying the sunshine and blessings of such a Reign and Government—for his part he hated names and distinctions, and to stifle any attempts for reviving them would give his negative to the Motion.
Lord Harcourt rose next, and though a little abashed as never accustomed to speak in public, said, with great grace and propriety, that he thought the King had the best right to judge in his own family; that he had communicated to his Majesty alone the reasons of his dissatisfaction in the government of the Prince: his Majesty had not thought his reasons good; he had therefore resigned a post which he thought he could not hold with credit and reputation.
If the decency and consistency of this speech had wanted a foil, it would have found it in Lord Talbot’s subsequent harangue; who said, that if the Motion had come from a person of less known integrity, he should have thought it dictated by a spirit of confusion. That some indeed love the Crown, some a jumble of Administrations. That a very sensible man drunk, may make a very good Jacobite: that he knew Fawcett, and had had a good opinion of him; but that often where he thought there was most perfection, he had found least. That he would not have acted like Lord Ravensworth—yet—(what a yet after such a prelude!) shall a private Council exclude the activity of the greater? The management of the Royal Children is of public import: shall the Council engross the direction of them? Hereafter, if this precedent is suffered, a cabal of Ministers will be worse than the Star-chamber. The precedent will be used to stifle all inquiries against sycophants, by applying to the Crown to appoint a trial by the Cabinet Council.
Hayter, Bishop of Norwich, the late Preceptor, with no less decency than Lord Harcourt, but with a little more artful desire of inflaming the prejudice against Stone and Murray, said that he would not declare the reasons of his resignation till he should be forced. That all he would say was, that he had met with obstructions from inferiors, most cruel obstructions. That he did not think himself at liberty to appeal from the King, yet would willingly tell if he was obliged to it. This insinuating offer the Duke of Bedford had not the presence of mind to take up; and the Bishop’s gauntlet not being challenged, he could not with propriety go any farther. Perhaps the Ministry had not more reason to triumph on the event of the day, than on the Duke of Bedford’s overlooking so fair an opening into their most vulnerable part!
At last rose the Bishop of Gloucester. If provocation often sharpens the genius, it did not in his case. Yet he was not confused, he was insolent: he spoke like a man that had governed children,[227] not like one fit to govern them. His language and circumstances were vulgar and trivial; he dwelt more on his housemaid letting in Mr. Fawcett when he came to him, than on any part of his defence. He said, he did not doubt but their Lordships would treat this accusation with the abhorrence it deserved. That for himself, he yielded to many on the Bench for capacity, he would not to any in loyalty. That he had had promises of favour formerly from his Grace of Bedford, and hoped he had not forfeited them: that it was not true that there had long been a scheme of making him Preceptor; that [he] himself had never heard of it till he was at the Hague, and then he was told of such a design by a noble Duke, who had heard it from a noble Lord, who had heard such a report—but not one of his own friends had thought of it for him: that if his Majesty had designed it, he did not know it. That in the Roman state, when informers were most rife, yet nothing had happened of this kind. He insisted on the badness of Fawcett, and affirmed that he did not dictate to him the letter for himself, though he owned he stood by while Fawcett wrote it; and that two days afterwards, when he desired Fawcett to add some words to it, they were not, This is all I can say consistent with truth, but, This is the truth.
Lord Ravensworth entirely acquitted the Bishop, and added this extraordinary problem, that Fawcett’s character was so bad only from its being so good. He desired to know of all the Lords, whether they did not acquit him; and whether they did not believe that Fawcett had told him all he had announced.
Of the Duke of Newcastle’s speech, an hour in length, I shall touch but a few of the most remarkable passages, such as, after acquitting Lord Ravensworth, were his panegyric on Harry Vane, who never said a false thing, or did a bad one! and another, scarce less exaggerated, on the Duke of Devonshire’s sagacity, for which his Majesty had ordered him to be added to the Council. Of his own immediately going to the King, and saying, “Sir, I am come to keep my promise; that you should be the first to hear any complaints against Stone; if he is a Jacobite, he is a greater traitor to me than to you.” How Stone, who had had the fate of kingdoms in his breast, had desired to have the accusation examined, and to be sequestered from his attendance on the Prince of Wales, till he should be acquitted; and lastly, how these stories had been propagated by cabal and intrigue, and by the anonymous Memorial sent assiduously all over the kingdom, full of falsities and irreverence to the King; and which General Hawley, as was his duty, had brought to him within an hour after receiving it.
At last opened the solemnity of the scene! the Chancellor’s hackneyed sophistries, the Bishop of Gloucester’s pedantic scorn, and the Duke of Newcastle’s incongruous volubility, were rightly judged or foreseen to want a proper weight on so serious an occasion. To raise the comely pompous dignitaries of the Cabinet Council, and make them break their long mystic silence in favour of the accused, was a resource that did honour to the policy, as it effectually did the business, of the secret junto. The Duke of Marlborough first, and then the Archbishop, rose and gave short accounts of their having fully agreed in the sentence and report of the Council. Lord Waldegrave, with decency and spirit, commended Stone, spoke highly of the young Prince, and added, that he would not act a moment longer as Governor, than he should find Mr. Stone a man of honour, principles, and integrity. Dr. Hay Drummond, Bishop of St. Asaph, and brother of Lord Duplin, made a very elegant and eloquent speech in behalf of the accused. The Marquis of Hartington and the Duke of Dorset gave their testimonials, like the two former,[228] to the acts of the Cabinet Council. Lord Granville added to his, “That innocence was no defence against temporary clamour; it will blow over: but I don’t like Mr. Stone’s desiring to have it heard any farther; it would be making ourselves an inquisition. Some often accuse others, to come at a third person. I love my Lord Harcourt for what he said.” The Duke of Grafton, too, bore his testimony.
The Duke of Bedford rose again, and said, that if he had been angry, he had had time to cool: and must say, on the utmost deliberation, and with the greatest attention to what he had heard, that he had not found sufficient reason to acquit the accused persons, and for this strong reason, amongst others, that it remains evident that the Bishop of Gloucester had tampered with Fawcett—do the innocent tamper with evidence? as little could he agree with the Duke of Newcastle, who said he would be guilty to be so acquitted by the Chancellor—Newcastle interrupting him, that he had only said, he would be suspected; the Duke of Bedford rejoined, that when his Grace had gone so far, it was no wonder if he had gone a little farther; but so far from agreeing even to that modification, he would not be suspected by one man, to be acquitted by that whole House. That, when he had been of the Cabinet Council, he had never known such a thing as their sitting on a trial. That the Duke of Newcastle had told them almost the whole examination; what can induce their Lordships still to refuse to ask for it? That he had been particularly called upon to make this Motion; that the nation demands it; that the very Parliament of Paris would go into such an examination. That if any, in so high a trust as the care of the Prince of Wales, are suspected, can it be called a point of domestic concern only? can it be deemed so domestic as to forbid public inquiry? That he must still urge that Fawcett had never prevaricated, till the Bishop had been with him—but if his Lordship is really desirous of purging himself of this charge, let him promote this Motion: here he will be sure of the most impartial trial, of the most open, and consequently of the most satisfactory acquittal. “To prompt witnesses to prevaricate—to stifle inquiry—these arts will not quiet the suspicions of mankind. A more manly way it had been to have said, we did drink these healths, we were as Jacobite as it is pretended we were, but we are converted—but, my Lords,” concluded the Duke, “it is not to prove that these healths were drunk that I contend—if any part of the charge is true, more is true.”
Lord Bath objected to any farther examination of a man who had so prevaricated with the Cabinet Council, whose proceedings, he said, were not only sufficient, but not unprecedented. That he had once been examined so himself, with Sir Paul Methuen and Mr. Cholmondeley, and that they had been examined separately; it was in relation to one Lewis, a clerk to Lord Oxford, who, by mistake for one Levi, a Jew, had been suspected of negotiations with the Court of St. Germains: it was in the Queen’s time, and she had referred it to the Cabinet Council.
Lord Northumberland perceiving it was a day for great men to stand forth, thought it a good opportunity to announce his own dignity; but he said little to the purpose. Still less was said by the young Marquis of Rockingham, though he had prepared a long quotation from Tacitus about informers; and opened with it.
The Duke of Argyle sneered at Ministers out of place—not at future Ministers, for he was profuse in flattery to Stone, who, till lately, he had never heard had an enemy! that, during the Rebellion, happening to be at the Secretary’s office, two men came to solicit Mr. Stone for a place; the refused went away the better pleased of the two, from Mr. Stone’s gracious manner of refusing!
Lord Anson bore his testimony to the unanimity and report of the Cabinet Council. Dr. Madox, of Worcester, ungraciously and rudely said, that though it might be right to countenance converts, yet would it be wrong to entrust the whole to one, who had been a Jacobite. That there were great dissatisfactions already: what would ensue, if a Star-chamber were erected to protect the most unpopular? why not remove Mr. Stone to any other employment? let him come and take his place among your Lordships. He added, that great would be the hardship on Fawcett, if tried in Westminster-hall; for what Jury but would be influenced by the authority and decision of the Council? Lord Holderness notified his assent to the proceedings of the Cabinet Council. The Bishop of Worcester and Lord Sandys had some jarring; and then Lord Ravensworth put a period to this solemn mummery, in which he had acted such various parts, by saying that he was satisfied with his acquittal; that he thought nothing farther necessary to his honour; would take no farther part; did not desire anybody else would; would leave it here—and went away! A silence of confusion ensued for some minutes; nobody rising to speak, the Duke of Bedford, Lord Townshend, Lord Harcourt, and the Bishop of Worcester, went below the bar to divide, and the Bishop of Norwich was going; but no more following, they gave it up without telling the House; all the Tory Lords keeping their seats to vote for Stone and Murray.