THE KING SETS OUT FOR HANOVER.
Immediately after the prorogation, the king appointed a regency and set out for Hanover, in order to complete the great scheme he had projected for electing a king of the Romans. Great Britain, in the meantime, produced no event of importance, or any transaction that deserves historical mention, except the ratification of two treaties of peace and commerce with the states of Tripoli and Tunis on the coast of Barbary, concluded by the British consuls in those cities, under the influence and auspices of an English squadron, commanded by commodore Keppel, son to the earl of Albemarle. The tide of luxury still flowed with an impetuous current, bearing down all the mounds of temperance and decorum; while fraud and profligacy struck out new channels, through which they eluded the restrictions of the law, and all the vigilance of civil policy. New arts of deception were invented, in order to ensnare and ruin the unwary; and some infamous practices in the way of commerce, were countenanced by persons of rank and importance in the commonwealth. A certain member of parliament was obliged to withdraw himself from his country, in consequence of a discovery, by which it appeared that he had contrived and executed schemes for destroying his own ships at sea, with a view to defraud the insurers.
In the course of this year the affairs of the continent did not undergo any material alteration. In France, the religious dispute concerning the doctrine of Jansen-ius still subsisted between the clergy and the parliament; and seemed to acquire additional fuel from the violence of the archbishop of Paris, a haughty turbulent prelate, whose pride and bigotry were sufficient to embroil one half of Christendom. The northern powers enjoyed a perfect tranquillity; the states-general of the United Provinces were engrossed by plans of national economy. Spain was intent upon extending her commerce, bringing her manufactures to perfection, and repressing the insolence of the Barbary corsairs. His Portuguese majesty endeavoured, by certain peremptory precautions, to check the exportation of gold coin from his dominions, and insisted upon inspecting the books of the British merchants settled at Lisbon; but they refused to comply with this demand, which was contrary to a treaty subsisting between the two crowns; and he thought proper to acquiesce in their refusal. He was much better employed in obtaining from the pope an abolition of the annual procession called the Auto-da-fe, one of the most horrid triumphs of spiritual tyranny. The peace of Italy was secured by a defensive treaty concluded at Madrid between the emperor, his catholic majesty, the king of the two Sicilies, and the duke of Parma; to which treaty the king of Sardinia afterwards acceded.
DISPUTE BETWEEN HANOVER AND PRUSSIA.
With respect to the great scheme of electing the archduke Joseph king of the Romans, fresh objections seemed to rise from different quarters. The good understanding between the courts of Berlin and Hanover re-received an additional shock, from a dispute concerning the property of East Friezeland, which his Prussian majesty had secured, as heir to the last possessor. His Britannic majesty, as elector of Hanover, having pretensions to the same inheritance, his minister delivered a memorial to the diet of the empire assembled at Ratisbon, demanding that the king of Prussia, as elector of Brandenburgh, should be referred to the decision of the Aulic council, in regard to his claim to the estates of East Friezeland; but the king being already in possession, refused to submit his right to the determination of that or any other tribunal; and when the diet presumed to deliberate on this affair, his envoy entered a strong protest against their proceedings. At the same time, he presented the other ministers with a memorial, tending to refute the elector of Hanover’s pretensions to the principality in question.
GEORGE II. 1727-1760
MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COURTS OF LONDON AND BERLIN.
At this juncture his Prussian majesty made no scruple of expressing his resentment against the court of London, which he seemed to consider as an officious cabal, that had no right to intermeddle in the affairs of Germany. His resident at London complained to the British ministry, that divers ships, sailing under the Prussian flag, had been stopped at sea, and even seized by English cruisers, and that his subjects had been ill treated and oppressed; he therefore demanded reparation in a peremptory tone; and in the meantime discontinued the payment of the Silesia loan, which he had charged himself with by an article in the treaty of Breslau. This was a sum of money amounting to two hundred and fifty thousand pounds, which the emperor Charles VI., father of the reigning empress, had borrowed of the subjects of Great Britain, on condition of paying an interest of six per cent., and mortgaging the silver mines of Silesia for the repayment of the principal. These devolved to the king of Prussia with this incumbrance, and he continued to pay the interest punctually till this juncture, when the payment was stopped; and he published a paper, entitled, “An Exposition of the Motives which influenced his Conduct on this occasion.” In his memorial to the ministry of Great Britain, he alleged, that eighteen Prussian ships, and thirty-three neutral vessels, in which the subjects of Prussia were concerned, had been unjustly seized by English privateers; his account of damages amounted to a very considerable sum; and he demanded, in the most dogmatic terms, that the affair should be finally discussed in the term of three months from the date of his remonstrance. The exposition and memorial were subjected to the examination of the ablest civilians in England, who refuted every article of the charge with equal precision and perspicuity. They proved, that captures by sea fell properly under the cognizance of those powers under whose jurisdiction the seizures were made; and therefore his Prussian majesty could not, consistent with the law of nations, determine these disputes in his own tribunals. They demonstrated, by undoubted evidence, the falsity of ma-ny facts alleged in the memorial, as well as the fairness of the proceedings by which some few of the Prussian vessels had been condemned; and made it appear, that no insult or injury had been offered to the subjects of Prussia. Finally, they observed, that the Silesia loan was a private transaction of such a nature, that, even if a war had happened between the emperor Charles VI. and his Britannic majesty, this must have been held sacred and inviolable; that when the empress-queen ceded Silesia to the king of Prussia, this monarch charged himself with the repayment of the loan, which, being a private debt, and transferable, was now diffused into different countries, and become the property of many others besides the subjects of Great Britain. They wound up their chain of reasoning by observing, that, according to agreement with the emperor, the whole of this loan should have been repaid in the year one thousand seven hundred and forty-five; whereas the complaints specified in the Prussian memorial were founded on facts posterior to that period. Whether his Prussian majesty was convinced by these reasons, and desisted from principle, or thought proper to give up his claim upon other political considerations; certain it is, he no longer insisted upon satisfaction, but ordered the payment of the Silesia loan to be continued without further interruption. A report, indeed, was circulated, that advantage had been taken of the demur by a certain prince, who employed his agents to buy up a great part of the loan at a considerable discount.