CHAP. grandees, accredited by Philip V. ambassador to Versailles, I. made his way to Lisbon and declared for the allies. He had been long a friend of Prince George of Hesse-Darmstadt, the most efficient agent of England in Spain. He announced, to the satisfaction of Portugal and the allies, his intention of putting himself at the head of a Portuguese army for the purpose of seating the Archduke Charles, as Charles III., on the throne of Spain. This declaration settled the policy of the maritime powers. It was no longer a question of the emperor's claims. The maladroitness by which, as the whigs complained, the landing at Cadiz had been made in the name of the emperor, had justly provoked the resistance of the Andalusian nationalists.1 It was determined to enter into a treaty with the Portuguese court, to which a French plenipotentiary was already making overtures for a renewal of the alliances with Louis XIV. Courted by all sides Pedro II. raised his terms. On May 16, 1703, a treaty was concluded by Paul Methuen, the resident British minister, eminently favourable to Portugal and no less disadvantageous to the maritime powers. Portugal was to supply 28,000 troops, of whom 13,000 were to be maintained and paid by the maritime powers. An auxiliary force of 12,000 Dutch and English veterans was to be landed in Portugal, a squadron was to protect Portuguese harbours and, like the land forces, to be under the command of the king. The object of the alliance was declared to be the acquisition by Charles III. of the whole Spanish monarchy. The emperor, after making some difficulties, inspired by desire for the Spanish dominions in Italy, agreed to renounce in favour of the archduke the kingdom of Spain and "the kingdoms belonging thereto," which he connidered involved a reservation of the Milanese and the Spanish Netherlands, Queen Anne in return declared her willingness to bind herself to the exclusion of the house of Bourbon from every portion of the Spanish monarchy; but this pledge was never committed to a formal document, an omission upon which, at a later date, another ministry had reason to congratulate itself. The Archduke Charles, the emperor's favourite son, was at Monet, October 20, 1502, Pussian State Archives, Von Noorden, i., 389. 1703 THE ARCHDUKE CHARLES. 23 I. this time eighteen years of age. He is described as of good CHAP. proportions and of pleasing presence. He was conscientious, temperate, and fond of study. But he had no originative capacity, and was dependent upon his governor, Prince Antony of Liechtenstein, who, both tactless and overbearing, was ready to sacrifice a kingdom to a point of etiquette. So averse was the Emperor Leopold from parting with him that his presence in Portugal was made an article of the treaty, and one which was not signed without a marked reluctance.1 Even then the emperor had not abandoned his desire that the archduke's first step should be to establish himself in Naples and Sicily, which were, the court of Vienna was assured, "ready to catch so soon as the fleet arrives," that is, the expected fleet of Sir Clowdisley Shovell. Stepney was instructed, therefore, to insist that the archduke should at once proceed to Holland and embark there. Charles arrived at the Hague on November 3. Having landed at Portsmouth on January 7, 1704, he was received with distinction by the queen at Windsor as King of Spain. He left England on the 17th, sailing aboard Rooke's flagship to Lisbon, accompanied by an armada amounting in all to 188 ships. At Lisbon the allies discovered that the Portuguese troops were ill-trained, ill-clothed, and ill-armed; that they were short of horses, and their fortresses in neglect. The English ministry seized the opportunity to indemnify the nation for the additional sacrifices it was now called upon to make. John Methuen, father of the resident and ex-lord chancellor of Ireland, was dispatched to Portugal, and on December 16-27, 1703, concluded the agreement known to fame as "the Methuen treaty". The object of this treaty was twofold-to give England a monopoly for her woollen goods in the Portuguese markets, and to injure the French by granting preferential duties to imported Portuguese wines. These were to be admitted at a third less duty than wines from France. The treaty was agreeable to the governing 1 Stepney to Shrewsbury, ubi supra; Stepney to the Emperor, July 3-14, Vienna, Buccleuch MSS., ii., 2, 663. 3 Stepney to Shrewsbury, July 24-August 4, Vienna, * Stepney to the Emperor, July 3-14, 1703, Vienna; July 10-21, Vienna, ibid., p. 665. 2 Ibid. CHAP, classes of both countries. The great landowners of Portugal foresaw a rise in the price of their wines; the great landowners of England increased profits from their wool; the merchants an active exchange; the shippers profitable freights. Nor was the effect of the treaty so complete a revolution in English taste as has generally been supposed. That had already begun to conform to the exigencies of war. Between 1675 and 1696 England had imported from France a yearly average of about 15,000 tuns of wine, as contrasted with 300 tuns from Portugal. During the war with France in 1689-97 the import from Portugal rose to 9,459 tuns, an evidence that taste was already beginning to change. It must be remembered also that Portuguese wines were cheaper, especially relatively to alcoholic strength, than the wines of France. After the Methuen treaty, from 1704 to 1712, England consumed 118,908 tuns of Portuguese wine, while the import from France remained almost at the level of ten years earlier, viz., 16,553 tuns. The treaty, though advantageous while the French market remained closed proved eventually productive of the ill-effects which invariably result from the interference of governments with the course of trade. England found herself hampered for many years to come in the extension of her commercial relations over the far more profitable market of France. The treaty marked a change in the attitude of English parties to the war. The tories began to open their eyes to the commercial possibilities to be derived from a conflict they deplored. In this spirit they resolved to accept the enlargement of the area of the struggle. CHAPTER II. HOME POLITICS. II. THE last parliament of William III. had been dissolved on CHAP. July 2, 1702. The general election resulted in a majority for the tory party of nearly two to one, the popularity of the queen and the activity of the clergy being powerful in their favour.1 To these causes may be added, as Burnet admits, “the conceit, which had been infused and propagated with much industry, that the whigs had charged the nation with great taxes, of which a large share had been devoured by themselves". On the other hand, the whigs issued a "black list" of 167 tory members of the last parliament, whom they denounced as friends of France. The result was that the tories, as a whole, in order to clear themselves from this imputation, emphatically pledged themselves to support the war. Outside this pledge, as Burnet says, the tories were "full of fury against the late king and against those who had been employed by him ". Parliament met on October 21, and Robert Harley was again chosen speaker. The temper of their house shewed itself in the commons' address. They congratulated the queen that "the wonderful progress of your majesty's arms, under the conduct of the Earl of Marlborough, has signally retrieved the ancient honour and glory of the English nation". The word "retrieved" was, and was intended to be, a reflexion upon William III. As such it was challenged by the whigs, and “maintained" was proposed as an amendment. The strength of parties was tested by the division. A majority of 180 to 80 voted in favour of "retrieved". Among them were "all who "The 1 Lord Keeper Sir Nathan Wright to [Thomas Coke], July 25, 1702: elections hitherto give hopes of a true Church of England parliament". Cowper MSS., iii., 14, Hist. MSS. Comm., 12th Rep., App., pt. iii. CHAP. had any favour at court or hoped for any ". summed up the controversy in the lines— II. The satirist Walsh Commanders shall be praised at William's cost, The demand by an extraordinary mission from Holland for The news of the exploit at Vigo, which did not arrive till after the opening of the new parliament on October 21, 1702, supplied the tories, among whom Rooke sat as member for Portsmouth, with a set-off to the success of Marlborough, who, enjoying the support of the whigs as the representative of William's continental policy, was already obnoxious to the majority. On November 12 the queen went in state to St. Paul's to return thanks "for the signal success of her arms under the Earl of Marlborough and the Duke of Ormonde and of her fleet under Sir George Rooke". The three commanders received the thanks of the houses, and Sir George was sworn of the privy council. The Duke of Ormonde, nevertheless, indignant against Rooke as the author of what the commons, in their address to the queen upon the opening of parliament, styled the "late disappointment at Cadiz," saw an opportunity of inflicting a rebuff on Marlborough's rival in glory. The whig majority in the lords readily agreed to his motion to appoint a committee to examine Rooke's instructions and the conduct of the expedition. Rooke vindicated his conduct with audacity. He censured the plan of the expedition, which, it will be remembered, had been a whig project, and arraigned the instructions with which he was |