CAMEO XXIX. JACOBITE SCHEMES. 1717-1725. CAMEO Death of Marlborough. 1722. England. 1714. George I. France. 1715. Louis XV. Germany. 1711. Charles VI. THESE years alike in England and France are dreary and barren of interest. Robert Walpole was Prime Minister, although he and the King had no language but Latin in common. His great objects, in which he succeeded, were to restore the national credit after the South Sea disaster, to keep the peace, and to depress the Jacobites and Tories; and therewith the Church, appointing Bishops more for their Whig politics than their virtues, and encouraging latitudinarianism. He had the field more and more to himself, for the Earl of Sunderland died suddenly on the 19th of April, 1722, and in June, his father-in-law, the great Duke of Marlborough, followed him. For six years paralysis had affected his powers. Once he looked up at the portrait of himself, in all his glory of manly beauty and ability, and sadly said: "That was a man!" He had a state funeral at Westminster Abbey in Henry VII.'s chapel, but the sarcophagus was removed to the chapel at Blenheim to a huge semi-classical monument, in the strange taste of the day. Duchess Sarah survived him for twenty-two years. She was immensely rich, and had various offers of marriage, but she answered that, were she only thirty instead of sixty, she would not give the Emperor of the world a share in the heart which had been devoted to her great Duke. Indeed, there had been deep faithful love between the pair, in spite of the lady's temper, which did not improve with age, and brought her into foolish quarrels, exposing her to the derision of Alexander Pope. It was a time of stagnation. The Jacobites were much excited. James Edward Stuart had married Clementina Sobieski, the grand-daughter of the only great King of Poland, and on the 31st of December, 1720, was born her eldest son, Charles Edward Casimir, in the presence of seven Cardinals as witnesses. The elation of his party no doubt conduced to make Walpole the more harsh to, and distrustful of, the orthodox clergy. He even quashed collections in churches for fear money should be sent to "the Pretender." Indeed, the most distinguished of the Bishops Francis Atterbury of Rochester, was avowedly a strong Jacobite, and corresponded with the exiles. He had, it may be remembered, when Prolocutor of Convocation in Queen Anne's time, led those who censured Benjamin Hoadley's sermon ; but in 1714 he had been Queen Anne's last appointment to a see, whereas Hoadley was one of the first chosen by the new dynasty and given the see of Bangor. In 1717 Hoadley, excited by some papers of Hickes, the Non-juror, preached a sermon and published a treatise, denying the existence of any visible Church, and throwing over all principles of Church government and orthodoxy. In the Convocation of 1717 it was unanimously censured, and thereupon the Ministry, not troubling themselves about the merits of the question, and only knowing Hoadley as Whig and Convocation as Tory, prorogued it; and from that time forth, though duly summoned at every fresh Parliament, it was instantly again dismissed. Happily, however, the summons was kept up as a constitutional custom until, after nearly a century and a half, it was restored. Archbishop Sheldon little knew the harm he did when he resigned the right of the clergy to tax themselves. Not for the pecuniary difference, but because, as in the case of the Commons, the power of the purse secured the having time for consultation, and the being able to enforce demands and protests, whereas the voice of the clergy had become utterly disregarded. William Whiston, Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, had in Queen Anne's time put forth some heretical doctrines which had been examined and censured in Convocation, and the paper sent up to the Queen, but in the confusion of her broken health and many perplexities it was lost and never signed. Ever since there had been a sharp issue of pamphlets, producing more heretical and mischievous writings on the side of Whiston and his friends, so that being unable to reach them through Convocation, the Earl of Nottingham brought in a bill for the suppression of profane and blasphemous publications, enacting that whoever should put forth publicly in speech or writing, denial of the being of God, against the Divinity of our Blessed Lord, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the inspiration of Scripture or the truth of the Christian religion, should be imprisoned for an indefinite time or till he recanted; and that nonconformist ministers should not be licensed without subscribing their assent to the primary articles of the faith. The measure was supported by Bishop Atterbury, but it was too violent to pass. The Bishop of Peterborough said it would establish CAMEO XXIX. Atterbury and Hoadley. 1717. CAMEO XXIX. Plot of Bishop Atterbury. 1721. a Protestant Inquisition, and Lord Onslow declared that much as he loved the doctrines of the Church he could not consent to their being upheld by persecution. The bill was thrown out by sixty to thirty-one votes. The same year, the Quakers, who had been released from the necessity of oaths in the Courts of Justice, sent up a petition against the insertion of "in the presence of Almighty God" in the affirmation required of them, as being equivalent to an oath. The Archbishop of York and Bishop Atterbury opposed this concession, but in vain, and it was granted. Those prelates had been by far the wisest who had decided that politics were no part of their mission, and that they ought to submit to the powers that be, as long as they enjoined nothing actually sinful. Atterbury did the cause of the Church great harm by his manœuvres on behalf of the Stuarts. There was great provocation, for besides the sight of the coarse, irreligious foreign king, with a scandalous court, and of the latitudinarian measures of Parliament, a bill had been passed decreeing that any Scottish Episcopal clergyman who did not take the oaths to Government, or proxy for King George, should be imprisoned for six months, and his chapel shut up, and any place of worship where nine persons besides the household met for worship was declared a chapel or meeting house. It was not as yet rigorously enforced, but any time it might be, and was a whip always ready. No doubt it helped to justify Atterbury in his own mind for forming one of the Junta or Council of five, who managed Jacobite affairs in England. The others were the Earls of Arran and Orrery, and Lords North and Gower, and they held communication with Lord Oxford. Their plan was to get five thousand foreign troops under the Duke of Ormond to land in England, but as all the continental sovereigns were at peace with George I. this could only be done by private enlistment of disbanded officers or soldiers. On this Ormond himself was at work in Spain and General Dillon in France. They were to come up the Thames, surprise the Tower and the Bank and proclaim James III., and it was expected that the great unpopularity of George I. would make the citizens willing to accept him. The Lord Mayor bore the surname of Stewart, and the shouts of "A Stewart ! a | Stewart !" on Lord Mayor's day, had been thought to bear a double meaning. Some of the plotters thought the best time would be during a general election, others when the King was absent in Hanover, and in preparation James had quitted Rome for a villa near Porto Longone, and Ormond was waiting near Bilbao, but they had been foolish enough to ask the Regent of France for five thousand troops, and he gave warning of the design to the English Minister. When on the alert, Walpole discovered enough of the conspiracy to make him bring the troops to London, form a camp in Hyde Park and arrest some of the agents. Those who conducted the correspondence were Plunkett, a Jesuit, Neynoe, an Irish priest, Carte and Kelly, both non-juring clergymen, and Layn, a young barrister. Plunkett was taken, Layn tried to escape, but was seized, Neynoe let himself down from his window on a wall, and tried to swim across the Thames, but was drowned. Kelly's sword and papers were seized, and laid down in a window while the officers searched further. Springing on them, Kelly drew his sword, and threatened to kill the first person who came near him; then holding the sword in his right hand, he burnt the papers in a candle that stood by with his left, and did not surrender till they all were destroyed. Carte escaped to France, where he wrote an admirable History of England, the only one which rivalled that of the French Huguenot Rapin until Hume's was written and became the standard. On hearing of these arrests, Lord North fled, but was captured in the Isle of Wight, Lord Orrery and the Duke of Norfolk were also sent to the Tower, but there was not evidence against them and they were released. Many letters had been intercepted, and in these the persons engaged in the conspiracy were mentioned under a variety of names, some very absurd. One was Harlequin. Now a little spotted dog named Harlequin had been given by Lord Mar to Bishop Atterbury, and having broken his leg had been left with one Mrs. Barnes to be cured. Some of the plotters used its name for its master, and poor Mrs. Barnes, being asked to whom Harlequin belonged, innocently answered : "To the Bishop of Rochester." There were other proofs, and Atterbury was arrested and brought before the Council, when he showed much coolness and readiness, and at length was sent to the Tower in his own coach as quietly as possible. He was a good and thoroughly orthodox bishop, but whatever were his feelings towards the House of Stuart, he ought not to have bound himself to George I. if he were secretly taking part against him. There was strong indignation at the imprisonment of a bishop. Such a thing had not happened since the seven had been sent to the Tower, and the Tories were greatly shocked. The Bishop of Rochester was prayed for in the churches of London as a sick person, since he had an attack of gout, and a print appeared, showing him in prison looking at a portrait of Archbishop Laud. This public sympathy caused him to be the more harshly and suspiciously treated. The letters he wrote were opened to be used as evidence, everything sent to him was searched, even pigeonpies; he was only allowed to see his daughter, Mrs. Morice, in the presence of a gaoler, and when he had to consult with her husband about his defence it could only be done from a window in the second story, while Mr. Morice stood in an open space below. The Bishop remained in prison until Parliament should meet, nor was his case mended by a manifesto issued from Lucca by James Stuart in September, 1722, claiming the crown, calling on the English to join him, and promising George I., on his retiring to Hanover, to CAMEO XXIX Arrest of Atterbury. 1721. CAMEO XXIX. Exile of Atterbury. 1722. confer on him the title of king thereof, with recognition from all the Powers of Europe. Perhaps George himself might not have been sorry for the change, but he and his Parliament could only regard this polite offer as insolent, and it not only caused an address of loyalty to George I., but enabled Walpole to carry a motion for raising £100,000 by a tax on Roman Catholics and non-jurors, thus, as Lord Stanhope observes, making Jacobites of all who were not so already. Only the Penderell family were excepted, in memory of Charles II. in the oak. This enactment produced a frightful amount of perjury, for the choice lay with every owner of property between swearing allegiance to George or enduring the weight of taxation and other petty persecutions, and many yielded to the temptation even while they doubly hated the House of Hanover. The plot was reported on by a Committee. Layn had been already tried and condemned at the King's Bench, Plunkett and Kelly were to be imprisoned, and then a bill was brought into the Lower House for the deprivation and banishment of the Bishop of Rochester, and that he should not be pardoned by the King without the consent of the Parliament. Atterbury let the bill pass the Commons and reserved his defence, as a peer, for the House of Lords. He brought as a witness a secretary, to show how easily handwriting might be forged, and likewise the poet, Alexander Pope, to describe his engrossment in his family and his studies. Pope was much attached to him, but broke down and stumbled as a witness. Another, named Skeyne, said that he had asked Mr. Neynoe whether there were any plot, and received for answer that he (Neynoe) knew of two, one of Mr. Walpole against some great men, and one of his own to get £20,000 out of Mr. Walpole. Neynoe being dead could not be interrogated, but Walpole was called, and the lookers-on considered that the examination by the Bishop himself was a wonderful duel of the tongue between two of the cleverest men of the day, each striving his utmost to confute the other. Atterbury then made a most able defence, declaring his attachment to the English Church, and endeavouring to show that nothing proved against him was treasonable. The other bishops were mostly against him, but Lord Bathurst turned round on them and declared that he could not explain such animosity unless they were like Red Indians, who supposed themselves to inherit not only the spoils but the abilities of a slain enemy. Lord Cowper maintained that Parliament had no right to judge or degrade a bishop, but when the division took place only forty-three voted against it, thirty-three for it. 66 The Bishop was allowed to see his friends before leaving England. His last present to Pope (a Roman Catholic) was a Bible. Perhaps," said the poet, much affected, "it is not only in this world that I may have cause to remember the Bishop of Rochester." |