Abbildungen der Seite

to send the Pretender beyond the Alps; and on the part of George the First, to guaranty, in conformity with the peace of Utrecht, the eventual succession of the house of Orleans to the crown of France. This singular alliance, concluded on the 21st of August 1716, formed the commencement of a new æra in the political anuals of Europe, and united the rival powers of France and England, whose enmity had deluged Europe with blood, and whose union produced a long and unexampled period of peace and tranquillity.

" From the conclusion of this treaty the great object of the English cabinet was directed to keep the Regent steady to his engagements, through the channel of du Bois, who was gratified with a large pension from the King of England.*. To attain this point, it was necessary to procure the dismission of Villars, Noailles, Torcy, and d'Uxelles, who were attached to the old system, and gradually to raise du Bois to the office of prime minister. But to compass this scheme was no easy task; for notwithstanding the wonderful ascendancy which du Bois bad acquired over his illustrious pupil, the Regent did not without great reluctance consign to him the supreme direction of the state.

" Misinformed writers have asserted, that the advancement of du Bois was as unobstructed as it was rapid, and that the Duke of Orleans was as eager to promote him as he was to be promoted. The dispatches of the Earl of Stair + prove the falsity of these unqualified assertions, and show that the Regent hesitated, that du Bois almost despaired of conquering his repugnance, and that his success was principally owing to the influence of the English cabinet, by which the Regent from personal motives was governed.” P. 45.

Having thus obtained for du Bois the management of foreigna affairs, the next attempt of the English cabinet was to effect the dismission of de Torcy, secretary of state, the inveterate enemy

of England, and the ablest minister in the French cabinet.

" John Baptiste Marquis de Torcy, second son of the great Colbert, was born in 1665: brought up under the auspices and improved by the instructions of his celebrated father, he was soon initiated in state affairs, and commenced at a very early period his diplomatic career as secretary and envoy in different courts of Europe. In the twenty-second year of his age he was appointed secretary of state for foreign affairs. He distinguished himself in the negociations which took place on the death of Charles the Second, King of Spain, in regard to the succession of the Spanish dominions, at the congress of Gertruydenberg, and in the con ferences which settled the peace of Utrecht. A striking proof of his ability is given in the history of these transactions published

«* St. Simon affirms that this pension was 40,0001:; but this sum was so enormous at that period as to render it probable that he

was misinformed.

" + Hardwicke's State Papers, Vol. II.

[ocr errors][merged small]

after his death from his papers *;_it is one of the most curious monuments of the superiority of the French cabinet in every species of intrigue and address in negociation.

Torcy continued to enjoy, during the reign of Louis the Fourteenth, the full confidence of his sovereign, and was engaged in secretly promoting the success of the invasion against England, and in making excuses forpermitting the Pretender to reside in Loraine. On the death of Louis the Fourteenth, he was continued in the ministry, as the only person versed in the management of foreign transactions; his capacity for affairs, and the talent which he possessed of rendering business agreeable to the Regent, made him a necessary instrument in the administration. But Torcy + had become obnoxious to George the First, and to the whigs who directed the counsels of England at this period, by his declaration to Lord Bolingbroke concerning the nullity of any renunciation which could be made by Philip Duke of Anjou' to the crown of France.

P. 48.

" * Memoires de Torcy pour servir à l'Histoire des Negociations, depuis le Traité de Ryswick jusqu'à la Paix d'Utrecht.

" + Torcy is represented by the French writers, and particularly by St. Simon, who knew him personally, as remarkable for the mildness of his manners and the placidness of his temper; yet the Earl of Stair has recorded an instance which proves a great want of self-command, and a peevish aversion to the English, at a time when it was the interest of the French court to continue on good terms with them.-See Hardwicke's Papers, Vol. II. p.530, 535.

“Though the peace of Utrecht had obliged the Spanish branch of the Bourbon family to renounce by oath the right of succession to the crown of France; yet the doctrine of its invalidity, as an act void ab initio, had been publicly avowed. Torcy frankly owned to Lord Bolingbroke, •The renunciation desired would be • null and invalid by the fundamental laws of France, according • to which laws the nearest prince to the crown is of necessity the

heir. This law is considered as the work of Him who has esta•blished all monarchies, and we are persuaded in France that « God only can abolish it. No renunciation therefore can destroy

it; and if the King of Spain should renounce it for the sake of

peace, and in obedience to his grandfather, they would deceive • themselves, who received it as a sufficient expedient to prevent • the mischief we purpose to avoid.'-See Report of the Secret Committee, p. 13.

Torcy made no scruple of publicly declaring that this expedient, which had been devised to prevent the union of France and Spain under one monarch, could be of little force, as being inconsistent with the fundamental laws of France. - This decla• ration, observes a judicious author, gives a remarkable instance s of the weakness or wickedness of that administration, who could • build the peace of Europe on so sandy a foundation, and accept • of terms which France itself was honest enough to own were not • to be maintained.'-Letter to Two Great Men, p. 20."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


P. 48.

This declaration of de Torcy, which must be confessed to be not entirely devoid of foundation, is particularly worthy of attention at present, when we see a family dethroned, made prisoners, and their sovereignty usurped, all on the pretext of a forced “renunciation!” But what are “fundamental laws” to a man who barters' states, and transfers oaths of allegiance, with all the indifference that a juckey changes his horses.

Mr. Coxe certainly discovers rather too much leniency in treating of the character of the licentious Abbé du Bois, tutor of the Regent Duke of Orleans. We would not, indeed, have him to adopt the malignant censure of St. Simon; but as a divine it was his duty to have pointedly stigmatised the infamous life of this abandoned priest, and also the corrupt see of Rome, which made such a man an archbishop and a cardinal! Surely it would not have detracted from the merits of his hero, to have expressed his own detestation of Du Bois's crimes. That he should pardon the extravagant licentiousness of the Regent, is much less extraordinary, as many of the prince's vices were derived from his tutor. To discrimninate truth from falsehood, justice from injustice, may not indeed be essential to such hybrid compositions as "Memoirs," although it is the first object of history. Yet the writer who betrays either negligence or lasity of moral rectitude, in extenuating the vices of ambitious intriguers, can never extend the fame of the truly illustrious dead. Morality, like chastity, is still revered even by those whose lives are the least influenced by it. We would not, however, be understood to reflect on our author's own moral principles, but rather on his indecisive or vague manner in detailing the history and progress of Cardinal Du Bois and the Duke of Orleans. He has, in deed, very justly rested their defence, in a great measure, on the notorious falsehood of some of the charges brought against them by the diabolical spirit of the suintly Madam Maintenon. This is another instance of the evil consequences, as well as the defeat of malignity. Madam Maintenon, like some English female saints of the present age, blended the offices of religion and all the exterior characters of piety with several atrocious vices. In order to advance her favourite Duke of Maine, she accused the Duke of Orleans with poisoning three French princes, and with a design to destroy the whole royal family. The profound cunning with which this odious insinuation was propagated, made a strong impression on Lewis XIV; but its extravia No. 128. Fol. 32. Feb. 1809:


[ocr errors]

gant falsehood was soon detected; and its malignity not only defeated itself, but became a veil to all the excesses of Orleans and Du Bois. Popular opinion, which ever runs to extremes, pot satisfied with proving them much injured individuals, metamorphosed' them into virtuous and enlightened statesmen. Historians, it appears, still admit the delusion. As to Du Bois, or any other minister who takes bribes from foreign states, there is but one reward for him; that is, to be suspended on the gibbet of eternal infamy.

A considerable part of these Menoirs are appropriated to narrate Mr. Walpole's labours and negociations at Paris, relative to the creation of the Marquis of Vrilliere, who married a bastard daughter of the King of England, a duke and peer of France. The whole of these proceedings, it may be readily believed, are contemptible enough, and serve only to show the weakness and littleness of statesmen, as well as the inanity of pompous negociations. To Mr. Walpole's honour, he firmly resisted this business, which had so song and so deeply, interested our embassador, Şir Luke Schaub, at the French court.

We here find some additional proofs of the infamous character of Bolingbroke, who bribed the Duchess of Kendal with eleven thousand pounds, by which means he obtained the favour of the King. Lord and Lady Bolingbroke were both constantly employed intriguing in France with the party hostile to this country; and Sir R. Walpole would never have consented even to the restoration of his family estate, had not the King threatened him with disa mission if he persisted in refusing. Hence the origin of Bolingbroke's “unceasing enmity to the character and admi . nistration of Sir Robert," who prevented his complete restoration. Archbishop Herring, in a letter to Mr. Etough, observes, .“ Bolinglyroke was se abandoned in all respects, that I always and shall reverence Sir Robert Walpole for setting his face against him.” An intrigue of Lady Bolingbroke's, to give up Gibraltar, drew forth the following remarks by Lord Walpole, in a letter from Paris. serve Lord Bolingbroke's ambitious views, there is certainly nothing so black nor base that that dear couple {Lord and Lady Bolingbroke) will not say or do; though his lordship is the greatest poltroon that was ever known.” Sereral other anecdotes are related of the baseness of this many whose talents procured him a temporary reputation, but whose writings are happily sinking into oblivion. Of his historical character we shall have occasion to speak hereafter.

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

46 To

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

The most gratifying details in these volumes are those of Mr. Walpole's negociations and communications with the virtuous Cardinal Fleury. Both these statesmen were sincere in their desire of peace and friendship between France and England; both reposed implicit confidence in each other's integrity; and both endeavoured to check in. triguing and deception. The good cardinal, however, was easily persuaded by Mr. Walpole to preclude one of the ablest statesmen then in France, the Marquis de Torcy, from the councils of his sovereign. Torcy was supposed to be hostile to England on account of his frank declaration of the nullity of Philip's renunciation of the French crown. Walpole called him a Jansenist; and the cardinal acquiesced in the charge, and never admitted him into office.

With respect to the existence of the secret treaty between Austria and Spain, in 1725, which gave rise to a controversy still undecided, and which was positively but evasively denied by the Gernian and Spanish embassadors in London, we have the following facts, which seem to settle the question.

To the assertion that Mr. Walpole firmly believed in the existence of that treaty, is added the following statement in a note, which also tends to illustrate the accuracy and the truth of the writings called historical by little Mr. William Belsham.

" I'have, in the Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, asserted, 'that, the papers and documents submitted to my inspection fully display the proofs on which the reality of the secret articles was

formed,' and which occasioned the public declarations of the King and ministers in parliament; that the Emperor and King of Spain proposed to attenipt the recovery of Gibraltar and the restoration of the Pretender. I flattered myself, that the documents I had in serted in the Correspondence, and the proofs I had given in the Memoirs, would be sufficiently decisive, in the opinion of any reasonable and unprejudiced person, to certify (as far as was compam tible with the nature of such evidence) the existence of the secret articles. The only contradiction to these proofs was the simple disavowal of the Emperor ; but his assertion can be of little weight in this instance, as he equally denied other secret stipulations, which were afterwards proved. In fact, the confidential letter from Count Zinzendorf, the Emperor's favourite minister, to Palm, confirms beyond a doubt the secret resolutions of the Emperor.

"Do they say there is a secret engagement entered into in the offensive alliance concerning Gibraltar? That is the greatest un

truth, as the treaty itself shows. Do they say an agreement is
'made concerning the Pretender? That is likewise the greatest
untruth that can be imagined. Let them ask all the Jacobites,
whether they have heard one word from us or from Spain that

[ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »