When the parliament of Great Britain met on the twentieth day of February, the king informed them of the triple alliance he had concluded with France and Holland. He mentioned the projected invasion; told them he had given orders for laying before them copies of the letters which had passed between the Scottish ministers on that subject; and he demanded of the commons such supplies as should be found necessary for the defence of the kingdom. By those papers it appeared that the scheme projected by baron Gortz was very plausible, and even ripe for execution; which, however, was postponed until the army should be reduced, and the Dutch auxiliaries sent back to their own country. The letters being read in parliament, both houses presented addresses, in which they extolled the king’s prudence in establishing such conventions with foreign potentates as might repair the gross defects, and prevent the pernicious consequences, of the treaty of Utrecht, which they termed a treacherous and dishonourable peace; and they expressed their horror and indignation at the malice and ingratitude of those who had encouraged an invasion of their country. He likewise received an address of the same kind from the convention; another from the dissenting ministers; a third from the university of Cambridge; but Oxford was not so lavish of her compliments. At a meeting of the vice-chancellor and heads of that university, a motion was made for an address to the king, on the suppression of the late unnatural rebellion, his majesty’s safe return, and the favour lately shown to the university, in omitting, at their request, the ceremony of burning in effigy the devil, the pope, the pretender, the duke of Ormond, and the earl of Mar, on the anniversary of his majesty’s accession. Dr. Smallridge, bishop of Bristol, observed, that the rebellion had been long suppressed; that there would be no end of addresses should one be presented every time that his majesty returned from his German dominions; that the late favour they had received was overbalanced by a whole regiment now quartered upon them; and that there was no precedent for addressing a king upon his return from his German dominions. The university thought they had reason to complain of the little regard paid to their remonstrances, touching a riot raised in that city by the soldiers there quartered, on pretence that the anniversary of the prince’s birthday had not been celebrated with the usual rejoicings. Affidavits had been sent up to the council, which seemed to favour the officers of the regiment. When the house of lords deliberated upon the mutiny-bill, by which the soldiers were exempted from arrests for debts, complaint was made of their licentious behaviour at Oxford; and a motion was made that they should inquire into the riot. The lords presented an address to the king, desiring that the papers relating to that affair might be laid before the house. These being perused, were found to be recriminations between the Oxonians and the officers of the regiment. A warm debate ensued, during which the earl of Abingdon offered a petition from the vice-chancellor of the university, the mayor and magistrates of Oxford, praying to be heard. One of the court members observing that it would be irregular to receive a petition while the house was in a grand committee, a motion was made that the chairman should leave the chair; but this being carried in the negative, the debate was resumed, and the majority agreed to the following resolutions:—That the heads of the university, and mayor of the city, neglected to make public rejoicings on the prince’s birth-day; that the officers having met to celebrate that day, the house in which they had assembled was assaulted, and the windows were broken by the rabble; that this assault was the beginning and occasion of the riots that ensued. That the conduct of the mayor seemed well justified by the affidavits produced on his part; that the printing and publishing the depositions upon which the complaints relating to the riots at Oxford were founded, while that matter was under the examination of the lords of the committee of the council, before they had time to come to any resolution touching the same, was irregular, disrespectful to his royal highness, and tending to sedition. An inquiry of this nature, so managed, did not much redound to the honour of such an august assembly.
1717
The commons passed a bill prohibiting all commerce with Sweden, a branch of trade which was of the utmost consequence to the English merchants. They voted ten thousand seamen for the ensuing year; granted about a million for the maintenance of guards, garrisons, and land-forces; and passed the bill relating to mutiny and desertion. The house likewise voted four-and-twenty thousand pounds for the payment of four battalions of Munster, and two of Saxe-Gotha, which the king had taken into his service, to supply the place of such as might be, during the rebellion, drawn from the garrisons of the states-general to the assistance of England. This vote, however, was not carried without a violent debate. The demand was inveighed against as an imposition, seeing no troops had ever served. A motion was made for an address, desiring that the instructions of those who concluded the treaties might be laid before the house; but this was over-ruled by the majority. The supplies were raised by a land-tax of three shillings in the pound, and a malt-tax. What the commons had given was not thought sufficient for the expense of the year; therefore Mr. secretary Stanhope brought a message from his majesty, demanding an extraordinary supply, that he might be the better enabled to secure his kingdoms against the danger with which they were threatened from Sweden; and he moved that a supply should be granted to his majesty for this purpose. Mr. Shippen observed it was a great misfortune that the king was as little acquainted with the parliamentary proceedings as with the language of the country: that the message was unparliamentary and unprecedented; and, in his opinion, penned by some foreign minister: he said he had been often told that his majesty had retrieved the honour and reputation of the nation; a truth which appeared in the flourishing condition of trade; but that the supply demanded seemed to be inconsistent with the glorious advantages which his majesty had obtained for the people. He was seconded by Mr. Hungerford, who declared that for his part he could not understand what occasion there was for new alliances; much less that they should be purchased with money. He expressed his surprise that a nation so lately the terror of France and Spain should now seem to fear so inconsiderable an enemy as the king of Sweden. The motion was supported by Mr. Boscawen, sir Gilbert Heathcote, and others; but some of the whigs spoke against it; and Mr. Robert Walpole was silent. The speaker, and Mr. Smith, one of the tellers of the exchequer, opposed this unparliamentary way of demanding the supply: the former proposed that part of the army should be disbanded, and the money applied towards the making good such new engagements as were deemed necessary. After several successive debates, the resolution for a supply was carried by a majority of four voices.
* This year was rendered famous by a complete victory which,
prince Eugene obtained over the Turks at Peterwaradin upon
the Danube. The battle was fought upon the fifth day of
August. The Imperial army did not exceed sixty thousand men;
that of the infidels amounted to one hundred and fifty
thousand, commanded by the grand vizier, who was mortally
wounded in the engagement. The infidels were totally
defeated, with the loss of all their tents, artillery, and
baggage, so that the victors obtained an immense booty.
GEORGE I, 1714—1727