small one, in spite too of the difference between the king who began by choosing his ministers from both parties, and the king who persisted in choosing his ministers from only one, the work of pacification was accomplished by
George even more thoroughly than by William.George I. was fortunate in arriving in England when a great military struggle had come to an end. He had there- fore no reason to call upon the nation to make great sacrifices. All that he wanted was to secure for himself and his family a high position which he hardly knew how to occupy, to fill the pockets of his German attendants and his German mis- tresses, to get away as often as possible from the uncongenial islanders whose language he was unable to speak, and to use the strength of England to obtain petty advantages for his German principality. In order to do this he attached himself entirely to the \Vhig party, though he refused to place himself at the disposal of its leaders. He gave his confidence, not to Somers and Wharton and Marlborough, but to Stanhupe and Townshend, the statesmen of the seCond rank. At first he seemed to be playing a dangerous game. The '1‘ories, whom he rejected, were numerically superior to their adversaries, and were strong in the support of the country gentlemen and the country clergy. The strength of the \Vhigs lay in the towns and in the higher aristocracy. Below both parties lay the mass of the nation, which cared nothing for politics except in special seasons of excitement, and which asked only to be let alone. In 1715 a Jacobite insurrection in the north, supported by the appearance of the Pretender, the son of James 11., in Scotland, was suppressed, and its suppression not only gave to the Government a character of stability, but dis- played its adversaries in an unfavourable light as the dis- turbers of the peace.
Even this advantage, however, would have been thrown away, if the “’higs in power had continued to be animated by violent party spirit. What really happened was that the Tory leaders were excli led from office, but that the principles and prejudices o ‘the Tories were admitted to their full weight in the policy of the Government. The natural result followed. The leaders to whom no regard was paid continued in opposition. The rank and file who would personally have gained nothing by a party victory were conciliated into quiescence.
This mingling of two policies was conspicuous both in the foreign and the domestic actions of the reign. In the days of Queen Anne, the “’hig party had advocated the continuance of war with a view to the complete humiliation of the king of France, whom they feared as_the protector of the Pretender, and in whose family connexion with the king of Spain they saw a danger for England. The Tory party on the other hand had been the authors of the peace of Utrecht, and held that France was sufficiently depressed. A fortunate concurrence of circumstances enabled George’s ministers, by an alliance with the regent of France, the duke of Orleans, to pursue at the same time the “Thig policy of separating France from Spain and from the cause of the Pretender, and the Tory policy of the maintenance of a good understanding with their neighbour across the Channel. The same eclecticism was discernible in the pro- ceedings of the home Government. The Whigs were con- ciliated by the repeal of the Schism Act and the Occasional Conformity Act, whilst the Tories were conciliated by the maintenance of the Test Act in all its vigour. The satis- faction of the masses was increased by the general well- being of the nation.
Very little of all that was thus accomplished was directly owing to George I. The policy of the reign is the policy of his ministers. Stanhope and Townshend from 1714 to 1717 Were mainly occupied with the defence of the Hano- verian settlement. After the dismissal of the latter in 1717, Stanhope in conjunction with Sunderland took up a more decided Whig policy. The Occasional Conformity Act and the Schism Act Were repealed in 1719. But the wish of the liberal Whigs to modify if not to repeal the Test Act remained unsatisfied. In the following year the bursting of the South Sea bubble, and the subsequent deaths of Stanhope in 1721 and of Sunderland in 1722, cleared the way for the accession to power of Sir Robert Walpole, to whom and not to the king was due the conciliatory policy which quieted Tory opposition by abstaining from pushing Whig principles to their legitimate consequences.
Nevertheless something of the honour due to Walpole must be reckoned to the king’s credit. It is evident that at his accession his decisions were by no means unimport- ant. The royal authority was still able within certain limits to make its own terms. This support was so neces— sary to the Whigs that they made no resistance when he threw aside their leaders on his arrival in England. When by his personal intervention he dismissed Townshend and appointed Sunderland, he had no such social and parliament- ary combination to fear as that which almost mastered his great—grandson in his struggle for power. If such a com- bination arose before the end of his reign it was owing more to his omitting to fulfil the duties of his station than from the necessity of the case. As he could talk no English, and his ministers could talk no German, he absented himself from the meetings of the cabinet, and his frequent absences from England and his want of interest in English politics strengthened the cabinet in its tendency to assert an independent position. Walpole at last by his skill in the management of parliament rose as a subject into the almost royal position denoted by the name of prime minister. In connexion with Walpole the force of wealth and station established the Whig aristocracy in a point of vantage from which it was afterwards difficult to dislodge them. Yet, though George had allowed the power which had been exercised by William and Anne to slip through his hands, it was understood to the last that if he chose to exert himself he might cease to be a mere cipher in the conduct of affairs. As late as in 1727 Bolingbroke gained over one of the king’s mistresses, the duchess of Kendal ; and though her support of the fallen Jacobite took no cffect, Walpole was not without fear that her reiterated entreaties would lead to his dismissal. The king’s death in a carriage on his way to Hanover, in the night between 10th and 11th June in the same year, put an end to these apprehensions.
His only children were his successor George II., and Sophia Dorothea (1687-1757), who married in 1706 Fre- derick \Villiam, crown prince (afterwards king) of Prussia. She was the mother of Frederick the Great.
son of George I., was born in 1683. In 1705 he married Wilhelmina Caroline of Anspach. In 1706 he was created earl of Cambridge. In 1708 he fought bravely at Oudenarde. At his father’s accession to the English throne he was thirty-one years of age. He was already on bad terms with his father. The position of an heir-apparent is in no case an easy one to fill with dignity, and the ill treatment of the prince’s mother by his father was not likely to strengthen in him a reverence for paternal authority. It was most unwillingly that, on his first journey to Hanover in 1716, George I. appointed the prince of \Vales guardian of the realm during his absence. In 1717 the existing ill feeling ripened into an open breach. At the baptism of one of his children, the prince selected one godfather whilst the king persisted in selecting another. The young man spoke angrily, was ordered into arrest, and was subsequently commanded to leave St J ames’s, and
to be excluded from all court ceremonies. The prince took