[1751 A.D.] out of this confusion requires perpetual vigilance in the historical writer. To attempt to reconcile these discrepancies in all cases would be needless; and most annalists are generally content to take the dates as they find them. The energy of Lord Chesterfield-a man of great and various ability, who had filled high offices, but in 1751 had retired from ministerial businesscarried this reform through, with the learned aid of Lord Macclesfield, who was afterwards president of the Royal Society. The commencement of the year on the 1st of January was not calculated to disturb any popular prejudice; for the 25th of February, 1751, on which day the bill was introduced into the house of lords, was ordinarily written 25th February, 1750-51. But the necessity for another change was thus indicated by Lord Macclesfield: "The same day which, in each month, is with us the first, is called the twelfth day of the month throughout almost all the other parts of Europe; and in like manner, through all the other days of the month, we are just eleven days behind them." To make the legal year correspond in all future time with the solar year, was the result of scientific calculations, the rationale of which is now generally understood. It was necessary also to make a change in the calendar as to the time of finding Easter. There were many minor regulations essential to be provided for in consequence of the great change. The payments of rents, annuities, and salaries for public service were not to be accelerated; and thus the 5th of July, the 10th of October, the 5th of January, and the 5th of April, long held their place as rent days; and the dividends upon stock are still paid at those periods. It may be supposed that such a reform, however valuable, would not be made without some popular discontent. The timid Newcastle told Chesterfield that he hated new-fangled things that he had better not meddle with matters so long established. The witty earl was wiser. He made a speech of which he has given a most ingenuous account in a letter to his son: "I consulted the ablest lawyers and the most skilful astronomers, and we cooked up a bill for that purpose. But then my difficulty began. I was to bring in this bill, which was necessarily composed of law-jargon and astronomical calculations, to both which I am an utter stranger. However, it was absolutely necessary to make the house of lords think that I knew something of the matter; and also make them believe that they knew something of it themselves, which they do not. For my own part, I could just as soon have talked Celtic or Slavonian to them, as astronomy, and they would have understood me full as well; so I resolved to do better than speak to the purpose, and to please instead of informing them." The peers were amused by Chesterfield; the thinking part of the nation were convinced by Macclesfield, who published his speech. Hogarth has immortalised the vulgar opposition to the reform of the calendar in his picture of An Election Feast, in which the popular prejudices are flattered by the whig candidate in his banner inscribed with "Give us our eleven days." DEATH OF THE PRINCE OF WALES (1751 A.D.) In 1751 an event occurred which, for some time, disturbed all the calculations of the scheming politicians of this intriguing age. Frederick, prince of Wales, died after a short illness on the 20th of March. Leicester house, his town abode, had long been the central point of opposition to the government. We have seen how far the unhappy estrangement of the prince from his parents was carried before the death of Queen Caroline. Years had passed over, and yet the animosities between the reigning king and the heir-apparent were never [1751-1753 A.D.] subdued. In 1751 George II, although a hale man, was in his sixty-eighth year. The worshippers of the rising sun grew bolder in their devotion. Bubb Doddington, the treasurer of the navy, resigned his office in March, 1749, having received a message from the prince that the principal direction of his royal highness' affairs should be put in the skilful intriguer's hands. He saw the prince at Kew, and was told that "what he could not do for me in his present situation must be made up to me in futurity." The prince further said "that he thought a peerage, with the management of the house of lords, and the seals of secretary of state for the southern provinces, would be a proper station for me, if I approved of it." Such was the mode in which England was to be governed by favoritism, had she endured the misfortune of a King Frederick I. THE JEW BILL; THE MARRIAGE ACT (1753 A.D.) The opposition to the measure known as the Jew Bill, and the ultimate fate of this attempt to render some justice to an industrious and thriving portion of the community, is one of the many proofs of the difficulty which attends a government when it is more enlightened than the people it governs. A bill was introduced in the commons, in the session of 1753, "which enabled all Jews to prefer bills of naturalisation in parliament, without receiving the sacrament.' It was not a sweeping bill for the naturalisation of the whole body of Jews at once. The clamour which arose against this measure was not more illiberal than the arguments by which it was opposed in parliament. "If the Jews should come," said the city member, Sir John Barnard, "to be possessed of a great share of the land of the kingdom, how are we sure that Christianity will continue to be the fashionable religion?" But the worthy merchant delivered a sentiment which would come more nearly home to his fellow citizens: to put Jews, or any other foreigners, upon an equal footing with natives, would be only to take the bread out of the mouths of their own people, without adding anything to the national commerce. To naturalise Jews, said another member, was to rob Christians of their birthright. To allow Jews, said another, to purchase and hold land estates, was to give the lie to all the prophecies of the New Testament: they are to remain without any fixed habitation until they acknowledge Christ to be the Messiah. The bill was passed in the commons by a majority of forty-one. In the lords it was also carried, and received the support of many bishops. The prelates who had thus the courage to advocate this truly Christian measure were libelled by pamphlets and hooted by mobs. The Marriage Act of 1753 was almost as unpopular as the Act for Jewish Naturalisation. The bill introduced by the chancellor, Lord Hardwicke, required that a marriage should be preceded by the publication of banns in a parish church, and that the marriage should be there celebrated; that a licence might be granted for a marriage to take place also in a parish church, but with the consent of parent or guardian if granted to a minor, or minors; that special licences might, as previously, be granted by the archbishop of a diocese. The proposed measure passed the peers; but in the commons it was resisted with a violence which is amusing to look back upon. Mr. Fox, who had clandestinely married the daughter of the duke of Richmond, was amongst the most strenuous of its opponents. It was carried, however, by a large majority. Goldsmith, who published his History of England in 1771, sums up, with much gravity, his belief in the injurious consequences to society which this measure had produced: "The poor, by being prevented from [1753-1754 A.D.] making alliances with the rich, have left wealth to flow in its ancient channel and thus to accumulate, contrary to the interests of the state. It has been found to impede marriage, by clogging it with unnecessary ceremonies. Some have affirmed that lewdness and debauchery have become more frequent since the enactment of this law; and it is believed that the numbers of the people are upon the decline." Goldsmith had no foundation for his assertion that the law had been found to impede marriage. "The number of marriages before the act of 1753 is not known. Since the act came into operation the registers of marriage have been preserved in England, and show an increase from 50,972 in the year 1756, to 63,310 in 1764." One thriving occupation was seriously damaged by the new Marriage Act; and we do not find that any compensation was voted to the sufferers. Mr. Robert Nugent, one of the parliamentary orators against the act, said, "How fond our people are of private marriages, and of saving a little money, we may be convinced of by the multitude of marriages at Keith's chapel, compared with the number at any parish church." The reverend Alexander Keith originally officiated in May Fair; but being excommunicated, and committed to the Fleet, he continued to carry on the old trade by the agency of curates. According to Mr. Nugent, "at Keith's chapel there have been six thousand married in a year." Keith published a pamphlet during the progress of the bill, in which he said that the pure design of the measure was to suppress his chapel a very worthy design, however Mr. Nugent might approve of the celerity and cheapness of Keith's ceremonials. May Fair was the fashionable "marriage shop"; but the Fleet prison had the advantage of being open to the humblest seekers of conjugal happiness. Keith generously records of this rival establishment, "I have often heard a Fleet parson say that many have come to be married when they have had but half-a-crown in their pockets and sixpence to buy a pot of beer, and for which they have pawned some of their clothes." The motto which worthy Mr. Keith affixed to his pamphlet was "Happy is the wooing that is not long a-doing"; and he avers that of the many thousands he had married the generality had been acquainted not more than a week, some only a day, or half a day. The Marriage Act of 1753 has been justly regarded as the great step in the improvement of the conjugal relations of the people of England, high and low. Marriage was to become a solemn contract, in every case; not to be rushed upon without deliberation; not to be ratified without witnesses and public record. Like every other improvement in manners, the social tendency had preceded the legislative action to some limited extent; and then the legal reform hastened on the social amelioration. To the great change in the family relations of this country, of which the Marriage Act was an exponent as well as a cause, has been attributed the wondrous growth of the population in the ensuing century. NEWCASTLE, FOX, AND PITT The prime minister, Mr. Pelham, died on the 6th of March, 1754. Horace Walpole, who underrates the public services of this statesman, has this tribute to his moderation and 'disinterestedness: "Let it be remembered that, though he first taught or experienced universal servility in Englishmen, yet he lived without abusing his power, and died poor." The king clearly saw what a hubbub of conflicting ambitions would result from the necessity of a new cast of characters for the political drama. "I shall now have no more peace," exclaimed the old man. The duke of Newcastle achieved the great [1754 A.D.] object of his ambition, in succeeding his brother as the head of the treasury. If experience could give a politician claims to be the ruler of a great nation, and moreover of a nation very difficult to manage, Newcastle had claims above most men. He had been secretary of state in 1724, under Sir Robert Walpole. Carteret had kept him in the same office, though he despised him. His thirst for power was insatiable. He impaired his estate to maintain and extend his parliamentary influence; and thus, whoever was turned out, Newcastle always kept in. Jealous of every man of ability to whom it was necessary to intrust some share of authority, he was always in terror that his subalterns might be called to command, although ever professing his anxiety for their promotion. Always seeking the doubtful support of "troops of friends," he never offended any man by a plain "No," and was often "under the same engagements to at least ten competitors," as Lord Waldegrave affirms. But he was in many respects incompetent to manage any public business that required resolution and steadiness; and his ignorance was so manifested in his flighty and inconsistent talk that what looks like a joke in Smollett's novel has been received as a reliable fact. He had heard that thirty thousand French had marched to Cape Breton. Where did they get transports? was asked. "Transports," cried he, "I tell you they marched by land." "By land to the island of Cape Breton!" "What! is Cape Breton an island?" It was pointed out in the map; and the delighted minister, hugging his informant, ejaculated, "Egad! I'll go directly, and tell the king that Cape Breton is an island." In the house of lords, the duke's performances are thus described by a just and impartial observer: "Hear him speak in parliament, his manner is ungraceful, his language barbarous, his reasoning inconclusive. At the same time, he labours through all the confusion of a debate without the least distrust of his own abilities; fights boldly in the dark; never gives up the cause; nor is he ever at a loss either for words or argument.' He has had many successors in this line; but at that period the house of commons required to be managed by a different species of oratory. Three of the great masters of eloquence were in that house - Pitt, Fox, and Murray. Newcastle offered the seals of secretary of state, with the lead of the commons, to Mr. Fox. The offer was fully justified by the ability and the experience of this gentleman, who started in public life a needy political adventurer," as he has been called "at a time when the standard of integrity amongst statesmen was low." This adherent of Sir Robert Walpole would not shrink from any participation in the corruption which gave ascendancy to the duke of Newcastle. Fox desired to be actively engaged in working the parliamentary system. As secretary of war, he had no seat in the cabinet; no responsibility beyond the routine duties of his office. The prospect of a place which would give him real power raised all the ambition of Fox; who, says Lord Hardwicke, "within a few hours of Mr. Pelham's death, had made strong advances to the duke of Newcastle and myself." But there was a hitch in the completion of the arrangement proposed by Newcastle, which is singularly indicative of the political degradation of those times. Fox agreed to accept the secretaryship and the management of the house of commons. He very reluctantly gave up the disposal of the secret service money, but he stipulated that he was to know how the bribes were disposed of. The next day, Newcastle receded from this condition. How am I to understand, said Fox, how to talk to members of parliament, when some have received "gratifications," and others not? His brother, said Newcastle, had never disclosed these things, nor |