Stanhope. They contended that since the revolution France had encouraged woollen manufactures, and prepared at home several commodities which they formerly depended on England for; that the English, on the other hand, had learned to make silk stuffs, paper, and all manner of toys, formerly imported from France, by which means an infinite number of hands were employed, and a vast sum annually saved to the nation; that all these artificers would be at once reduced to beggary by the influx of French articles of the same kind, which could be sold cheaper because labour was cheaper in France; that the silk manufacture would be attended with another injury; that our merchants vended in Turkey and Italy great quantities of woollen cloths in exchange for raw silk, which trade would be immediately lost if we could not take their silk. They declared that, had the English army been allowed to act honestly and vigorously with the allies till peace was made, the French dared not even to have asked for such a privilege, and we should have been far enough from granting it them.
On the other hand the tories, converted into advocates of free trade by their peculiar position, contended that the whigs ought to have made peace at Gertruydenberg when they could have had their own terms. Amongst the leaders on the side of free trade and the treaty were Sir William Wyndham, Mr. Arthur Moore, Sir George Newland, and Mr. Heysham—the two last, whigs. Arthur Moore was a wealthy and enlightened merchant, who by his industry and ability had raised himself from the rank of a footman. He it was who had suggested to Bolingbroke the principles of the treaty, far in advance of the time, though Bolingbroke, with his selfish ambition, for a time managed to get all the credit of it. Wyndham argued that it was a mere fallacy that England would lose the exportation of woollen cloths to Portugal by equalising the duties of French and Portuguese wines; that the Portuguese wanted the cloths, must have them, and could get them nowhere else; that it was optional for Portugal to sell her wines at a price to compete successfully with France in return for our corn and woollens. Spite of the vigorous opposition, leave was granted to bring in the bill by a majority of two hundred and fifty-two against one hundred and thirty.
This appeared very promising for the ministry; but on the 9th of June, when the house of commons went into committee on the bill, a great number of merchants desired to be heard against it. For several days their statements were heard, and the Portuguese ambassador also presented a memorial declaring that should the duties on French wines be lowered to those of Portugal, his master would renew the woollen and other duties on the products of Great Britain. This seemed to enforce the mercantile opinions; the sense of the whole country was against the treaty, and the speech of Sir Thomas Hanmer, a tory, made a deep impression. There was, however, a growing rumour, during the latter days of the debate, that Oxford had given the treaty up—a rumour probably not without foundation, for Oxford and Bolingbroke were no longer at unity. The latter, ambitious and unprincipled, was intriguing to oust his more slow and dilatory colleague; and, as the bill was ostensibly the work of Bolingbroke, probably Oxford was by no means unwilling that it should be thrown out and damage him. When the question, therefore, was put on the 18th of June, that the bill be engrossed, it was negatived by a majority of one hundred and ninety-four to one hundred and eighty-five. Thus the commercial treaty was lost, much to the joy of the nation, and certainly to its immediate benefit, for, although free trade principles are undoubtedly the most advantageous in the long run, there is no denying that these changes, suddenly introduced, would have produced ruinous effects for a time. Bishop Burnet's opinion that "if we had been as often beaten by the French as they had been by us, this would have been thought a very hard treaty," was no doubt the feeling of the majority of the nation. It was calculated by merchants that the balance against, or loss to, Great Britain annually from the treaty, would not have been less than a million and a half. This could not have adjusted itself but in a course of many years, and through much popular suffering, which, with the principles of reciprocity yet untried, was not likely to be tamely endured, especially as such advantages offered to France only increased the public disgust at the precipitate surrender of so many others in the general treaty.
The defeated party, however, did not give up the idea of the treaty of commerce. Another bill was introduced to modify, or, as it was called, to render the commercial treaty more effectual; but such a host of petitions was presented against it, that it was abandoned. Sir Thomas Hanmer, however, proposed and carried an address to the queen, which was intended to cover in some degree the defeat of the ministers; and as he had got rid of the bill itself, he did not hesitate to move for what appeared inconsistent with his proceedings, namely, thanking her majesty for the care she had taken of the security and honour of the kingdom by the treaty of peace, and also by her anxiety for a treaty of commerce; and, further, recommending her to appoint commissioners to meet those of France, and endeavour to arrange such terms of commerce as should be for the good and welfare of her people. This was laid hold of, as was no doubt intended, in the queen's reply, which assumed this to be a declaration of a full approbation of the treaty of commerce as well as that of peace; and she thanked them in the warmest terms for their address.
Encouraged by their success against the commercial treaty, the whigs demanded that the pretender, according to the treaty of peace, should be requested to quit France. It had been proposed by the French court, and privately acceded to by Anne, that he should take up his residence at Bar-le-duc or Lorraine. The duke of Lorraine had taken care to inquire whether this would be agreeable to the queen, and was assured by her minister that it would be quite so. As his territory—though really a portion of France—was nominally an independent territory, it seemed to comply with the terms of the treaty; but the whigs knew that this was a weak point, and on the 29th of June, lord Wharton, without any previous notice, moved in the peers that the pretender should remove from the duke of Lorraine's dominions. The court party was completely taken by surprise, and there was an awkward pause. At length lord North ventured to suggest that such a request would show a distrust of her majesty, and he asked where was the pretender to retire to, seeing that most, if not all,
