The Lord High Treasurer Godolphin had been displaced on August 9th,[1] and a Treasury Board inaugurated with the Earl of Poulett at its head, and Harley as the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
“The Annals of Queen Anne” record that “on the 18th November 1710, the queen came from Hampton Court to St James’s Palace, when the same evening the Earl of Galway, who some days before arrived from Portugal, and whose waiting upon the queen was excused till her Majesty should come to town, had the honour of kissing her Majesty’s hand, and met with a more gracious reception than many expected, after the removal of the Lord Treasurer, his intimate friend.” His friends say that he “met with a very gracious reception.” Indeed, having not seen him for six years, observing his altered appearance and shattered frame, and remembering the loyalty which alone had reconciled him to foreign service, her Majesty must have looked upon the fine old general with grateful respect and womanly sympathy. But her new ministers were bent upon inflicting public censure and disgrace on Marlborough and all his friends, the queen cordially encouraging them as far as Marlborough and his duchess were concerned. The duke, returning from Flanders on December 28th, was so well received by the populace, that though ministers withheld from him a vote of thanks, they did not venture to begin their measures by censuring him. His friends and admirers, General the Earl of Galway and Lieutenant-Generals Lord Tyrawley and James Stanhope, were therefore fixed upon as prefatory victims; and it was determined to revive Lord Peterborough’s old stories, founded upon his selection of documents and upon his suppression of more important ones.
Sec. 16. — Debates and Votes of the House of Lords on the Proposal to Censure Galway, Tyrawley, and Stanhope.
On the 4th of January 1711, the House of Lords resolved to inquire into the management of the affairs in Spain. Lieutenant-General Stanhope, though in the next reign most deservedly ennobled as Viscount Mahon and Earl Stanhope, had then no seat in the House, and in fact he was detained abroad as a prisoner of war. The Earl of Galway and Lord Tyrawley, being Peers of Ireland, could only be present to be interrogated, and must then withdraw. Whatever might be said in their absence with regard to their conduct and reputation they had no right to know; and for any knowledge which they might glean they were dependent on hearsay, newspaper reports of parliamentary proceedings being illegal. At the same time their opponents, including many malcontent officers of the army, were Peers of Great Britain. The latter did not hesitate to take advantage of their brothers in the queen’s service by speaking and voting in what was practically their own case. Foremost among these was General the Earl of Peterborough, and of the same class were General the Earl of Rivers and Lieutenant-General the Duke of Argyle. Peterborough had also the advantage of having had his very select documents printed and published since 1707, and therefore repeatedly read by his friends, who framed their questions so as to bring out his favourite points. These questions were five in number, which were put to and answered by Lord Peterborough on Thursday, January 4th, in the absence of Lords Galway and Tyrawley.
The next day the persecuted lords appeared. Lord Galway, having a chair appointed for him “by reason of his infirmities,” sat outside the bar; and the House being in committee (the Earl of Abingdon in the chair), he was desired by the chairman to give the lords an account of what he knew concerning the affairs of Spain. The Earl of Galway, having apologised for not being able to express himself in the English language as properly as he could wish, gave an ingenuous account of his whole conduct in Portugal and Spain. Their lordships appeared to be well satisfied. Smollett says, the defence was “clear and convincing.” Lord Galway then requested permission to deliver his statement in writing on some future day, and his request was granted.
Lord Tyrawley, being interrogated, replied, “When I was with the army I kept no register, and carried neither pen nor ink about me, but only a sword, which I used as I best could upon occasion. All I know in general is, that we always acted according to the resolutions of the councils of war.”
Both had then to withdraw. The Earls of Wharton and Godolphin and Lord Halifax made speeches in favour of Lord Galway. And the Duke of Marlborough,
- ↑ It was, however, by Godolphin that Galway was recalled, and that Portmore was sent to relieve him. Godolphin wrote to Marlborough, June 22, 1710, “Lord Galway pressed for leisure to come home, and it was allowed him. . . . If Lord Portmore be as capable of serving well as he believes himself, there needs no more.” — Correspondence of the Duke, appended to the Duchess of M.’s Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 447.
