Protestant Exiles from France/Book Second - Chapter 3 - Section XVI

by David Carnegie Andrew Agnew

Layout 2

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, who spoke with great emotion and even with tears in his eyes, said, “It is somewhat strange, that generals, who have acted to the best of their understandings, and have lost their limbs in the service, should be examined, like offenders, about insignificant things.”

On Tuesday, January 9th, the two lords being present, Lord Galway’s statement was read, and so were Lord Peterborough’s five answers. The chairman asked Lord Galway if he had anything to add to his own paper — to which he replied, “My memory suggests nothing more to me at this time, but if the House is pleased to allow me a copy of the Earl of Peterborough’s paper, I may make some remarks upon it.” His request was granted.

The chairman then said to Lord Tyrawley, “Are you willing to communicate to the Lords what you know concerning the council held in Valencia, the 15th of January?” — Lord Tyrawley replied, “The reason why I was shy of speaking last Friday was that I thought myself accused; and as my doubt still continues, and nobody is obliged to accuse himself, I desire to know, Am I accused or not? — And if I am, I desire a copy of the accusation that I may put in my answer.” This led to a discussion, in the midst of which the two heroes were called on to withdraw. And on being recalled, Lord Tyrawley, the question having been simply repeated, said, “Being apprehensive that I might be accused, I thought I ought to be on my guard, but as I hope this illustrious assembly will not take advantage of anything I may say, I will frankly acquaint them with all I know about that council of war. It is a hard matter to charge one’s memory with things so far distant (1707), but I remember in general that several schemes were proposed for the ensuing campaign. An offensive war was resolved upon by a majority of voices. Besides the Lord Galway, Mr. Stanhope and myself, all the Portuguese, namely, the Marquis das Minas, the Count d’Oropeza, the Condé de Corsana, and the Portuguese Ambassador, were of that opinion. The operations of the campaign were left to the determination of subsequent councils. As to the battle of Almanza, it was unanimously resolved upon, not one general opposing it, and Monsieur Freishman, who commanded the Dutch, and was very jealous of anything that regarded the service of his masters, did not speak one word against it.” The Earl of Nottingham rose to order, and said, “Lord Tyrawley was not questioned about the battle of Almanza.” The witness was therefore removed and the objection considered. Lord Peterborough agreed with Lord Nottingham. Lord Halifax differed. And the Duke of Marlborough said, “He has answered fully the question put to him.” The Earl of Godolphin moved that Lord Tyrawley might proceed. And he was again called in, but answered, “I have no more to say.” Lord Cowper asked him, “Was a march to Madrid agreed upon in that council of war?” He replied, “It was resolved to march to Madrid, but the further operations of the campaign were reserved to the determination of subsequent councils after we had beaten the enemy.” Lord Peterborough inquired, “By whom were these resolutions taken?” Lord Tyrawley answered, “By the majority of several councils of war, which were held twice a week. And as far as I can remember, the king did not declare his opinion.” The two Irish Peers withdrew.

The Earl of Ferrers moved “That the Earl of Peterborough has given a very faithful, just, and honourable account of the Councils of War in Valencia.” The Bishop of Sarum (Burnet) proposed an amendment; he thought it premature to use the word “just,” as the Earl of Galway’s promised remarks ought first to be heard. The Bishop added, “I readily agree to the word ‘honourable.’” The common sense of this criticism is obvious. Let it be admitted that Lord Peterborough’s intentions were honourable, yet all his reminiscences may not have been accurate. However, the Duke of Argyle (though he had long had a seat in the House as Earl of Greenwich) seems to have wished the English lords to feel that one advantage of the Union with Scotland was the importation of metaphysics. The Scottish Duke said, by way of reply, “All that is honourable must be just, and all that is just is honourable.” The House then divided, when there appeared Contents 59, Not Content 45. [That Lord Galway could conclusively answer Lord Peterborough was shown in the paper which he handed in, promptly, but not soon enough for the feverish haste of his adversaries.] The Earl of Poulett gave notice of a motion to censure the generals at the bar.

The House of Lords returned to the charge on Thursday the 11th. An officer of the House, being sent to the door, reported that the Earl of Galway was not in attendance. The Earl of Poulett then made a long speech, in which he characterized the generals in Spain as mere political favourites, who had felt so secure that they enjoyed their posts as sinecures. He concluded by proposing that his motion be now read.

Lord Galway’s estimable cousin, the young Duke of Bedford, then came forward and presented a petition from the Earl. The Clerk read it, and it was to the effect that the Petitioner, being informed that matters which very much concerned him were inserted in the Journals of the House, prayed their lordships to give him time to put in his answer before they came to a determination. A similar petition from Lord Tyrawley was presented by the Marquis of Dorchester. This reasonable request was objected to by Major-General Lord North and Grey, who said, “The Lords Galway and Tyrawley ought to have put in their answers to Lord Peterborough’s paper, instead of petitioning for time, which looked like delay.” But the reader sees that the Generals had had only one clear day, viz., Wednesday, to collect their references and compose their replies. The Duke of Devonshire said that the petitions should be granted, as a censure upon the two lords might follow upon the motion which had been tabled. The Earl of Rochester observing that the petitions were improper both as to matter and time, Lord Somers replied, that the petitions were neither improper nor given in at any improper time; that it would be too late for the petitioners to apply to the Lords after they were come to a resolution; and it was but natural justice that men in danger of being censured should have time to justify themselves. Lord Cowper concurred; he said that in things essential to justice, the ordinary forms of courts of judicature ought to be observed. On the same side was the Earl of Wharton, who remarked, A censure is a punishment; to punish men without giving them an opportunity to make their defence is equal to banishment; I hope the subjects of England are not yet reduced to that. The Duke of Buckingham held that proceedings might be stopped to hear a party in questions as to property but not as to reputation; yet as a concession, if the petitions were withdrawn, he would move that the two lords be called in and heard. The Earl of Poulett said, “They have been heard already.” The Earl of Godolphin answered, “There is new matter, and an imputation.” Lord Halifax said, “Sir George Rooke was heard for three days;^[1] pray, my lords, proceed according to the rules of justice; out of affectation of avoiding delays and not going fast enough, we have been going too fast and must return to the point.”

Such equitable and courteous views were overruled. No importation of good manners came from Scotland along with the metaphysics lately noticed. The Duke of Argyle said, “I don’t know what service it would do to the petitioning lords to have time, and to say to this House that they differed from the House.” And the Earl of Mar exclaimed, “I do not wonder that some persons endeavour to shuffle and prolong the debate; but if we grant these petitions, we may be afterwards desired to postpone this enquiry till Mr Stanhope can be heard.” The view which carried the day was expressed by the Earl of Nottingham: “The petitioners have already been heard and been allowed time to add anything to their former declarations. The lords are not now enquiring into facts, but forming their judgments upon them. The admitting of Lords Galway and Tyrawley to take notice of what passes in this House would be admitting them to a co-ordination with the Lords.” The petitions were rejected by a majority of 57 to 46.

The Duke of Argyle said, “I take for granted that the petitioners are out of the way and not to be found;” this was ascertained by sending an officer to the door. Lord Poulett’s motion was then taken up as the question before the House. It was as follows:—

“That the Earl of Galway, Lord Tyrawley, and General Stanhope, insisting at a conference held at Valencia, sometime in January 1706/7, in the presence of the King of Spain, and the Queen’s name being used in maintenance of their opinion, for an offensive war, contrary to the King ot Spain’s opinion and that of all the general officers and public ministers, except the Marquis das Minas; and the opinion of the Earl of Galway, Lord Tyrawley, and General Stanhope being pursued in the operations of the following campaign, was the unhappy occasion of the Battle of Almanza, and one cause of our misfortunes in Spain, and of the disappointment of the Duke of Savoy’s expedition before Toulon concerted with her Majesty.”

Lord Peterborough took a leading part in the debate. His account of the councils having been adopted by the House on Tuesday, without waiting for Lord Galway’s explanations, and the ministry being determined to hurry on to a division, the generals’ friends did not take up the narrative portion of the motion, but confined the attention of the House to the query, whether the relief of Toulon by the French was a consequence of the victory at Almanza.

The Duke of Marlborough clearly proved that Lord Peterborough had been only a volunteer negotiator with the rulers of Savoy, who had amused him with two delusions: first, that he was regarded as the spring of the movement against Toulon; and next, that his plan for employing troops from Spain was approved of. But the actual expedition against Toulon was an old secret, to which Lord Peterborough, like the army and the public at large, was not admitted, in pursuance of the Duke of Savoy’s earnest request that the design should be kept very secret. The Duke of Marlborough having been a party to the real negotiation, could inform the House that to take troops from Spain was no part of the plan. “And,” said the Duke, in conclusion, “the attempt upon Toulon did not miscarry for want of men (since there were nearly 17,000 left behind in Italy) but for want of time and other accidents.” This was sufficient to upset the motion. However, the government, having a majority, forced on the censure of the generals, which was carried by 64 to 43. Here we may quote from a printed paper Lord Galway’s own remarks on the Toulon question.

“The Earl of Peterborough is pleased to add as a reason for his opinion, ‘That the Duke of Savoy and Prince Eugene had declared their sentiments for a defensive war at that time in Spain, and had communicated their thoughts to Charles III. upon that subject, to the certain knowledge of the Earl of Peterborough, as he can make appear by authentic papers from the King of Spain.’ I shall not take upon me to deny a matter of fact which his Lordship so positively affirms, but I have been credibly informed that the Duke of Marlborough and my Lord Godolphin did both of them assure this most honourable house, that the true project against Toulon was not concerted by the Earl of Peterborough, Prince Eugene, and the Duke of Savoy, but first set on foot in Flanders by the Duke of Marlborough with Count Maffei, and was finished in England with the Counts Maffei and Briangon [agents of the Duke of Savoy], but did not require that any troops should be sent from Spain, nor was ever communicated to the Earl of Peterborough — which indeed his Lordship seems to be aware of, when he says, not long after, that the project against Toulon, as settled by him, had been so altered, that the Duke of Savoy publicly declared his dislike of engaging in it. And yet it is most certain that His Royal Highness did engage in an attempt against Toulon, pursuant to the project concerted in England. Though that attempt did not prove entirely successful, it had a very good effect, for thereby a great body of the enemy’s troops were diverted from acting elsewhere; and a considerable damage was done to the fleet and magazines of France.”

Against the decisions to refuse the generals’ petition for more time, and to censure them for their opinion given in a council of war, thirty-six lords protested, namely:—

	Charles Montague, Lord (afterwards Earl of) Halifax.
	John Ashburnham, 3d Lord Ashburnham (afterwards Earl).
	Lieut-General Charles Mohun, 3d and last Lord Mohun.
	William Wake, Bishop of Lincoln (afterwards Abp. of Canterbury).
5.	Charles Trimnell, Bishop of Norwich (afterwards of Winchester).
	Sidney Godolphin, 1st Earl of Godolphin, K.G.
	Lieut-General Richard Lumley, 1st Earl of Scarborough.
	Henry de Grey, Earl, Marquis, and Duke of Kent, K.G.
	Gilbert Burnet, Bishop of Sarum.
10.	Richard Cumberland, Bishop of Peterborough.
	Wriothesley Russell, 2d Duke of Bedford, K.G.
	Admiral James Berkeley, 3d Earl of Berkeley.
	William Cavendish, 2d Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
	Thomas Wharton, Earl (afterwards Marquis) of Wharton.
15.	Admiral Edward Russell, 1st Earl of Orford.
	John Moore, Bishop of Ely.
	John Tyler, Bishop of Llandaff.
	Thomas Watson Wentworth, 2d Earl of Rockingham.
	John Hervey, Lord Hervey (afterwards Earl of Bristol).
20.	Lionel Sackville, 7th Earl of Dorset (afterwards Duke).
	John Hough, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry (afterwards of Worcester).
	Scroop Egerton, 3d Earl of Bridgewater (afterwards Duke).
	Henry Clinton, 7th Earl of Lincoln.
	Henry Herbert, 6th Lord Herbert of Cherbury.
25.	John Sidney, 6th Earl of Leicester.
	Thomas Grey, 2d Earl of Stamford.
	Sir Jonathan Trelawney, Bart, Bishop of Winchester.
	William Nicholson, Bishop of Carlisle (afterwards of Derry).
	William Fleetwood, Bishop of St. Asaph (afterwards of Ely).
30.	Captain-General John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, K.G.
	Colonel Maurice Thompson, 2d and last Baron Haversham.
	Charles Spencer, 3d Earl of Sunderland.
	John Evans, Bishop of Bangor (afterwards of Meath).
	John Somers, Lord Somers and Ex-Chancellor.
	Evelyn Pierrepoint, Marquis of Dorchester (afterwards Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull).
36.	William Cowper, Lord Cowper and Ex-Chancellor (afterwards Earl).

The motion to censure the late ministry, proposed by the Earl of Scarsdale, was carried next day by 68 to 48. During the debate the abused statesmen not only defended themselves, but took occasion to justify Lord Galway and his comrades, in spite of last night’s vote.

The Earl of Sunderland said, “It was the general opinion and desire of the nation that the Earl of Galway should march again to Madrid, and all the ministry then were unanimous in their opinion for an offensive war. Many inconveniences might have attended the dividing of the army.” The Duke of Marlborough, after repeating that troops from Spain formed no item of the projected armament against Toulon, said, “As for the war in Spain, it was the general opinion of England that it should be offensive. And as to my Lord Peterborough’s projects, I can assure your lordships that one of the greatest instances that Holland and Savoy made was, that the Emperor and we should not insist upon an expedition to Naples which might hinder the other design. My lords, my intentions were always honest and sincere to contribute all that lay in my power to bring this heavy and expensive war to an end. God Almighty has blessed my endeavours with success. But if men are to be censured when they give their opinions to the best of their understandings, I must expect to be found fault with as well as the rest. My Lord Galway and everybody in Spain have done their duty. And though I must own that Lord has been unhappy, and that he had no positive orders for a battle, yet I must do him the justice to say, that the whole council of war were of his opinion, to fight the enemy before the coming up of the Duke of Orleans with a reinforcement of ten or twelve thousand men. On the other hand, I must confess I do not understand how the separating of the army would have favoured the siege of Toulon.”

The speaker was interrupted by the Earl of Peterborough, who said, “There was a necessity for dividing the troops to go to Madrid.”

The Duke of Marlborough continued, “I will not contradict that Lord as to the situation of the country, but this separation of the army could not be in order to a defensive but to an offensive war — which, in my opinion, was the best way to make a diversion, and thereby hinder the French from relieving Toulon. But, after all, that unhappy battle had no other effect but to put us upon the defensive. For the French troops that were detached from Spain never came before Toulon.”

The Duke of Shrewsbury admitted that the Lord Galway had a good reason to fight, because he could not help it. But that there was no reason for the ministers here to give that opinion, because nothing forced them to it.

The Duke of Devonshire urged that, since the allies could not subsist without fighting, it was unreasonable to censure the generals who gave their opinions for a battle. And Lord Somers said, that the ill success of the battle of Almanza was no good argument against the counsel for an offensive war, for if they judged of opinions by subsequent events, no man would be safe. The proceedings ended on this 12th day of January by the censure of the ex-ministers, as already stated.

As to Lord Galway, the votes amounted to no real censure, opinions given in a council of war being privileged, and the primary responsibility of fighting having been accepted by Lord Sunderland in name of the late ministry. The Harley- Bolingbroke ministry, therefore, were anxious to carry some other vote, which the outer world might believe to be a censure. The reader will remember that the Portuguese formed the right wing at the battle of Almanza; this post of honour they occupied during the whole war, both in their own country and in Spain. It seemed to the semi-Jacobite lords, on Wednesday the 17th, that a vote to blacken Lord Galway might be got out of this, and they sent him a summons to appear at their bar on Monday the 22d. The cotemporary papers inform us:—

“My Lord Galway being indisposed with rheumatism and the gout, and therefore unable to obey that order, the Lords sent him a question in writing, namely, Why, whilst he commanded the British forces in Spain, he gave the right to the Portuguese? To this the Earl of Galway sent an answer, importing that by the treaty with Portugal, the troops of that crown were to have the right in their own country; and that in order to engage them to march to Madrid, he was obliged to allow them the same honour; for otherwise they would never have stirred out of Portugal.”^[2]

A motion was therefore concocted, and solemnly proposed, “That the Earl of Galway, in yielding the post of her Majesty’s troops to the Portuguese in Spain, acted contrary to the honour of the Imperial Crown of Great Britain.” On a division, there voted 64 for it, and 44 against it. The minority were either so indignant at the tyranny of the majority, or so sarcastic as to John Bull’s notion that all other nations are beneath the English, that some expressions were found in their protest which enabled the majority to order that this protest be expunged.

Wodrow notes, in his Analecta, January 1711:—

“By a letter, dated the close of this month, from London, I find that the House of Lords carry everything before them against the old ministry. Galway is challenged for giving the post of honour to the Portuguese though he had it in commission that they should command; and this they carry by twenty votes, whereof eighteen are our Scots lords. So the Whigs in England come to see their great mistake in the Union. For it’s plain the crown may manage our Scots elections as they please; £20,000 or £30,000 will make them every way as they will.”

1. 1703, Feb. 16. — The Lords, having examined into the expedition to Cadiz, resolved that Sir George Rooke had done his duty, pursuant to the councils of war, like a brave officer, to the honour of the English Nation.
2. Mylord Gallway repondit, que par le traitté avec le Portugal les troupes de cette couronne devoient avoir la droite dans leur pays sur les troupes Angloises — que pour les engager à marcher en Espagne il avoit été oblige de leur faire ce même honneur, et qu’ autrement elles n’auroient jamais quitté le Portugal. Il dit qu’il n’avoit pas cru de voir sacrifier tous les avantages, que la Grande Alliance pouvoit retirer de la marche de l’Armeé Portuguaise, à un point d’honneur qui, bien que fort delicat, ne pouvoit entrer en balance avec la necessité de cette marche, d’ou dependoit l’acquisition ou la perte de toute l’Espagne. — De Cize, Whigism et Torisme p. 300.