A History of England, Period III. Constitutional MonarchyBright, J. Franck (James Franck)
History
A History of England, Period III. Constitutional Monarchy
Bright, J. Franck (James Franck)
Great Britain -- History
A ministry which showed itself thus inconsistent with its assertions
when out of office, and in which the elements of disunion were so
evident, could not last long. The death of Wilmington (1743), the
nominal Prime Minister, was the signal for its dissolution. The
candidates for the Premiership were Pulteney on the one hand, supported
by the talents of Carteret, and by the favour which this minister's
newly-found interest for Hanover had given him with the King; and on the
other hand Pelham, as representative of the party of Walpole, and backed
by the influence which he still possessed. The question was settled in
favour of Pelham, who, though without commanding abilities and
constitutionally timid, possessed much of his late leader's love of
quiet and power of management. Carteret continued for some time in power
under his new chief; but their union could never be cordial, and before
the close of 1744, Carteret--who had by continual flattery of the King's
weakness so ingratiated himself with his master that the Pelhams thought
their legitimate influence damaged by it--was dismissed. But before the
confusion which arose on Walpole's fall had settled down one great point
in his policy had at all events been reversed--England had thrown itself
vigorously into the Continental war.
[Sidenote: Question of the Austrian succession.]
Such indeed was the position of Europe that it was impossible that
England should hold aloof. But Walpole had at least tried, and with some
effect, the power of diplomacy. The death of the Emperor Charles VI. of
Germany had opened two great questions for which Europe had been long
preparing. One of these was the succession to the Austrian dominions,
which Charles had attempted to secure for his daughter by means of the
Pragmatic Sanction, and the other was the succession to the Empire. The
questions were closely connected. The most dangerous claimant for the
succession to the Austrian dominions was the Elector of Bavaria, who
alone of the powers of Europe had refused the acceptance of the
Pragmatic Sanction; he was also the most influential candidate for the
Imperial dignity. The Elector rested his claim to the Austrian
succession upon an arrangement by which, as long ago as the middle of
the sixteenth century, Ferdinand I. was said to have substituted the
heir of his daughter Anne, from whom the Elector was descended, in the
place of any other female heir. A second claimant was the King of Spain,
who regarded himself as the heir of all the rights of a descendant of
Charles V., who, when he divided his empire with his brother, reserved
the right of succession to his own immediate posterity should the direct
male line of Ferdinand become extinct. Both Bavaria and Spain were close
allies of France, and the possession of the Empire by the Elector, or of
the Austrian dominions either by the Elector or the Spanish King, would
render the influence of France paramount in Europe. It was necessary for
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account