Page images
PDF
EPUB

wreck, then the crown was probably part of the Pay

beaten a German sailor, who fired the powder which was in open barrels on deck!1 In master-General's charge, and

any case the Duke of Medina Sidonia tried during the night to tranship the burned and wounded men, but failed. On August 1 he gave orders "to tranship his Majesty's treasure, and the men," and to sink the San Salvador. The English, in fact, towed away the wreek.2 On board the San Salvador was the Paymaster-General, Juan de Huerta, who appears to have been in charge of a very considerable portion of the whole treasure. 3

[ocr errors]

Nobody tells us into what vessel this treasure was transhipped. If into one of Oquenda's squadron, that had nine ships, not one of which is the Tobermory galleon. If Diego Enriquez (not Tellez) took the treasure (and his squadron had lost its own pay chest), then the money came into Irish hands. His squadron had nine shipsamong them the Tobermory galleon. As the transhipped treasure probably remained in Oquenda's squadron, or followed Diego Enriquez into his squadron, the ships of the two squadrons being eighteen, it is seventeen to one that the treasure was not placed in the San Juan Bautista of Sicily, and, consequently that it is not in Tobermory Bay. But if Archibald Millar did actually see and hook "a crown or diadem" in the Tobermory

1 Cal. Span.,' p. 397.

a sign that the rest of his treasure is also actually on board the San Juan Bautista de Sicilia. That is the spes ultima et exigua!

Since this paper was in type I have learned, on excellent authority, that old people, natives of Tobermory, used to speak of the vessel from which two or three men were blown to shore with the upper deck as the Saint John (San Juan). Don Pedro, who "had his hand shot away," appears to have been remembered in tradition as "the one-armed man," but confusedly, as a Gaelic speaker.

Now, alas! must be told a fact disappointing to hopes of treasure! Sir Walter Scott (Edinburgh, March 1, 1812) writes to Surtees of Mainsforth, quoting Sacheverille's "Account of the Isle of Man, &c., including a voyage to I. Columb-Kill in the year 1688" (1702):—

"The fishers showed me [Scott] the place where she [the galleon] lay in the Bay of Tobermory, and said that there had been a good deal of treasure and some brass cannon got out of the wreck. Sacheverel (sic) mentions having seen the divers sinking 3 score feet under water, continuing there an hour and returning loaded, whether with plate or money, the spoils of the ocean.

On the other hand, Colonel Foss kindly shows me a note by a gifted lady who made

2 Medina Sidonia, Aug. 21; 'Cal. Span.,' p. 397.

3 'Cal. Span.,' p. 441. Antonio de Luzon in Laughton, vol. ii. p. 276.

researches for him, and unhappily died in August 1911. This is a rough note from a document unnamed, but which is clearly authentic, and proves that between 1691 and 1694 the tenth Earl of Argyll, son of the Presbyterian martyr (1685), was dealing with Archibald Campbell, the younger, of Calder, in a fresh endeavour to recover treasure. As the tenth Earl must have known in 1691 all about the results of the operations of 1688, as described by Sacheverel, he must have been of opinion that plenty of plate and money was still left in the wreck. Whether he got it out or not I am unable to say: let us hope that he failed.

Finally, as to John Smollett: in April-May 1589 I find him "wanted" by the Government of James VI. in connection with the Catholic and Spanish conspiracy of Huntly and Errol. On August 1, 1586, the Master of Gray, writing to the deepest of traitors, Archibald Douglas, speaks of Smollett as a person whom he had dealt with suecessfully for news of such plots, Spanish and Catholic, as Graham of Fintry shared in,

to his ruin. It thus appears that Smollett, as an agent of Walsingham, went into the plot of the Catholic earls as a spy, and very probably it was through information given by him that, in spring 1589, Elizabeth's Government obtained the compromising letters of Huntly and Errol to Philip II. and the Duke of Parma. In these circumstances Mr Smollett fled, and was protected by the Sempills, who were deep in the plot. He would return to Dumbarton and business when the storm blew over; and probably, late in 1592, he betrayed "the Spanish Blanks," or rather betrayed George Ker, who carried the papers and was lurking in the isle of Cumbrae in the Firth of Clyde,-conveniently adjacent to Smollett's place of residence at Dumbarton. Gentle King Jamie himself was, more less, art and part in the conspiracy, and nobody was any the worse, except Graham of Fintry. Mr Smollett feathered his nest; and is apparently the founder of the house whence sprang the author of 'Roderick Random.'1

Mr

or

1 I am infinitely obliged to Miss E. M. Thompson for discovering Smollett in connection with the Master of Gray, and for making transcripts from difficult MSS.

THE MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

PARLIAMENT has met under auspices peculiarly welcome to the Radical Caucus and the friends of "freedom." The time-honoured constitution of the British Empire is suspended. The House of Lords has been deprived of its ancient powers, and is still denied reform. The House of Commons is gagged, guillotined, and kangaroo'd into impotence. The highest duty which it is permitted to perform is to register the decrees of an autocratic Cabinet. What more could the ardent slave of the democracy desire? Mr Asquith, no doubt, has been congratulated upon liberal interpretation of the People's Will by all the welldrilled groups which make up his coalition.

[ocr errors]

The King's Speech is chiefly conspicuous for an omission. If political honesty be anything better than an an antiquated superstition, the present Government is pledged to the instant reform of the House of Lords. To give Home Rule to Ireland, to rob the Welsh Church of the poor pittance which it boasts, at a moment when the Second Chamber has been stripped of its power and influence, is a piece of trickery for which responsible Ministers in sterner times would have been impeached. The pledge of reform has been given again and again with unctuous pomposity. The preamble of the Parliament

Bill, if ineffectual, is not likely to be forgotten. And Mr Asquith, as we know, has always taken a serious view of preambles. "Ever since the days of Lord Coke," he declared on one occasion, "it has been well said that the preamble is the keynote of the statute." It is the keynote no longer. With that ungovernable lust to devour his own words which now dominates him, Mr Asquith has eaten up Lord Coke's pronouncement and his own, and the preamble is swallowed whole with the many other honourable pledges of an honourable Cabinet.

The Tory party, therefore, was wisely inspired when it made Mr Asquith's preliminary breach of faith the first object of its attack. Nor could the attack have been intrusted to more competent hands than Mr F. E. Smith's. The speech which that gentleman delivered will remain long in the memory of the House. As a piece of close reasoning it was unanswerable and unanswered. Two years ago, Mr F. E. Smith pointed out, the King's Speech promised measures to "provide that the House of Lords shall be so constituted and empowered as to exercise impartially its functions." This promise of reform has been repeated in Parliament and out of it by many Ministers. That exemplary statesman, the Minister for Foreign Affairs— the Aristides of our age and

clime, was bold enough to say that if an indefinite postponement of reform was sanctioned it would spell the death and damnation of the Liberal Party. Sir Edward wears the Garter, and reform is still indefinitely postponed. Then the Bill, preamble and all, was introduced. The Bill was passed, and the preamble was treated with a contempt which would have horrified Lord Coke and the Mr Asquith of earlier days. But lest the moderate supporters of the Government should be outraged-if any remain-the pledge contained in the preamble was repeated from time to time. "The Government regard themselves," said Mr Asquith in April 1911, "as bound, not only in honour but by the strict letter of their pledges, to give effect to the preamble as and when the proper time arises," the proper time being defined as "when the first part of our task is done." The Government's honour seems of no more value as a bond than the strict letter of its pledges, and it is not surprising that in his next declaration the Prime Minister discreetly hedged. "I have said more than once," said the sanguine Mr Asquith, "that the Government regard it as an obligation of honour to propose within the lifetime of the present Parliament, if time permits, a scheme scheme for the reconstitution of the Second Chamber." The humour of this solemn statement is exquisite. The time-limit of honour is an invention of which Mr Asquith may justly be proud. "It will

become necessary," as Mr F. E. Smith most wittily said, "to revise our ethical category. We shall no longer be able to establish a simple division and say that there are honourable and dishonourable men. We shall have to say that there are, first, honourable men ; second, dishonourable men; and, third, honourable men if time permits." And we may add to this with perfect confidence, that so long as Mr Asquith and his colleagues are in power time never will permit.

Two years ago the reform of the Second Chamber "brooked no delay." Now it is the one measure the delay of which is possible. The reasons why a time limit has been sternly set upon the honour of the Radicals are clear. The first and simplest reason of all is Mr Redmond's command. The mere threat of that fortunate statesman whipped the Radical hounds off the scent of honour and brought them to his heel. "I am glad that the Prime Minister has dropped all reference to reform in his resolutions," said he with ominous clarity. "Had he proposed a scheme of reform we should not be able to support him." Where is "honour now, where the policy which "brooks no delay"? Mr Redmond's threat is enough reason of itself. But there are others. The Radicals, no doubt, have found it convenient to entertain a double policy. To those among them who, like the Minister for Foreign Affairs, seem sincerely attached to a second chamber,

[ocr errors]

they can indicate the preamble with a gesture of superb complacency. To those who prefer the unchecked tyranny of the Commons, they can whisper that the preamble is dropped into the lowest pit of oblivion. And thus can they achieve their heart's desire, to win either way. There remains the most potent reason of all. The Radicals have discovered that as an Aunt Sally there is nothing so useful as the hereditary principle. Not even Chinese Labour yielded results of equal permanence. If the House of Lords were reformed, the Radicals would be deprived for ever of their spirited pictures of imbecile peers, with drunken coronets hanging over their ears. And, thus deprived of its weightiest argument, how would the party of "honour" and "progress ever again face the people? Mr Birrell rightly gauged his own and his party's capacity when he said it was the hereditary principle which "lent itself most easily to a cheap kind of ridicule."

The attack upon the honour of the Radical party was treated with the levity which we expect. Sir John Simon, having no defence, fell back upon a foolish flippancy which ill agrees with the gravity of his temper. Mr Asquith thought fit pompously and flatulently to talk of something else. Not one Minister rose higher than the paltry dodges of party politics. Not one Minister thought it shameful that their leader had broken and intended still to break the

The

pledges of his honour. effect which such conduct has upon the country may already be observed. Democracies are none too scrupulous, and if dishonour be profitable they are quick to seize the advantage. Thus the Radical Government demoralises by its discreditable example the whole community. Already there are signs that Mr Asquith's recklessness of promise and statement is finding its imitators. The workmen who do not think it necessary to keep the word which they have pledged in negotiation with ployers are merely following in the footsteps of those who have usurped the government of the State, and if wanton and purposeless strikes result from the broken promises of the working men, Mr Asquith and his colleagues are alone to blame. But though they keep in office by using the most artful dodges known to them, their style lacks the finish which Mr Gladstone always put upon trickery. Once upon

8

em

time that eminent politician had promised, like Mr Asquith, to place a measure, which he afterwards found inconvenient, in the forefront of his policy. When called to account for the breaking of his promise, he observed that the "forefront was a line, not a point." That is a far more adroit escape than Mr Asquith's paltry "if time permits.'

And for what purpose have the Radical leaders thus cheerfully shelved their honour? To pass a measure of Home Rule about which we know

« PreviousContinue »