Editing Kingdom of Great Britain (section)

====Patronage and corruption====
[[Robert Walpole|Walpole]] was a master of the effective use of patronage, as were Pelham and Lord Newcastle. They each paid close attention to the work of bestowing upon their political allies high places, lifetime pensions, honours, lucrative government contracts, and help at election time. In turn the friends enabled them to control Parliament.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Browning |first=Reed |url=https://archive.org/details/dukeofnewcastle0000brow |title=Duke of Newcastle |date=1975 |isbn=978-0-300-01746-5 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/dukeofnewcastle0000brow/page/254 254–260] |publisher=Yale University Press |ol=5069181M |url-access=registration}}</ref> Thus in 1742, over 140 members of parliament held powerful positions thanks in part to Walpole, including 24 men at the royal court, 50 in the government agencies, and the rest with [[sinecure]]s or other handsome emoluments, often in the range of £500 – £1000 per year. Usually there was little or no work involved. Walpole also distributed highly attractive ecclesiastical appointments. When the Court in 1725 instituted a new order of chivalry, the [[Order of the Bath]], Walpole immediately seized the opportunity. He made sure that most of the 36 men honoured were peers and members of parliament who would provide him with useful connections.<ref>{{Citation |last=Hanham |first=Andrew |title=The Politics of Chivalry: Sir Robert Walpole, the Duke of Montagu and the Order of the Bath |date=2016 |journal=Parliamentary History |volume=35 |issue=3 |pages=262–297 |doi=10.1111/1750-0206.12236}}</ref> Walpole himself became enormously wealthy, investing heavily in his estate at [[Houghton Hall]] and its large collection of European master paintings.<ref>{{Citation |last=Roberts |first=Clayton |title=A History of England |date=1985 |volume=2, 1688 to the present |pages=449–450 |edition=3rd |isbn=978-0-13-389974-0 |ol=2863417M |display-authors=etal}}</ref>

Walpole's methods won him victory after victory, but aroused furious opposition. Historian [[John H. Plumb]] wrote:
{{Blockquote|Walpole's policy had bred distrust, his methods hatred. Time and time again his policy was successful in Parliament only because of the government's absolute control of the Scottish members in the Commons and the Bishops in the Lords. He gave point to the opposition's cry that Walpole's policy was against the wishes of the nation, a policy imposed by a corrupt use of pension and place.{{Sfn|Plumb|1950|page=68}}}}

The opposition called for "patriotism" and looked at the Prince of Wales as the future "Patriot King". Walpole supporters ridiculed the very term "patriot".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Carretta |first=Vincent |title=George III and the Satirists from Hogarth to Byron |date=2007 |isbn=978-0-8203-3124-9 |pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=xQqs0qxcnJMC&pg=PA44 44]–51 |publisher=University of Georgia Press |ol=29578545M}}</ref>

The opposition [[Country Party (Britain)|Country Party]] attacked Walpole relentlessly, primarily targeting his patronage, which they denounced as corruption. In turn, Walpole imposed censorship on the London theatre and subsidised writers such as [[William Arnall]] and others who rejected the charge of political corruption by arguing that corruption is the universal human condition. Furthermore, they argued, political divisiveness was also universal and inevitable because of selfish passions that were integral to human nature. Arnall argued that government must be strong enough to control conflict, and in that regard Walpole was quite successful. This style of "court" political rhetoric continued through the 18th century.<ref>{{Citation |last=Horne |first=Thomas |title=Politics in a Corrupt Society: William Arnall's Defense of Robert Walpole |date=October–December 1980 |journal=Journal of the History of Ideas |volume=41 |issue=4 |pages=601–614 |doi=10.2307/2709276 |jstor=2709276}}</ref> [[Richard Temple, 1st Viscount Cobham|Lord Cobham]], a leading soldier, used his own connections to build up an opposition after 1733. Young [[William Pitt the Elder|William Pitt]] and [[George Grenville]] joined [[Cobhamite|Cobham's faction]]—they were called "Cobham's Cubs". They became leading enemies of Walpole and both later became prime minister.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Leonard |first=Dick |title=Eighteenth-Century British Premiers: Walpole to the Younger Pitt |date=2010 |isbn=978-0-230-30463-5 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=JpiIDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA94 94] |publisher=Springer |ol=37125742M |author-link=Dick Leonard}}</ref>

By 1741, Walpole was facing mounting criticism on foreign policy—he was accused of entangling Britain in a useless war with Spain—and mounting allegations of corruption. On 13 February 1741, [[Samuel Sandys, 1st Baron Sandys|Samuel Sandys]], a former ally, called for his removal.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kellner |first=Peter |title=Democracy: 1,000 Years in Pursuit of British Liberty |date=2011 |isbn=978-1-907195-85-3 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=bobcxij5UkIC&pg=PT264 264] |publisher=Random House |ol=36708739M}}</ref> He said:
{{Blockquote| Such has been the conduct of Sir Robert Walpole, with regard to foreign affairs: he has deserted our allies, aggrandized our enemies, betrayed our commerce, and endangered our colonies; and yet this is the least criminal part of his ministry. For what is the loss of allies to the alienation of the people from the government, or the diminution of trade to the destruction of our liberties?<ref>{{Citation |title=Great Britain: the lion at home: a documentary history of domestic policy, 1689–1973 |date=1983 |volume=1 |issue=66–67 |editor-last=Wiener |editor-first=Joel H.}}</ref>}}

Walpole's allies defeated a censure motion by a vote of 209 to 106, but Walpole's coalition lost seats in the election of 1741, and by a narrow margin he was finally forced out of office in early 1742.<ref>{{Harvnb|Langford|1989|pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=9-b81opKYREC&pg=PA56 54–57]}}; {{Harvnb|Marshall|1974|pp=183–191}}.</ref>

=====Walpole's foreign policy=====
{{Further|International relations (1648–1814)|France–United Kingdom relations}}

Walpole secured widespread support with his policy of avoiding war.<ref>{{Citation |last=Black |first=Jeremy |title=Britain in the Age of Walpole |date=1984 |pages=144–169 |editor-last=Black |editor-first=Jeremy |chapter=Foreign Policy in the Age of Walpole |publisher=Macmillan |isbn=978-0-333-36863-3 |ol=2348433M |author-link=Jeremy Black (historian) |editor-link=Jeremy Black (historian)}}</ref> He used his influence to prevent George II from entering the [[War of the Polish Succession]] in 1733, because it was a dispute between the Bourbons and the Habsburgs. He boasted, "There are 50,000 men slain in Europe this year, and not one Englishman."{{Sfn|Robertson|1911|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=OawxAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA66 66]}} Walpole himself let others, especially [[Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend|his brother-in-law Lord Townshend]], handle foreign policy until about 1726, then took charge. A major challenge for his administration was the royal role as simultaneous ruler of Hanover, a small German state that was opposed to Prussian supremacy. George I and George II saw a French alliance as the best way to neutralise Prussia. They forced a dramatic reversal of British foreign policy, which for centuries had seen France as England's greatest enemy.{{Sfn|Black|2016}} However, the bellicose King [[Louis XIV]] died in 1715, and the regents who ran France were preoccupied with internal affairs. King [[Louis XV]] came of age in 1726, and his elderly chief minister [[André-Hercule de Fleury|Cardinal Fleury]] collaborated informally with Walpole to prevent a major war and keep the peace. Both sides wanted peace, which allowed both countries enormous cost savings, and recovery from expensive wars.<ref>{{Citation |last=Wilson |first=Arthur McCandless |title=French Foreign Policy during the Administration of Cardinal Fleury, 1726–1743: A Study in Diplomacy and Commercial Development |date=1936 |publisher=Greenwood Press |isbn=0-837-15333-6 |ol=5703043M |author-link=Arthur McCandless Wilson}}</ref>

Henry Pelham became prime minister in 1744 and continued Walpole's policies. He worked for an end to the [[War of the Austrian Succession]].{{Sfn|Williams|1962|pages=259–270}} His financial policy was a major success once peace had been signed in 1748. He demobilised the armed forces, and reduced government spending from £12&nbsp;million to £7&nbsp;million. He refinanced the national debt, dropping the interest rate from 4% p.a. to 3% p.a. Taxes had risen to pay for the war, but in 1752 he reduced the land tax from four shillings to two shillings in the pound: that is, from 20% to 10%.<ref>{{Harvnb|Brumwell|Speck|2001|page=288}}; {{Harvnb |Marshall|1974|pages=221–227}}.</ref>

=====Lower debt and taxes=====
By avoiding wars, Walpole could lower taxes. He reduced the national debt with a sinking fund, and by negotiating lower interest rates. He reduced the land tax from four shillings in 1721, to 3s in 1728, 2s in 1731 and finally to only 1s (i.e. 5%) in 1732. His long-term goal was to replace the land tax, which was paid by the local gentry, with excise and customs taxes, which were paid by merchants and ultimately by consumers. Walpole joked that the landed gentry resembled hogs, which squealed loudly whenever anyone laid hands on them. By contrast, he said, merchants were like sheep, and yielded their wool without complaint.<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Cambridge Modern History |date=1909 |isbn=978-0-521-07814-6 |editor-last=Ward |editor-first=A. W. |editor-link=Adolphus Ward |volume=VI: the Eighteenth Century |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=fMgFAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA46 46] |ol=7716876M |display-editors=etal}}</ref> The joke backfired in 1733 when he was defeated in a major battle to [[Excise Bill|impose excise taxes on wine and tobacco]]. To reduce the threat of smuggling, the tax was to be collected not at ports but at warehouses. This new proposal, however, was extremely unpopular with the public, and aroused the opposition of the merchants because of the supervision it would involve. Walpole was defeated as his strength in Parliament dropped a notch.{{Sfn|Langford|1989|pages=28–33}}

=====Walpole's reputation=====
[[File:The Stature of a Great Man or the English Colossus cph.3b03411.jpg|thumb|1740 political cartoon depicting a towering Walpole as the [[Colossus of Rhodes]]]]

Historians hold Walpole's record in high regard, though there has been a recent tendency to share credit more widely among his allies. [[W. A. Speck]] wrote that Walpole's uninterrupted run of 20 years as Prime Minister

{{Blockquote|is rightly regarded as one of the major feats of British political history...&nbsp;Explanations are usually offered in terms of his expert handling of the political system after 1720, [and] his unique blending of the surviving powers of the crown with the increasing influence of the Commons.{{Sfn|Speck|1977|page=203}}
}}

He was a [[Whigs (British political party)|Whig]] from the gentry class, who first arrived in Parliament in 1701, and held many senior positions. He was a country squire and looked to country gentlemen for his political base. Historian Frank O'Gorman said his leadership in Parliament reflected his "reasonable and persuasive oratory, his ability to move both the emotions as well as the minds of men, and, above all, his extraordinary self-confidence."{{Sfn|O'Gorman|1997|page=71}} [[Julian Hoppit]] has said Walpole's policies sought moderation: he worked for peace, lower taxes, growing exports, and allowed a little more tolerance for Protestant Dissenters. He avoided controversy and high-intensity disputes, as his middle way attracted moderates from both the Whig and Tory camps.{{Sfn|Hoppit|2000|page=410}} H.T. Dickinson summed up his historical role:
{{Blockquote
| Walpole was one of the greatest politicians in British history. He played a significant role in sustaining the Whig party, safeguarding the Hanoverian succession, and defending the principles of the [[Glorious Revolution]] (1688)&nbsp;... He established a stable political supremacy for the Whig party and taught succeeding ministers how best to establish an effective working relationship between Crown and Parliament.<ref>{{Citation |last=Dickinson |first=H. P. |title=Walpole, Sir Robert |date=2003 |work=Readers Guide to British History |volume=2 |issue=1338 |editor-last=Loades |editor-first=David |editor-link=David Loades}}</ref>
}}