Editing Robert Walpole (section)

===Second term===
{{Further|Walpole ministry}}

Walpole's position was threatened in 1727 when George I died and was succeeded by [[George II of Great Britain|George II]]. For a few days it seemed that Walpole would be dismissed but, on the advice of [[Caroline of Ansbach|Queen Caroline]], the King agreed to keep him in office. Although the King disliked Townshend, he retained him as well. Over the next years Walpole continued to share power with Townshend but the two clashed over British foreign affairs, especially over policy regarding [[Austria]]. Gradually Walpole became the clearly dominant partner in government. His colleague retired on 15 May 1730 and this date is sometimes given as the beginning of Walpole's unofficial tenure as prime minister. Townshend's departure enabled Walpole to conclude the [[Treaty of Vienna (1731)|Treaty of Vienna]], creating the [[Anglo-Austrian alliance]].<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/memoirslifeanda00coxegoog|page=[https://archive.org/details/memoirslifeanda00coxegoog/page/n28 19]|quote=robert walpole treaty of vienna.|title=Memoirs of the Life and Administration of Sir Robert Walpole: Earl of Orford|last=Coxe|first=William|date=1816|publisher=Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, & Brown|language=en}}</ref>

====Opposition====
Walpole, a polarising figure, had many opponents, the most important of whom were in the [[Country Party (Britain)|Country Party]], such as Lord Bolingbroke (who had been his political enemy since the days of Queen Anne)<ref>{{cite book |first=Isaac |last=Kramnick |year=1992 |title=Bolingbroke and His Circle: The Politics of Nostalgia in the Age of Walpole}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date=March 2014}} and [[William Pulteney, 1st Earl of Bath|William Pulteney]] (a capable Whig statesman who felt snubbed when Walpole failed to include him in the Cabinet).<ref>{{cite ODNB |first=Stuart |last=Handley |first2=M. J. |last2=Rowe |first3=W. H. |last3=McBryde |date=October 2007 |title=Pulteney, William, earl of Bath (1684–1764) |id=22889 |mode=cs2}}</ref> Bolingbroke and Pulteney ran a periodical called ''The Craftsman'' in which they incessantly denounced the Prime Minister's policies.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Simon |last=Varey |date=April 1993 |title=The Craftsman |journal=Prose Studies |volume= 16 |issue=1 |pages=58–77 |doi=10.1080/01440359308586487}}</ref> Walpole was also satirised and parodied extensively; he was often compared to the criminal [[Jonathan Wild]] as, for example, [[John Gay]] did in his farcical ''[[The Beggar's Opera|Beggar's Opera]]''. Walpole's other enemies included [[Jonathan Swift]],<ref>{{cite book |first=J.A. |last=Downie |year=1986 |title=Jonathan Swift: Political Writer}}</ref>{{page needed|date=March 2014}} [[Alexander Pope]], [[Henry Fielding]], and [[Samuel Johnson]].<ref>{{cite web |title=A petition to remove Sir Robert Walpole (part&nbsp;1) |website=samueljohnson.com |url=http://www.samueljohnson.com/debates/174107.html |access-date=10 September 2018}}</ref>

====Support====
[[Image:Robert Walpole, 1st Earl of Orford with Henry Bilson-Legge, by Stephen Slaughter.jpg|left|thumb|Walpole with his secretary, [[Henry Bilson-Legge]], by [[Stephen Slaughter]]]]

Walpole secured the support of the people and of the House of Commons with a policy of avoiding war. 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."<ref>{{cite book|author=C. Grant Robertson|title=England under the Hanoverians|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jVG7Nls67aQC&pg=PA66|year=1921|page=66}}</ref> 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 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|author=A. W. Ward |title=The Cambridge Modern History: Volume VI: the Eighteenth Century|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fMgFAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA46|year=1909|page=46|publisher=University Press |isbn=9780521078146}}</ref> The joke backfired in 1733 when he was defeated in a major battle to impose [[Excise Bill|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 and aroused the opposition of the nation's merchants. Walpole agreed to withdraw the bill before Parliament voted on it, but he dismissed the politicians who had dared to oppose it in the first place. Thus, Walpole lost a considerable element of his Whig Party to the Opposition.<ref name=Langford-1998/>{{rp|style=ama|pp= 28–33}}

After the general elections of 1734, Walpole's supporters still formed a majority in the House of Commons although they were less numerous than before. He maintained both his parliamentary supremacy and his popularity in [[Norfolk]], his home county. In May&nbsp;1734, he presented a new silver [[Ceremonial mace|mace]] "weighing 168&nbsp;ounces, gilt, and finely exchased, to the city of Norwich – on the cup part of it are Sir Robert's arms, and the arms of the city; it was first carried before Mayor Philip Meadows&nbsp;Esq. on the 29th of May".<ref name=brithist-Norwich-37>{{cite report |chapter=The city of Norwich, chapter&nbsp;37: Of the city in the time of King George&nbsp;II |year=1806 |title=An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk |volume=3, the History of the City and County of Norwich, Part&nbsp;I |pages=443–454 |place=London |publisher=W. Miller |via=british-history.ac.uk |url=http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol3/pp443-454#h3-0002 |access-date=3 March 2013}}</ref>{{efn|In 1734, a new silver mace, weighing 168 ounces, gilt and finely exchased, was presented to the city by the right honourable Sir&nbsp;Rob. Walpole; on the cup part of it are Sir&nbsp;Robert's arms, and the arms of the city; it was first carried before the Mayor on 29 May.<ref name=brithist-Norwich-37/>
}}<ref>{{cite web |author1=Taylor |author2=Taylor |author3=Fairfax |author4=Fairfax-Meadows |year=1840 |title=The Suffolk Bartholomeans: A Memoir of the Ministerial and Domestic History |series=Illustrative Outline of the Meadows Pedigree |publisher=W. Pickering |pages=4–6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LqkzAQAAIAAJ&q=Mayor+Norwich+philip+Meadows+Esq.&pg=PA2 |access-date=3 March 2013}}</ref> However, despite these great occasions, Walpole's broader popularity had begun to wane.{{sfnp|Leadam|1899|pp=195–196}}<!-- See "The growing weakness of Walpole's position now became apparen" --> In 1736 an increase in the tax on gin inspired riots in London. The even more serious [[Porteous riots]] broke out in Edinburgh after the King pardoned a captain of the guard (John Porteous) who had commanded his troops to shoot a group of protesters. Though these events diminished Walpole's popularity,{{sfnp|Leadam|1899|pp=195–196}} they failed to shake his majority in Parliament. Walpole's domination over the House of Commons was highlighted by the ease with which he secured the rejection of Sir John Barnard's plan to reduce the interest on the national debt. Walpole was also able to persuade Parliament to pass the [[Licensing Act 1737]] under which London theatres were regulated.<ref>{{harvtxt|Leadam|1899|pp=195–196}} 10 Geo. II, c. 28.</ref> The act revealed a disdain for Swift, Pope, Fielding, and other literary figures who had attacked his government in their works.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Crean |first=P.J. |year=1938 |title=The Stage Licensing Act of 1737 |journal=Modern Philology |volume=35 |issue=3 |pages=239–255 |jstor=434130 |doi=10.1086/388315 |s2cid=159897178}}</ref>

While the "[[Country Party (Britain)|country party]]" attacked Walpole relentlessly, he subsidised writers and lesser-known journalists such as [[William Arnall]] and Bishop [[Benjamin Hoadly]] as well as two men he named to the role of [[poet laureate]], [[Laurence Eusden]] and [[Colley Cibber]]. They defended Walpole from the charge of evil 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&nbsp;century.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Thomas |last=Horne |date=October–December 1980 |title=Politics in a corrupt society: William Arnall's defense of Robert Walpole |journal=Journal of the History of Ideas |volume=41 |number=4 |pages=601–614 |jstor=2709276|doi=10.2307/2709276 }}</ref>