is inconsistent with the honor and dignity of the | ready heard one reason assigned why no other Crown of these kingdoms to be in arrear to its measures have been particularly mentioned and tradesmen and servants; and it is the duty of condemned in this debate. If it were necessary, this House to take care that the revenue which many others might be mentioned and condemnwe have settled for supporting the honor and ed. Is not the maintaining so numerous an army dignity of the Crown, shall not be squandered or in time of peace to be condemned? Is not the misapplied. If former Parliaments have failed fitting out so many expensive and useless squadin this respect, they must be censured, though rons to be condemned? Are not the encroachthey can not be punished; but we ought now to ments made upon the Sinking Fund; the reviv atone for their neglect. ing the salt duty; the rejecting many useful bills and motions in Parliament, and many other domestic measures, to be condemned? The weakness or the wickedness of these measures has often been demonstrated. Their ill consequences were at the respective times foretold, and those consequences are now become visible by our distress. I come now, in course, to the Excise Scheme, which the honorable gentleman says ought to be forgiven, because it was easily given up." Sir, it was not easily given up. The promoter of that scheme did not easily give it up; he gave it up with sorrow, with tears in his eyes, when he saw, and not until he saw, it was impossible to carry it through the House. Did not Now, sir, with regard to the foreign meashis majority decrease upon every division? It ures which the honorable gentleman has attemptwas almost certain that if he had pushed it far-ed to justify. The Treaty of Hanover deserves ther, his majority would have turned against him. His sorrow showed his disappointment; and his disappointment showed that his design was deeper than simply to prevent frauds in the customs. He was, at that time, sensible of the influence of the excise laws and excise men with regard to elections, and of the great occasion he should have for that sort of influence at the approaching general election. His attempt, sir, was most flagrant against the Constitution; and he deserved the treatment he met with from the people. It has been said that there were none but what gentlemen are pleased to call the mob concerned in burning him in effigy ; but, as the mob consists chiefly of children, journeymen, and servants, who speak the sentiments of their parents and masters, we may thence judge of the sentiments of the higher classes of the people. The honorable gentleman has said, these were all the measures of a domestic nature that could be found fault with, because none other have been mentioned in this debate. Sir, he has al The Excise Scheme of Sir Robert Walpole was simply a warehousing system, under which the duties on tobacco and wine were payable, not when the articles were imported, but when they were taken out to be consumed. It was computed, that, in consequence of the check which this change in the mode of collecting the duties on these articles would give to smuggling, the revenue would derive an increase which, with the continuance of the salt tax (revived the preceding year), would be amply sufficient to compensate for the total abolition of the land tax. The political opponents of Sir Robert Walpole, by representing his proposition as a scheme for a general excise, succeeded in raising so violent a clamor against it, and in rendering it so unpopular, that, much against his own inclination, he was obliged to abandon it. It was subsequently approved of by Adam Smith; and Lord Chatham, at a later period of his life, candidly acknowledged, that his opposition to it was founded in misconception. For an interesting account of the proceedings relative to the Excise Scheme, see Lord Hervey's Memoirs of the Court of George II., chaps. viii. and ix. 6 See Lord Hervey's Memoirs of the Court of George II., vol. i., p. 203. to be first mentioned, because from thence springs the danger to which Europe is now exposed; and it is impossible to assign a reason for our entering into that treaty, without supposing that we then resolved to be revenged on the Emperor for refusing to grant us some favor in Germany. It is in vain now to insist upon the secret engagements entered into by the courts of Vienna and Madrid as the cause of that treaty. Time has fully shown that there never were any such engagements, and his late 7 In the year 1717, the surplus of the public ininto what was called The Sinking Fund, for the come over the public expenditure, was converted purpose of liquidating the national debt. During the whole reign of George I., this fund was invariably appropriated to the object for which it had been created; and, rather than encroach upon it, money was borrowed upon new taxes, when the supplies in general might have been raised by dedicating the surplus of the old taxes to the current services of the year. The first direct encroachment upon the Sinking Fund took place in the year 1729, when the interest of a sum of £1,250,000, required for the current service of the year, was charged on that fund, instead of any new taxes being imposed upon the people to meet it. The second encroachment took place in the year 1731, when the income arising from certain duties which had been imposed in the reign of William III., for paying the interest due to the East India Company, and which were now no longer required for that purpose, in conse quence of their interest being reduced, was made use of in order to raise a sum of £1,200,000, instead of throwing such income into the Sinking Fund, as ought properly to have been done. A third perversion of this fund took place in the year 1733, before the introduction of the Excise Scheme. In the previous year the land tax had been reduced to one shilling in the pound; and, in order to maintain it at the same rate, the sum of £500,000 was taken from the Sinking Fund and applied to the services of the year. In 1734 the sum of £1,200,000, the whole produce of the Sinking Fund, was taken from it; and in 1735 and 1736, it was anticipated and alienated.Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue, vol. i., p. 484, et seq. Coxe's Walpole, chap. xl. s Here Lord Chatham was mistaken. It is now certainly known that secret engagements did exist, afterward did in the most absolute manner, and without any conditions.10 We wanted nothing from Spain but a relinquishment of the pretense she had just begun, or, I believe, hardly begun, to set up, in an express manner, with regard to searching and seizing our ships in the American seas; and this we did not obtain, perhaps did not desire to obtain, by the Treaty of Seville." By that treaty we obtained nothing; but we ad Majesty's speech from the throne can not here be admitted as any evidence of the fact. Every one knows that in Parliament the King's speech is considered as the speech of the minister; and surely a minister is not to be allowed to bring his own speech as an evidence of a fact in his own justification. If it be pretended that his late Majesty had some sort of information, that such engagements had been entered into, that very pretense furnishes an unanswerable argu-vanced another step toward that danger in which ment for an inquiry. For, as the information now appears to have been groundless, we ought to inquire into it; because, if it appears to be such information as ought not to have been believed, that minister ought to be punished who advised his late Majesty to give credit to it, and who, in consequence, has precipitated the nation into the most pernicious measures. At the time this treaty was entered into, we wanted nothing from the Emperor upon our own account. The abolition of the Ostend Company was a demand we had no right to make, nor was it essentially our interest to insist upon it, because that Company would have been more hostile to the interests both of the French and Dutch East India trades than to our own; and if it had been a point that concerned us much, we might probably have gained it by acceding to the Vienna treaty between the Emperor and Spain, or by guaranteeing the Pragmatic Sanction, which we and there is no reason to doubt that the most im portant of them were correctly stated by Walpole. They were said to have been to the effect, that the Emperor should give in marriage his daughters, the two arch-duchesses, to Don Carlos and Don Philip, the two Infants of Spain; that he should assist the King of Spain in obtaining by force the restitution of Gibraltar, if good offices would not avail; and that the two courts should adopt measures to place the Pretender on the throne of Great Britain. The fact of there having been a secret treaty, was placed beyond doubt by the Austrian embassador at the court of London having shown the article relating to Gibraltar in that treaty, in order to clear the Emperor of having promised any more than his good offices and mediation upon that head. (Coxe's History of the House of Austria, chap. xxxvii.) With reference to the stipulation for placing the Pretender on the throne of Great Britain, Mr. J. W. Croker, in a note to Lord Hervey's Memoirs of the Court of George II., vol. i., p. 78, says that its existence "is very probable;" but that it is observable that Lord Hervey, who revised his Memoirs some years after the 29th of March, 1734, when Sir Robert Walpole asserted in the House of Commons that there was such a document, and who was so long in the full confidence of Walpole, speaks very doubtfully of it. On the 2d of August, 1718, the Emperor Charles VI. promulgated a new law of succession for the inheritance of the house of Austria, under the name of the Pragmatic Sanction. In this he ordained that, in the event of his having no male issue, his own daughters should succeed to the Austrian throne, in preference to the daughters of his elder brother, as previously provided; and that such succession should be regulated according to the order of primogeniture, so that the elder should be preferred to the younger, and that she should inherit his entire dominions. Europe is now involved, by uniting the courts of France and Spain, and by laying a foundation for a new breach between the courts of Spain and Vienna. I grant, sir, that our ministers appear to have been forward and diligent enough in negotiating, and writing letters and memorials to the court of Spain; but, from all my inquiries, it appears that they never rightly understood (perhaps they would not understand) the point respecting which they were negotiating. They suffered themselves to be amused with fair promises for ten long years; and our merchants plundered, our trade interrupted, now call aloud for inquiry. If it should appear that ministers allowed themselves to be amused with answers which no man of honor, no man of common sense, in such circumstances, would take, surely, sir, they must have had some secret motive for being thus grossly imposed on. This secret motive we may perhaps discover by an inquiry; and as it must be a wicked one, if it can be discovered, the parties ought to be severely punished. But, in excuse for their conduct, it is said that our ministers had a laudable repugnance to involving their country in a war. Sir, this repugnance could not proceed from any regard to their country. It was involved in a war. Spain was carrying on a war against our trade, and that in the most insulting manner, during the whole time of their negotiations. It was this very repugnance, at least it was the knowledge of it which Spain possessed, that at length made 10 By the second Treaty of Vienna, concluded on the 16th of March, 1731, England guaranteed the Pragmatic Sanction on the condition of the suppression of the Ostend Company, and that the archduchess who succeeded to the Austrian dominions should not be married to a prince of the house of Bourbon, or to a prince so powerful as to endanger the balance of Europe.-Coxe's House of Austria chap. lxxxviii. 11 By the Treaty of Seville, concluded between Great Britain, France, and Spain, on the 9th of September, 1729, and shortly after acceded to by Holland, all former treaties were confirmed, and the several contracting parties agreed to assist each other in case of attack. The King of Spain revoked the privileges of trade which he had granted to the subjects of Austria by the Treaty of Vienna, and commissioners were to be appointed for the final adjustment of all commercial difficulties between Spain and Great Britain. In order to secure the succession of Parma and Tuscany to the Infant Don Carlos, it was agreed that 6000 Spanish troops should be allowed to garrison Leghorn, Porto Ferrajo, Parma, and Placentia. This treaty passed over in total silence the claim of Spain to Gibraltar. it absolutely necessary for us to commence the war. If ministers had at first insisted properly and peremptorily upon an explicit answer, Spain would have expressly abandoned her new and insolent claims and pretensions. But by the long experience we allowed her, she found the fruits of those pretensions so plentiful and so gratifying, that she thought them worth the hazard of a war. Sir, the damage we had sustained became so considerable, that it really was worth that hazard. Besides, the court of Spain was convinced, while we were under such an administration, that either nothing could provoke us to commence the war, or, that if we did, it would be conducted in a weak and miserable manner. Have we not, sir, since found that their opinion was correct? Nothing, sir, ever more demanded a parliamentary inquiry than our conduct in the war. The only branch into which we have inquired we have already censured and condemned. Is not this a good reason for inquiring into every other branch? Disappointment and ill success have always, till now, occasioned a parliamentary inquiry. Inactivity, of itself, is a sufficient cause for inquiry. We have now all these reasons combined. Our admirals abroad desire nothing more; because they are conscious that our inactivity and ill success will appear to proceed, not from their own misconduct, but from the misconduct of those by whom they were employed. I can not conclude, sir, without taking notice of the two other foreign measures mentioned by the honorable gentleman. Our conduct in the year 1734, with regard to the war between the Emperor and France, may be easily accounted for, though not easily excused. Ever since the last accession of our late minister to power, we seem to have had an enmity to the house of Austria. Our guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction was an effect of that enmity, because we entered into it when, as hath since appeared, we had no intention to perform our engagement; and by that false guarantee we induced the Emperor to admit the introduction of the Spanish troops into Italy, which he would not otherwise have done.12 The preparations we made in that year, the armies we raised, and the fleet we fitted out, were not to guard against the event of the war abroad, but against the event of the ensuing elections at home. The new commissions, the promotions, and the money laid out in these preparations, were of admirable use at the time of a general election, and in some measure atoned for the loss of the excise scheme. But France and her allies were well convinced, that we would in no 12 See Walpole's explanation of his reason for remaining neutral, in his speech, page 39. Although England remained nentral during the progress of these hostilities, she augmented her naval and mil itary forces, "in order," said Mr. Pelham, in the course of the debate, "to be ready to put a stop to the arms of the victorious side, in case their ambition should lead them to push their conquests further than was consonant with the balance of power in Europe."-Parl. Hist., vol. xii., p. 479. event declare against them, otherwise they would not then have dared to attack the Emperor; for Muscovy, Poland, Germany, and Britain would have been by much an over-match for them. It was not our preparations that set bounds to the ambition of France, but her getting all she wanted at that time for herself, and all she desired for her allies. Her own prudence suggested that it was not then a proper time to push her views further; because she did not know but that the spirit of this nation might overcome (as it since has with regard to Spain) the spirit of our administration; and should this have happened, the house of Austria was then in such a condition, that our assistance, even though late, would have been of effectual service. I am surprised, sir, to hear the honorable gentleman now say, that we gave up nothing, or that we acquired any thing, by the infamous Convention with Spain. Did we not give up the freedom of our trade and navigation, by submitting it to be regulated by plenipotentiaries? Can freedom be regulated without being confined, and consequently in some part destroyed? Did we not give up Georgia, or some part of it, by submitting to have new limits settled by plenipotentiaries? Did we not give up all the reparation of the damage we had suffered, amounting to five or six hundred thousand pounds, for the paltry sum of twenty-seven thousand pounds? This was all that Spain promised to pay, after deducting the sixty-eight thousand pounds which we, by the declaration annexed to that treaty, allowed her to insist on having from our South Sea Company, under the penalty of stripping them of the Assiento Contract, and all the privileges to which they were thereby entitled. Even this sum of twenty-seven thousand pounds, or more, they had before acknowledged to be due on account of ships they allowed to have been unjustly taken, and for the restitution of which they had actually sent orders: so that by this infamous treaty we acquired nothing, while we gave up every thing. Therefore, in my opinion, the honor of this nation can never be retrieved, unless the advisers and authors of it be censured and punished. This, sir, can not regularly be done without a parliamentary inquiry. By these, and similar weak, pusillanimous, and wicked measures, we are become the ridicule of every court in Europe, and have lost the confidence of all our ancient allies. By these measures we have encouraged France to extend her ambitious views, and now at last to attempt carrying them into execution. By bad economy, by extravagance in our domestic measures, we have involved ourselves in such distress at home, that we are almost wholly incapable of entering into a war; while by weakness or wickedness in our foreign measures, we have brought the affairs of Europe into such distress that it is Sir, we almost impossible for us to avoid it. have been brought upon a dangerous precipice. Here we now find ourselves; and shall we trust to be led safely off by the same guide who has led us on? Sir, it is impossible for him to lead us off. Sir, it is impossible for us to get off, without first recovering that confidence with our ancient allies which formerly we possessed. This we can not do, so long as they suppose that our councils are influenced by our late minister; and this they will suppose so long as he has access to the King's closet-so long as his conduct remains uninquired into and uncensured. It is not, therefore, in revenge for our past disasters, but from a desire to prevent them in future, that I am now so zealous for this inquiry. The punishment of the minister, be it ever so severe, will be but a small atonement for the past. But his impunity will be the source of many future mis eries to Europe, as well as to his country. Let us be as merciful as we will, as merciful as any man can reasonably desire, when we come to pronounce sentence; but sentence we must pronounce. For this purpose, unless we are resolved to sacrifice our own liberties, and the liberties of Europe, to the preservation of one guilty man, we must make the inquiry. The motion was rejected by a majority of two. A second motion was made a fortnight after, for an inquiry into the last ten years of Walpole's administration, which gave rise to another speech of Mr. Pitt. This will next be given. SECOND SPEECH OF LORD CHATHAM ON A MOTION TO INQUIRE INTO THE CONDUCT OF SIR ROBERT WALPOLE, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 23, 1742. INTRODUCTION. LORD LIMERICK's first motion for an inquiry into the conduct of Walpole was lost chiefly through the absence of Mr. Pulteney from the House during the illness of a favorite daughter. On the return of Palteney at the end of a fortnight, the motion was renewed, with a variation in one respect, viz., that the inquiry be extended only to the last ten years of Walpole's continuance in office. On that occasion, Mr. Pitt made the following speech in answer to Mr. Cook Harefield, who had recently taken his seat in the House. In it he shows his remarkable power of reply; and argues with great force the propriety of inquiry, as leading to a decision whether an impeachment should be commenced. SPEECH, &c. As the honorable gentleman who spoke last against the motion has not been long in the House, it is but charitable to believe him sincere in professing that he is ready to agree to a parliamentary inquiry when he thinks the occasion requires it. But if he knew how often such professions are made by those who upon all occasions oppose inquiry, he would now avoid them, because they are generally believed to be insincere. He may, it is true, have nothing to dread, on his own account, from inquiry. But when a gentleman has contracted, or any of his near relations have contracted, a friendship with one who may be brought into danger, it is very natural to suppose that such a gentleman's opposition to an inquiry does not entirely proceed from public motives; and if that gentleman follows the advice of some of his friends, I very much question whether he will ever think the occasion requires an inquiry into the conduct of our public affairs. This, sir, would be a most convenient doctrine for ministers, because it would put an end to all parliamentary inquiries into the conduct of our public affairs; and, therefore, when I hear it urged, and so much insisted on, by a certain set of gentlemen in this House, I must suppose their hopes to be very extensive. I must suppose them to expect that they and their posterity will forever continue in office. Sir, this doctrine has been so often contradicted by experience, that I am surprised to hear it advanced by gentlemen now. This very session has afforded us a convincing proof that very little foundation exists for asserting, that a parliamentary inquiry must necessarily reveal the secrets of the government. Surely, in a war with Spain, which must be carried on principally by sea, if the government have secrets, the Lords of the Admiralty must be intrusted with the most important of them. Yet, sir, in this very session, we have, without any secret committees, made inquiry into the conduct of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. We have not only inquired into their conduct, but we have cen As a parliamentary inquiry must always be founded upon suspicions, as well as upon facts or manifest crimes, reasons may always be found for alleging those suspicions to be without foun-sured it in such a manner as to put an end to dation; and upon the principle that a parliamentary inquiry must necessarily lay open the secrets of government, no time can ever be proper or convenient for such inquiry, because it is impossible to suppose a time when the government has no secrets to disclose. the trust which was before reposed in them. Has that inquiry discovered any of the secrets of our government? On the contrary, the committee found that there was no occasion to probe into such secrets. They found cause enough for censure without it; and none of the Commission. ers pretended to justify their conduct by the assertion that the papers contained secrets which ought not to be disclosed. This, sir, is so recent, so strong a proof that there is no necessary connection between a parliamentary inquiry and a discovery of secrets which it behooves the nation to conceal, that I trust gentlemen will no longer insist upon this danger as an argument against the inquiry. Sir, the First Commissioner of the Treasury has nothing to do with the application of secret service money. He is only to take care that it be regularly issued from his office, and that no more be issued than the conjuncture of affairs appears to demand. As to the particular application, it properly belongs to the Secretary of State, or o such other persons as his Majesty employs. Hence we can not suppose the proposed inquiry will discover any secrets relative to the application of that money, unless the noble lord has icted as Secretary of State, as well as First Commissioner of the Treasury; or unless a great part of the money drawn out for secret service has been delivered to himself or persons employed by him, and applied toward gaining a corrupt influence in Parliament or at elections. Of both these practices he is most grievously suspected, and both are secrets which it very much behooves him to conceal. But, sir, it equally behooves the nation to discover them. His country and he are, in this cause, equally, although oppositely concerned. The safety or ruin of one or the other depends upon the fate of the question; and the violent opposition which this question has experienced adds great strength to the suspicion. I admit, sir, that the noble lord [Walpole], whose conduct is now proposed to be inquired into, was one of his Majesty's most honorable Privy Council, and consequently that he must have had a share at least in advising all the measures which have been pursued both abroad and at home. But I can not from this admit, that an inquiry into his conduct must necessarily occasion a discovery of any secrets of vital importance to the nation, because we are not to inquire into the measures themselves. perpetrated with so much caution and secrecy, that it will be difficult to bring them to light even by a parliamentary inquiry; but the very suspicion is ground enough for establishing such inquiry, and for carrying it on with the utmost strictness and vigor. The Whatever my opinion of past measures may be, I shall never be so vain, or bigoted to that opinion, as to determine, without any inquiry, against the majority of my countrymen. If I found the public measures generally condemned, let my private opinions of them be ever so favorable, I should be for inquiry in order to convince the people of their error, or at least to furnish myself with the most authentic arguments in favor of the opinion I had embraced. desire of bringing others into the same sentiments with ourselves is so natural, that I shall always suspect the candor of those who, in politics or religion, are opposed to free inquiry. Besides, sir, when the complaints of the people are general against an administration, or against any particular minister, an inquiry is a duty which we owe both to our sovereign and the people. We meet here to communicate to our sovereign the sentiments of his people. We meet here to redress the grievances of the people. By performing our duty in both respects, we shall always be enabled to establish the throne of our sovereign in the hearts of his people, and to hinder the people from being led into insurrection and rebellion by misrepresentations or false surmises. When the people complain, they must either be right or in error. they be right, we are in duty bound to inquire into the conduct of the ministers, and to punish those who appear to have been most guilty. If they be in error, we ought still to inquire into the conduct of our ministers, in order to convince the people that they have been misled. ought not, therefore, in any question relating to inquiry, to be governed by our own sentiments. We must be governed by the sentiments of our constituents, if we are resolved to perform our duty, both as true representatives of the people, and as faithful subjects of our King. If We I perfectly agree with the honorable gentleman, that if we are convinced that the public measures are wrong, or that if we suspect them to be so, we ought to make inquiry, although there is not much complaint among the people. But I wholly differ from him in thinking that notwithstanding the administration and the minister are the subjects of complaint among the people, we ought not to make inquiry into his conduct unless we are ourselves convinced that his measures have been wrong. Sir, we can no more determine this question without inquiry, than a judge without a trial can declare any man innocent of a crime laid to his charge. Common fame is a sufficient ground for an in But, sir, suspicions have gone abroad relative to his conduct as a Privy Counselor, which, if true, are of the utmost consequence to be inquired into. It has been strongly asserted that he was not only a Privy Counselor, but that he usurped the whole and sole direction of his Majesty's Privy Council. It has been asserted that he gave the Spanish court the first hint of the unjust claim they afterward advanced against our South Sea Company, which was one chief cause of the war between the two nations. And it has been asserted that this very minister has advised the French in what manner to proceed in order to bring our Court into their measures; particularly, that he advised them as to the nu-quisition at common law; and for the same reamerous army they have this last summer sent into Westphalia. What truth there is in these assertions, I pretend not to decide. The facts are of such a nature, and they must have been son, the general voice of the people of England ought always to be regarded as a sufficient ground for a parliamentary inquiry. But, say gentlemen, of what is this minister |