« ПредишнаНапред »
Feb. 2. 1742.
CHAP., nities for a trial of party strength, continuing to go with the
opposition *, he saw that he must soon be in a minority on all questions, and his colleagues, and his own family, telling him that he could stand out no longer, he announced his determination to resign.
The last of these was the Chippenham case, in which there was a majority against him of 16 — 241 to 225.- Nothing shows so strikingly how these were considered party questions, as the anecdote of Walpole's demeanour while the tellers were ascertaining the numbers. Anticipating his fate, but bearing it with his usual fortitude and good humour, he beckoned to the opposition member for Chippenham, whom he had attempted to eject, to sit by him, spoke to him with great complacency, animadverted on the ingratitude of several individuals who were voting against the government, although he had conferred great favours upon them, and declared that he would never again sit in that house." - Core's Walpole.
CONTINUATION OF THE LIFE OF LORD HARDWICKE TILL
BREAKING OUT OF THE REBELLION OF 1745.
Sir R, Wal
LORD HARDWICKE was for some time in a state of much anxiety. He dreaded that the termination of his official career had arrived, and he regretted that he had ever left the secure Lord Hardposition of Chief Justice of the King's Bench. Whatever wicke's
anxieties on Newcastle's expectations might be, he certainly had not made the dise terms with the opposition leaders, and the probability was missal of that he and those most intimately connected with him, must pole. share Walpole's fate. Strange to say, the victors had formed no plan to improve the victory for which they had so eagerly fought, and which they had for some time anticipated. Meanwhile, the nation was in a state of unexampled ferment. All classes had been taught to look forward to the fall of Walpole as the cure for the evils of which they complained, and as the certain means of gaining their own favourite measure for reforming and governing the State. The counties and great cities sent instructions to their representatives all equally peremptory, but of very different import,- some insisting that the Septennial Act should be repealed, and that parliaments should be triennial or annual,—some that all placemen, as well as pensioners, should be excluded from sitting in the House of Commons, some that all offices should be in the gift of the House of Commons,— more, that Walpole's head should now answer for his misconduct, but most of all, that the decay of trade and other national calamities might be immediately remedied by an act to forbid the exportation of wool! The King and his private advisers, of whom the retiring minister, now Earl of Orford, was one, saw that the only chance of preserving the semblance of government or order in the country was to call in Pulteney, though personally so odious at Court that he had not been
there for many years *, and to allow him, according to his own fancy, to form a new administration, of which it was of course supposed that he would himself be the head. The Duke of Newcastle and Lord Hardwicke were appointed to be the bearers to him of the keys of the royal cabinet. They opened the conference by saying, that “the King, convinced that Sir Robert Walpole was no longer supported by a majority of the House of Commons, had commanded them to offer the places held by that minister to Mr. Pulteney, with the power of forming his own administration - on the sole condition that Sir Robert Walpole should not be prosecuted.” Pulteney refused this condition, saying, that “even if he himself had been inclined to agree to it, it might not be in his power to fulfil his engagement, the heads of parties being like the heads of snakes, carried on by their tails.” The confusion increasing, the Chancellor and the Duke, at a subsequent meeting, declared that they were commissioned by the King to repeat the former offers, without urging the condition of not prosecuting the fallen minister, and his Majesty only requested that if any prosecution was commenced against Sir Robert, Mr. Pulteney, if he did not choose to oppose it, would at least do nothing to inflame it. Pulteney answered, that “ he was not a man of blood, and that, in all his expressions of pursuing the minister to destruction, he had meant only the destruction of his power, but not of his person ; though he was free to own that he thought some parliamentary cen
sure at least ought to be inflicted for so many years of malFormation administration.” Then, to the infinite relief and delight of of the new the messengers, he declared that “although he demanded an adminis. tration.
alteration of men and measures, and that the strong forts of government should be delivered into the hands of his party, viz., a majority in the cabinet, the nomination of the boards of Treasury and Admiralty, with the restoration of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland,- he did not require an entire sweep of all who held place under the Crown, and that he would beg the two noble Lords, who had so courteously borne to him the gracious pleasure of the King, to retain their
His name had been struck out of the list of the Privy Council, and he had been denied the commission of the peace.
respective situations of Chancellor and Secretary of State.”
The first occasion of the Chancellor coming forward in Lord Hardpublic, as the organ of the new administration, was in oppo- speech sing the bill to indemnify witnesses who should give evidence against the upon the inquiry into the conduct of Sir Robert Walpole. demnifying The proceedings against him in the House of Commons had witnesses
against Sir been immediately checked by the objection of those who Robert were examined, that "they were not bound to criminate Walpole. themselves," and a bill was introduced in very general and sweeping terms, enacting “ that all persons who, being examined before either House of Parliament, or any committee of either House respecting the charges against Robert Earl of Orford, should make any discoveries respecting his misapplication of public money, or his improper disposition of offices or other misconduct of the said Earl, while a minister of the Crown, should be freed and discharged from all forfeitures, penalties, punishments, disabilities, and incapacities, to which they might be liable for or by reason or means of any matter or thing which, being examined as
aforesaid, they should faithfully and truly discover, disclose, and make known. The bill rapidly passed the House of Commons, and, although not only the members of the late administration, but those now in office who had so often cried out for “Walpole's head,” disliked it, no show of opposition could there be offered to it: but when it came before the Upper House, Lord Hardwicke resolutely attacked it in the finest speech which distinguished his parliamentary career. Having shown how it violated all the rules of evidence established for the protection of innocence, and the danger of offering rewards for convictions, lately testified by a club of miscreants going about from assizes to assizes to invent crimes and to accuse the innocent for the sake of “blood-money," he pointed out the unprecedented atrocity of the measure in offering a reward for evidence to implicate a particular individual, without the proof or even assertion of any corpus delicti. In conclusion, he indignantly exclaimed: “ The promoters of this bill, like Pharaoh, require first to know what was their dream; and, secondly, what is the interpretation thereof.' But, says a noble Lord*, if we have not here a corpus delicti, we have what is sufficient for the purpose, a CORPUS SUSPICIONIS:' a new expression and a new invention — the body of a shadow --and on this foundation he calls upon you to build his new superstructure of injustice ! In my opinion, my Lords, it is a bill calculated to make defence impossible, to deprive innocence of its guard, and to let loose oppression and injustice upon the world. It is a bill to dazzle the wicked with a prospect of security, and by impunity for one crime to incite them to the perpetration of another. It is a bill to confound the distinctions of right and wrong, to violate the essence of our constitution, to leave us without any rule for our actions, or any protection for our property, our lives, or our good fame. So iniquitous is the law, my Lords, that I would sooner suffer by it than vote for it.”+ The bill was
* The Earl of Chesterfield. Parliamen
† This pithy conclusion, which we know to be genuine, from the MS. notes tary Reports of Archbishop Secker taken at the moment, is thus expanded and spoiled by by Dr.
Dr. Johnson :-“ So clearly do I now see the danger and injustice of a law Johr son.
like this, that although I do not imagine myself endued with any peculiar degree of heroism, I believe that if I were condemned to a choice so disagree