be too much elated with success, and too much dejected with every misfortune. This makes them wavering in their opinions about affairs of state, and never long of the same mind. And as this House is chosen by the free and unbiased voice of the people in general, if this choice were so often renewed, we might expect that this House would be as wavering and as unsteady as the people usually are. And it being impossible to carry on the public affairs of the nation without the concurrence of this House, the ministers would always be obliged to comply, and consequently would be obliged to change their measures as often as the people changed their minds. With septennial Parliaments we are not exposed to either of these misfortunes, because, if the ministers, after having felt the pulse of the Parliament (which they can always soon do), resolve upon any measures, they have generally time enough, before the new election comes on, to give the people proper information, in order to show them the justice and the wisdom of the measures they have pursued. And if the people should at any time be too much elated or too much dejected, or should, without a cause, change their minds, those at the helm of affairs have time to set them right before a new election comes on. As to faction and sedition, I will grant, that in monarchical and aristocratical governments, it generally arises from violence and oppression; | but in popular or mixed governments, it always arises from the people's having too great a share in the government. For in all countries, and in all governments, there always will be many factious and unquiet spirits, who can never be at rest, either in power or out of power. When in power they are never easy, unless every man submits entirely to their directions; and when out of power, they are always working and intriguing against those that are in, without any regard to justice, or to the interest of their country. In popular governments such men have too much game. They have too many opportunities for working upon and corrupting the minds of the people, in order to give them a bad impression of, and to raise discontents against those that have the management of the public affairs for the time; and these discontents often break out into seditions and insurrections. This would, in my opinion, be our misfortune, if our Parliaments were either annual or triennial. By such frequent elections, there would be so much power thrown into the hands of the people, as would destroy that equal mixture, which is the beauty of our constitution. In short, our government would really become a democratical government, and might from thence very probably diverge into a tyrannical. Therefore, in order to preserve our constitution, in order to prevent our falling under tyranny and arbitrary power, we ought to preserve this law, which I really think has brought our constitution to a more equal mixture, and consequently to a greater perfection, than it was ever in before that law took place As to bribery and corruption, if it were possible to influence, by such base means, the majority of the electors of Great Britain, to choose such men as would probably give up their liberties-if it were possible to influence, by such means, a majority of the members of this House to consent to the establishment of arbitrary power-I should readily allow, that the calculations made by the gentlemen of the other side were just, and their inference true. But I am persuaded that neither of these is possible. As the members of this House generally are, and must always be, gentlemen of fortune and figure in their country, is it possible to suppose that any of them could, by a pension or a post, be influenced to consent to the overthrow of our constitution, by which the enjoyment, not only of what he got, but of what he before had, would be rendered altogether precarious ? dered altogether precarious? I will allow, that with respect to bribery, the price must be higher or lower, generally in proportion to the virtue of the man who is to be bribed; but it must likewise be granted that the humor he happens to be in at the time, and the spirit he happens to be endowed with, adds a great deal to his virtue. When no encroachments are made upon the rights of the people, when the people do not think themselves in any danger, there may be many of the electors who, by a bribe of ten guineas, might be induced to vote for one candidate rather than another. But if the court were making any encroachments upon the rights of the people, a proper spirit would, without doubt, arise in the nation'; and in such a case I am persuaded that none, or very few, even of such electors, could be induced to vote for a court candidate-no, not for ten times the sum. There may be some bribery and corruption in the nation; I am afraid there will always be some. But it is no proof of it that strangers [i. e., non-residents] are sometimes chosen; for a man may have so much natural influence over a borough in his neighborhood, as to be able to prevail with them to choose any person he pleases to recommend. And if upon such recommendation they choose one or two of his friends, who are perhaps strangers to them, it is not from thence to be inferred that the two strangers were chosen their representatives by the means of bribery and corruption. To insinuate that money may be issued from the public treasury for bribing elections, is really something very extraordinary, especially in those gentlemen who know how many checks are upon every shilling that can be issued from thence; and how regularly the money granted in one year for the service of the nation must always be accounted for the very next session in this House, and likewise in the other, if they have a mind to call for any such account. And as to gentlemen in office, if they have any advantage over country gentlemen, in having something else to depend on besides their own private for 2 Walpole's notorious system of bribery was certainly not conducted in so bungling a manner. tunes, they have likewise many disadvantages. They are obliged to live here at London with their families, by which they are put to a much greater expense, than gentlemen of equal fortune who live in the country. This lays them under a very great disadvantage in supporting their interest in the country. The country gentleman, by living among the electors, and purchasing the necessaries for his family from them, keeps up an acquaintance and correspondence with them, without putting himself to any extraordinary charge. Whereas a gentleman who lives in London has no other way of keeping up an acquaintance and correspondence among his friends in the country, but by going down once or twice a year, at a very extraordinary expense, and often without any other business; so that we may conclude, a gentleman in office can not, even in seven years, save much for distributing in ready money at the time of an election. And I really believe, if the fact were narrowly inquired into, it would appear, that the gentlemen in office are as little guilty of bribing their electors with ready money, as any other set of gentlemen in the kingdom. That there are ferments often raised among the people without any just cause, is what I am surprised to hear controverted, since very late experience may convince us of the contrary. Do not we know what a ferment was raised in the nation toward the latter end of the late Queen's reign? And it is well known what a fatal change in the affairs of this nation was introduced, or at least confirmed, by an election coming on while the nation was in that ferment.3 Do not we know what a ferment was raised in the nation soon after his late Majesty's accession? And if an election had then been allowed to come on while the nation was in that ferment, it might perhaps have had as fatal effects as the former. But, thank God, this was wisely provided against by the very law which is now sought to be repealed. It has, indeed, been said, that the chief motive for enacting that law now no longer exists. I can not admit that the motive they mean, was the chief motive; but even that motive is very far from having entirely ceased. Can gentlemen imagine, that in the spirit raised in the nation [against the Excise Bill] not above a twelvemonth since, Jacobitism and disaffection to the present government had no share? Perhaps some who might wish well to the present establishment, did co-operate; nay, I do not know but they were the first movers of that spirit; but it can not be supposed that the spirit then raised should have grown up to such a ferment, merely from a proposition which was honestly and fairly laid before the Parliament, and left entirely to their determination! No; the spirit was perhaps begun by those who are truly friends to the illustrious family we have now upon the throne. But it was raised to a much greater height than, I believe, even they designed, by Jacobites, and such as are enemies to our present establishment; who thought they never had a fairer opportunity of bringing about what they had so long and so unsuccessfully wished for, than that which had been furnished them by those who first raised that spirit. I hope the people have now in a great measure come to themselves; and therefore I doubt not but the next elections will show, that when they are left to judge coolly, they can distinguish between the real and the pretended friends to the government. But I must say, if the ferment then raised in the nation had not already greatly subsided, I should have thought a new election a very dangerous experiment. And as such ferments may hereafter often happen, I must think that frequent elections will always be dangerous; for which reason, in so far as I can see at present, I shall, I believe, at all times think it a very dangerous experiment to repeal the Septennial Bill. The motion for repeal was rejected by a large majority, and the bill has remained untouched down to the present time. Most reflecting men will agree with Mr. Macaulay, that "the repeal of the Septennial Act, unaccompanied by a complete reform of the constitution of the elective body, would have been an unmixed curse to the country." SPEECH OF SIR ROBERT WALPOLE ON A MOTION FOR ADDRESSING THE KING FOR HIS REMOVAL, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY, 1741. INTRODUCTION. THE unpopularity of Walpole was greatly increased by the disasters of the Spanish war, all of which were ascribed to his bad management or want of preparation. The Opposition, therefore, decided, early in 1741, on the extreme measure of proposing an address to the King for his removal. Accordingly, Mr. Sandys, who was designated to take the lead, gave notice of a motion to that effect on the 11th of February, 1741. Walpole rose immediately and thanked him for the information. He went on with great calmness and dignity, to assure the House that he was ready to meet every charge that could be brought 3 Allusion is here made to the ferment created by the trial of Sacheverell, and the fall of the Whig administration of Godolphin, Somers, &c., consequent thereon. This change of ministry led to the Peace of Utrecht, by which the English gained far less, and their opponents more, than had been generally expected under the Whig administra. tion. against him; that he desired no favor, but simply a fair hearing; and concluded by laying his hand on his breast, and declaring, in the words of his favorite Horace, that he was "conscious of no crime, and dreaded no accusation." At the end of two days the motion was made; and such was the eagerness of public expectation, that the galleries were filled before daybreak, and many of the members took their places in the House at six o'clock in the morning to secure themselves a seat. At one o'clock, when the debate opened, nearly five hundred members of Parliament were present. On bringing forward his motion, Sandys, in a speech of great length and considerable ability, went over all the charges which from time to time had been urged against the minister. As to none of them did he attempt any new proofs; and nearly all were of that general nature which would certainly justify inquiry, but hardly authorize any decisive action. His main argument, after all, was, that Walpole had been at the head of affairs for twenty years, and that the people were tired of him as a minister, and hated him as a man. He ended by saying, "I have not, at present, any occasion for showing that the Favorite I am now complaining of has been guilty of heinous crimes, yet I will say that there is a very general suspicion against him; that this suspicion is justified by the present situation of our affairs both at home and abroad; and that it is ridiculous to expect that any proper discovery should be made as long as he is in possession of all the proofs, and has the distribution of all the penalties the crown can inflict, as well as of all the favors the crown can bestow. Remove him from the King's councils and presence; remove him from those high offices and power he is now possessed of. If he has been guilty of any crimes, the proofs may then be come at, and the witnesses against him will not be afraid to appear. Till you do this, it is impossible to determine whether he is guilty or innocent; and, considering the universal clamor against him, it is high time to reduce him to such a condition that he may be brought to a fair, an impartial, and a strict account. If he were conscious of his being entirely innocent, and had a due regard to the security and glory of his master and sovereign, he would have chosen to have put himself into this condition long before this time. Since he has not thought fit to do so, it is our duty to endeavor to do it for him; and, therefore, I shall conclude with moving, 'That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to remove the right honorable Sir Robert Walpole, knight of the most noble order of the garter, first commissioner for executing the office of treasurer of the excheq uer, chancellor and under-treasurer of the exchequer, and one of his Majesty's most honorable privy council, from his Majesty's presence and councils forever.'” A few days after, Walpole made a speech of four hours, in reply to Sandys and others, by whom he had been attacked. We have only an imperfect outline of his argument in the speech given below, but there is reason to believe that the introductory part and the conclusion are very nearly in his own words. SPEECH, &c. conceal my sentiments, that to be named in Parliament as a subject of inquiry, is to me a matter of great concern. But I have the satisfaction, at the same time, to reflect, that the impression to be made depends upon the consistency of the charge and the motives of the prosecutors. It has been observed by several gentlemen, interity with disgrace and infamy? I will not vindication of this motion, that if it should be carried, neither my life, liberty, nor estate will be affected. But do the honorable gentlemen consider my character and reputation as of no moment? Is it no imputation to be arraigned before this House, in which I have sat forty years, and to have my name transmitted to pos 1 In quoting the words of Horace (Epistle I., 61), Walpole gave them thus: Nil conscire sibi, nulli pallescere culpa, Pulteney, who sat by, cried out, "Your Latin is as bad as your logic!" "Nulla pallescere culpâ !" Walpole defended his quotation, and offered to bet a guinea on its correctness. The question was accordingly referred to Sir Nicholas Hardinge, clerk of the House, whose extraordinary erudition was acknowledged by all, and he at once decided in favor of Pulteney. Walpole tossed him the guinea, and Pulteney, as he caught it, held it up before the House, exclaiming, "It is the only money I have received from the treasury for many years, and it shall be the last." He kept the guinea to the end of his life, as a memento of this occurrence, and left it to his children, with a paper stating how it was won, and adding, "This guinea I desire may be kept as an heir-loom. It will prove to my posterity the use of knowing Latin, and will encourage them in their learning." It is now deposited in the medal-room of the British Museum. Had the charge been reduced to specific allegations, I should have felt myself called upon for a specific defense. Had I served a weak or wicked master, and implicitly obeyed his dictates, obedience to his commands must have been my only justification. But as it has been my good fortune to serve a master who wants no bad ministers, and would have hearkened to none, my defense must rest on my own conduct. The consciousness of innocence is also a sufficient support against my present prosecutors. A further justification is derived from a consideration of the views and abilities of the prosecutors. Had I been guilty of great enormities, they want neither zeal and inclination to bring them forward, nor ability to place them in the scious of no crime, my own experience convinces most prominent point of view. But as I am conme that none can be justly imputed. I must therefore ask the gentlemen, From whence does this attack proceed? From the passions and prejudices of the parties combined against me, who may be divided into three classes, the Boys, the riper Patriots, and the Tories.1 The Tories I can easily forgive. They have unwillingly come into the measure; and they do me honor in thinking it necessary to remove me, as their only obstacle. What, then, is the inference to be drawn from these premises? That demerit with my opponents ought to be considered as merit with others. But my great and principal crime is my long continuance in office; or, in other words, the long exclusion of those who now complain against me. This is the heinous offense which exceeds all others. I keep from them the possession of that power, those honors, and those emoluments, to which they so ardently and pertinaciously aspire. I will not attempt to deny the reasonableness and necessity of a party war; but in carrying on that war, all principles and rules of justice should not be departed from. The Tories must confess that the most obnoxious persons have felt few instances of extra-judicial power. Wherever they have been arraigned, a plain charge has been exhibited against them. They have had an impartial trial, and have been permitted to make their defense. And will they, who have experienced this fair and equitable mode of proceeding, act in direct opposition to every principle of justice, and establish this fatal precedent of parliamentary inquisition? Whom would they conciliate by a conduct so contrary to principle and precedent? be asked on this point, Are the people on the court side more united than on the other? Are not the Tories, Jacobites, and Patriots equally determined? What makes this strict union? What cements this heterogeneous mass? Party engagements and personal attachments. However different their views and principles, they all agree in opposition. The Jacobites distress the government they would subvert; the Tories contend for party prevalence and power. The Patriots, from discontent and disappointment, would change the ministry, that themselves may exclusively succeed. They have labored this point twenty years unsuccessfully. They are impatient of longer delay. They clamor for change of measures, but mean only change of ministers. In party contests, why should not both sides be equally steady? Does not a Whig administration as well deserve the support of the Whigs as the contrary? Why is not principle the cement in one as well as the other; especially when my opponents confess that all is leveled against one man? Why this one man? Because they think, vainly, nobody else could withstand them. All others are treated as tools and vassals. The one is the corrupter; the numbers corrupted. But whence this cry of corruption, and exclusive claim of honorable distinction? Compare the estates, characters, and fortunes of the Commons on one side with those on the other. Let the matter be fairly investigated Survey and examine the individuals who usually support the measures of government, and those who are in opposition. Let us see to whose side the balance preponderates. Look round both Houses, and see to which side the balance of virtue and talents preponderates! Are all these on one side, and not on the other? Or are all these to be counterbalanced by an affected claim to the exclusive title of patriotism? Gentlemen have talked a great deal of patriotism. A ven Can it be fitting in them [the Tories], who have divided the public opinion of the nation, to share it with those who now appear as their competitors? With the men of yesterday, the boys in politics, who would be absolutely contemptible did not their audacity render them detestable? With the mock patriots, whose practice and professions prove their selfishness and malignity; who threatened to pursue me to destruction, and who have never for a moment losterable word, when duly practiced. But I am sight of their object? These men, under the name of Separatists, presume to call themselves exclusively the nation and the people, and under that character assume all power. In their estimation, the King, Lords, and Commons are a faction, and they are the government. Upon these principles they threaten the destruction of all authority, and think they have a right to judge, direct, and resist all legal magistrates. They withdraw from Parliament because they succeed in nothing; and then attribute their want of success, not to its true cause, their own want of integrity and importance, but to the effect of places, pensions, and corruption. May it not 2 sorry to say that of late it has been so much I shall now consider the articles of accusation which they have brought against me, and which they have not thought fit to reduce to specific charges; and I shall consider these in the same ency some months after, when war was declared against Spain. order as that in which they were placed by the I hope it will not be said we had any reason honorable member who made the motion. First, | to quarrel with France First, to quarrel with France upon that account; and in regard to foreign affairs; secondly, to domestic affairs; and, thirdly, to the conduct of the war. I. As to foreign affairs, I must take notice of the uncandid manner in which the gentlemen on the other side have managed the question, by blending numerous treaties and complicated negotiations into one general mass. To form a fair and candid judgment of the subject, it becomes necessary not to consider the treaties merely insulated; but to advert to the time in which they were made, to the circumstances and situation of Europe when they were made, to the peculiar situation in which I stand, | and to the power which I possessed. I am called repeatedly and insidiously prime and sole minister. Admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that I am prime and sole minister in this country, am I, therefore, prime and sole minister of all Europe? Am I answerable for the conduct of other countries as well as for that of my own? Many words are not wanting to show, that the particular view of each court occasioned the dangers which affected the public tranquillity; yet the whole is charged to my account. Nor is this sufficient. Whatever was the conduct of England, I am equally arraigned. If we maintained ourselves in peace, and took no share in foreign transactions, we are reproached for tameness and pusillanimity. If, on the contrary, we interfered in these disputes, we are called Don Quixotes, and dupes to all the world. If we contracted guarantees, it was asked why is the nation wantonly burdened? If guarantees were declined, we were reproached with having no allies. I have, however, sir, this advantage, that all the objections now alleged against the conduct of the administration to which I have the honor to belong, have already been answered to the satisfaction of a majority of both houses of Parliament, and I believe to the satisfaction of a majority of the better sort of people in the nation. I need, therefore, only repeat a few of these answers that have been made already, which I shall do in the order of time in which the several transactions happened; and consequently must begin with our refusing to accept of the sole mediation offered us by Spain, on the breach between that court and the court of France, occasioned by the dismission of the Infanta of Spain.3 3 The Infanta of Spain was betrothed to Louis XV., king of France, when four years old, and was sent to Paris to be educated there. At the end of two years, Louis broke off the engagement and sent her back to Madrid. This indignity awakened the keenest resentment at the Spanish court, which sought to involve England in the quarrel by offering to make her sole mediator in respect to existing differences between Spain and the Emperor of Germany, thus throwing Spain entirely into the hands of England. The English government, for the reasons here assigned by Walpole, wisely rejected the mediation, and this was now imputed to him as a crime. therefore, if our accepting of that mediation The next step of our foreign conduct, exposed to reprehension, is the treaty of Hanover. Sir if I were to give the true history of that treaty, which no gentleman can desire I should, I am sure I could fully justify my own conduct. But as I do not desire to justify my own without justifying his late Majesty's conduct, I must observe that his late Majesty had such information as convinced not only him, but those of his council, both at home and abroad, that some dangerous designs had been formed between the Èmperor and Spain at the time of their concluding the treaty at Vienna, in May, 1725; designs, sir, which were dangerous not only to the liberties of this nation, but to the liberties of Europe. They were not only to wrest Gibraltar and Port Mahon from this nation, and force the Pretender upon us; but they were to have Don Carlos married to the Emperor's eldest daughter, who would thereby have had a probability of uniting in his person, or in the person of some of his successors, the crowns of France and Spain, with the imperial dignity and the Austrian dominions. It was therefore highly reasonable, both in France and us, to take the alarm at such designs, and to think betimes of preventing their being carried into execution. But with regard to us, it was more particularly our business to take the alarm, because we were to have been immediately attacked. I shall grant, sir, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for Spain 4 Spain now turned her resentment against England, and settled her differences with the Emperor of Germany on terms so favorable to the latter, as to awaken suspicions (which were confirmed by secret intelligence) that some hidden compact had been made, for conjointly attacking the dominions of England. To counteract this, England, in 1725, united with France, Prussia, Denmark, and Holland, in an opposing league, by a compact called the treaty of Hanover, from the place where it was made. The evidence of these facts could not then be brought forward to defend the ministry; and hence the treaty of Hanover, and the consequent expenditures on the Continent, were extremely unpopular in England. But subsequent disclosures have made it nearly or quite certain, that every thing here alleged by Walpole was strictly true. |