JOURNAL of the PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES in the POLITICAL CLUB, In the Debate begun in our laft, the Mr. Prefident, A A S every argument made ufe Surely, Sir, gentlemen must know, F continued from Page 550. hey imagined, that many gentlemen ad fince that time changed their Tentiments; and if they had any fuch imagination, I believe, the iffue of this debate will convince them of its having been very ill grounded. This I have the more reason to believe, Sir, because there has not been, nor, indeed, can there be any one argument made use of in favour of this motion, that was not urged in favour of the other; and the chief objection is, as I have faid, much ftronger against this than it was against the other. Suppofe it true, that the proffered terms of peace, which at the beginning of laft feffion were thought inadmiffible, were before the end of that feffion admitted: Suppofe that worse were admitted: Might not a change of circumftances, or a change of fentiments in all our allies, have made that admiffion neceffary? I am far from admitting the truth of any fuch fuppofition; but if it were true, it would be fo far from being an argument in favour of this motion, that it would be an unanswerable one againit it; becaufe fuch difcoveries might thereby be made as might be of infinite prejudice to our natural allies, and of which our natural enemies might make great advantage. The objection against the late treaty of peace relating to our trade with Spain, is another argument of the fame nature: I believe, Sir, no gentleman can fhew me a general treaty of peace, wherein the affairs of trade between two particular nations were fettled: Such matters are always adjusted afterwards by a treaty of commerce, and this was certainly the reafon why the treaty of 1715 was not particularly mentioned in the late general treaty, because that treaty related merely to commerce, and and was to be explained and con- C D The Hon. gentleman fays, we have given up every pledge that might have induced a compliance from the courts of Spain and France, and in. finuated, as if we were to make fome facrifice for gaining hereafter that compliance. Sir, we have in our hands, I hope we shall always have in our hands, an argument more prevailing than any pledge we ever had or can have: We have, Sir, an invincible navy: While we keep that Sir, we shall never have occafion to make a facrifice for any compliance we can reasonably demand. But even our navy, invincible as it is, we fhould never make ufe of for enforcing unjuft or unreasonable demands, because it may raise against us, that E by which alone our navy can be overcome, the vengeance of God Almighty: Nor fhould we ever make ufe of it, till we have found all amicable methods ineffectual; and as this should always be our laft refort, we should avoid every thing that F may tend towards making that refort neceffary, which, I think, is the direct tendency of the motion now under confideration, and indeed of every motion of the fame nature, for as inquiries always produce heartburnings and divifions in the nation, G they encourage foreign courts to de. fer, at least, thofe compliances which they would otherwife have granted upon the first demand, and they defer fo long, that we are at last forced Appendix, 1749. to have recourse to fome violence, which brings on an open rupture. That this houfe has a right to inquire, Sir, and that it may iometimes be our duty to inquire, I believe, no man will deny; but furely it will be granted, that it is our duty not to exert this right when it can be of no benefit, and may be the caufe of great prejudice to the nation, which I think is plainly the cafe of the inquiy now propofed; for none of the gentlemen that have spoke in favour of this motion, have fo much as attempted to point out any one national benefit that can poflibly refult from the inquiry they propofe. The Hon. gentleman has indeed given us a new argument for an inquiry, and fuch an argument as never, I believe, was made ufe of in this houfe before. He feems to think, that we ought to inquire out of revenge, because of the contemptuous manner in which we have been treated. By whom, for Godfake, Sir, have we been treated in a contemptuous manner? Surely the Hon. gentleman will not fay, by his majefty; and yet he must allow, that no minifter either could, or durft communicate the preliminaries to us without his majesty's order. But he may perhaps fay, that the minifters ought to have advifed his majefty to communicate the preliminaries to parliament, before he ratified them; and that their not doing fo, was treating this houfe in a contemptuous manner. This, Sir, may be an argument for an addrefs to the king, to know who advised him to ratify the preliminaries before he had communicated them to parliament; but it can be no argument for inquiring into the last treaty of peace, and much lefs for an inquiry into negoti ations long previous to that treaty. For this reafon, Sir, I cannot think, it was very proper in this debate, to talk of our having been any way treated in a contemptuous manner, with regard to the late prelimina ries; and, if the Hon. gentleman who 4 F 1poke fpoke laft, or any other gentleman have procured better terms than they And with regard to the laft preliminaries, Sir, if the misfortunes of the war had brought us or our allies into fuch circumftances, as to render it abfolutely neceffary for us to accept F of the preliminaries then offered, it was the wifeft thing his majesty could do, to ratify them, without having previously communicated them to parliament, because he could not well have ratified them after their being rejected by parliament, and in order G to obtain the approbation of parliament, thofe circumftances must have been explained and publickly declared, which made it neceffary for us to agree to them, which circum ftances, had they been known to the enemy, might have made them recede from what they had before offered; and every one knows, that till the exchange of the ratifications, both parties are at full liberty to recede entirely from the terms they had before offered, or to qualify them in fuch a manner as to render them very different from what they were before. I therefore hope, Sir, we fhall hear no more of the contemptuous manner in which we were treated, with regard to the late preliminaries; but let that be as it will, it can be no argument for our agreeing to the prefent motion; and confequently, unless I hear fome better argument, I fhall give my negative to the question. The laft Speech I shall give in this Debate, was that made by Horatius Cocles, which was in Effect thus: Mr. Prefident, SIR, gentleman who spoke laft, that in Shall fo far agree with the Hon. our prefent circumstances, it is not eafy to affign a reafon for making or fupporting any motion that may feem difagreeable to our minifters, because in any fuch motion no gentleman can with the leaft confidence expect fuccefs; but, Sir, I fhall always treat my country as I would treat my friend; and as I would in any cafe of importance give my friend my beft advice, tho' I had a moral certainty that he would not follow it, fo I fhall never neglect moving or fupporting in this houfe, what I think right, notwithftanding my having a moral certainty of its being rejected. This is my reafon for ftanding up in fupport of the prefent motion; for whatever was the noble lord's motive for making it, I think it a motion we ought to agree to; and even fuppofing, that his defign was to raise a Sir JH C popular popular clamour, it is a defign that may be juftified, because what the Hon. gentleman calls a popular cla. mour against his majefty's government, I call a popular clamour against a minifter's adminiftration; and when we have a wicked or weak minifter at the head of publick affairs, the only legal way of getting rid of him, is to raife fuch a popular clamour as may influence every election against him. A a war, nor how to negotiate or conclude a peace: That by their ignorance of the interefts and views of the feveral powers of Europe, we loft fome who might have been made our allies, and made enemies of others that might have been made to obferve a frict neutrality: That in cafes of no moment were most extravagant, and in cafes of the utmoft confequence to the fuccefs of the war, moft penurious: That confidered nothing in the management B of the war but how to enrich their friends, and fecure their influence in parliament, in order thereby to eftablish their power, and even to fet their fovereign at defiance: And in fhort, that either by their weakness or wickedness, were the authors of C all the misfortunes we met with in the war. Now, Sir, as to the merits of the motion under confideration, I muft confefs, that our bad fuccefs in the motion relating to the treaty of Hanau leaves me very little hopes of fucceeding in this, becaufe the only material argument I heard against that motion, was the danger of difcovering fomething that ought to be kept fecret, which is an argument equally prefling againft every parliamentary inquiry, except fuch as may be fet on foot against a parcel of excisemen, or a fociety of stockjobbers; and the only hopes I have, proceed from the extent of this argument; for when gentlemen are made to perceive the extent of it, by hearing it fo often repeated, and applied to every motion for an inquiry, they may at laft conclude, that it is an argument which ought never by itself alone to be regarded; E for what fignifies our right to inquire, if an argument be admitted, that muft always render the exercise of that right impracticable. D If we have now, Sir, fuch a fet of minifters, would it not be a fignal benefit to the nation, to have fuch minifters difmiffed, and the adminiftration put into abler hands? Is it not much better for a nation to be under the government of able rogues than weak fools? The former will take care of themfelves, and will for their own fakes take fome care of the nation; but the latter are incapable of taking care either of themselves or the nation. The Hon. gentleman has himself acknowledged, that the late treaty of peace was not fuch a one as we could have wifhed, but fuch a one as the misfortunes of the war made neceffary: How fhall we know whether or no thofe misfortunes proceeded from the mifconduct of our minifters ? From the example of the Romans, who took happinefs for wifdom, I must prefume, that they did; and if fo. is it not of the utmost confequence to the nation to get rid of fuch G minifters? The late war has coit this nation above fixty millions fterling, and now it is ended by an infamous peace, we are told by those who conducted it, or were concerned in But the Hon. gentleman fays, that tho' we have a right to inquire, we ought never to exercife that right F when no national benefit is from thence to be expected; and he was pleafed to add, that no gentleman had attempted to fhew, that any national benefit could arife from the inquiry propofed. Now to fatisfy him in this particular, I fhall beg leave to fuppofe, that we have now, and had during the whole courfe of the late war, a fet of minifters who knew not how to concert or conduct conducting it from its commence- Therefore, Sir, if our commerce with Spain be expofed to be ruined by high duties, which it certainly is more than when the war began: If our merchant ships' remain expofed to be fearched, and feized on account of what the Spaniards call contraband goods, which they certainly are more than when the war began, an inquiry into the conduct of the war and negotiations of peace is the more neceffary, that we may free our ministers from that prefumption C cause the treaty of commerce in 1715, is not revived by the last treaty, nor are we now intitled to any of the privileges or immunities granted us by that treaty. And with regard to our merchant fhips, the treaties of 1667 and 1670 are revived generally without any amendment or explanation, tho' every one knows, that from thefe treaties the Spaniards claimed before the war a right to fearch our fhips in the high feas, and to feize and confifcate ship and cargo, if they found on board any thing of what they are pleafed to call contraband goods. This right we have by our late treaty of peace tacitly acknowledged, in fo far as we have agreed to revive thofe two treaties without obliging them to give up their claim. Thefe, Sir, are objections against the late peace which appear upon the face of the treaty, and objections of fuch importance to this nation, that they throw the labouring oar upon our minifters, who muft ftand D condemned, and will by every true Englishman be thought to deferve the highest punishments their country can inflict, unless they can fhew, that by unforeseen accidents, and unmerited misfortunes, in the war, we were reduced to fuch diftrefsful of weakness which is now fo ftrong E circumftances, as to be obliged to against them, or otherwife, that we may free the nation from fuffering any longer by their weakness. I have faid, Sir, that both our commerce and merchant fhips are now more expofed than they were fue for peace, and to accept of any ternis our victorious enemies were pleased to prescribe. But the Hon. gentleman has been pleafed to tell us, that these are point s of commerce, which are never fettled in a general before the war, and in this I must be F treaty of peace, but are left to be juftified by every one who confiders, that when a war breaks out between any two nations, all former treaties are at an end, and none of them are reftored, nor any article in any of them, but fuch as are exprefsly mentioned and declared to be revived by the next treaty of peace; therefore, with regard to our commerce with Spain, it is now upon a worfe footing than it was before the war, be |