This Convention, sir, I think from my soul, is an illusory expedient to baffle the resentment of the nation; a truce, without a suspension of hostilities, on the part of Spain; on the part of England, a suspension, as to Georgia, of the first cated, I think that argument very inconclusive. | lute, imperious manner, and most tamely and The right claimed by Spain to search our ships abjectly received by the ministers of England. is one thing, and the excesses admitted to have Can any verbal distinctions, any evasions whatbeen committed in consequence of this pretend-ever, possibly explain away this public infamy? ed right is another. But surely, sir, to reason To whom would we disguise it? To ourselves from inference and implication only, is below the and to the nation! I wish we could hide it from dignity of your proceedings upon a right of this the eyes of every court in Europe. They see vast importance. What this reparation is, what that Spain has talked to you like your master sort of composition for your losses forced upon They see this arbitrary fundamental condition you by Spain, in an instance that has come to standing forth with a pre-eminence of shame, as light, where your own commissaries could not in a part of this very Convention. conscience decide against your claim, has fully appeared upon examination; and as for the pay-nothing but a stipulation for national ignominy, ment of the sum stipulated (all but seven-andtwenty thousand pounds, and that, too, subject to a drawback), it is evidently a fallacious nominal payment only. I will not attempt to enter into the detail of a dark, confused, and scarcely in-law of nature, self-preservation and self-defense; telligible account; I will only beg leave to conclude with one word upon it, in the light of a submission as well as of an adequate reparation. Spain stipulates to pay to the Crown of England ninety-five thousand pounds; by a preliminary protest of the King of Spain, the South Sea Company is at once to pay sixty-eight thousand of it: if they refuse, Spain, I admit, is still to pay the ninety-five thousand pounds; but how does it stand then? The Assiento Contract is to be suspended. You are to purchase this sum at the price of an exclusive trade, pursuant to a national treaty, and of an immense debt of God knows how many hundred thousand pounds, due from Spain to the South Sea Company. Here, sir, is the submission of Spain by the payment of a stipulated sum; a tax laid upon subjects of England, under the severest penalties, with the reciprocal accord of an English minister as a preliminary that the Convention may be signed; a condition imposed by Spain in the most abso a surrender of the rights and trade of England The motion was carried by a very small ma. jority, the vote being 260 to 232. Mr. Burke's statement respecting the merits of this question, as it afterward appeared, even to those who took the most active part against the Convention, may be found in his Regicide Peace. Whether Lord Chatham was one of the persons referred to by Mr. Burke as having changed their views, does not appear, but it is rather presumed not SPEECH OF LORD CHATHAM AGAINST SEARCH-WARRANTS FOR SEAMEN, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 6, 1741. INTRODUCTION. WAR was declared against Spain in October, 1739, and it soon became extremely difficult to man the British fleets. Hence a bill was brought forward by Sir Charles Wager, in January, 1741, conferring au. thority on Justices of the Peace to issue search-warrants, under which constables might enter private dwellings either by day or by night-and, if need be, might force the doors-for the purpose of discovering seamen, and impressing them into the public service. So gross an act of injustice awakened the indignation of Mr. Pitt, who poured out the following invective against the measure, and those who were en deavoring to force it on the House. SPEECH, &c. SIR,-The two honorable and learned gentle- | men' who spoke in favor of this clause, were pleased to show that our seamen are half slaves already, and now they modestly desire you should The Attorney and Solicitor General, Sir Dudley Ryder and Sir John Strange. The former was subsequently Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and the latter Master of the Rolls. make them wholly so. or can you expect that any seaman will stay in | of you, gentlemen, allow this law to be execute] the country, if he can by any means make his in its full extent? If, at midnight, a petty conescape? Sir, if you pass this law, you must, in stable, with a press-gang, should come thunder my opinion, do with your seamen as they do ing at the gates of your house in the country, with their galley-slaves in France-you must and should tell you he had a search-warrant, chain them to their ships, or chain them in and must search your house for seamen, would couples when they are ashore. But suppose you at that time of night allow your gates to be this should both increase the number of your opened? I protest I would not. What, then, seamen, and render them more willing to serve would be the consequence? He has by this law you, it will render them incapable. It is a a power to break them open. Would any of common observation, that when a man becomes you patiently submit to such an indignity? a slave, he loses half his virtue. What will it Would not you fire upon him, if he attempted to signify to have your ships all manned to their break open your gates? I declare I would, let full complement? Your men will have neither the consequence be never so fatal, and if you the courage nor the temptation to fight; they happened to be in the bad graces of a minister, will strike to the first enemy that attacks them, the consequence would be your being either killbecause their condition can not be made worse ed in the fray, or hanged for killing the constaby a surrender. Our seamen have always been ble or some of his gang. This, sir, may be the famous for a matchless alacrity and intrepidity case of even some of us here; and, upon my in time of danger; this has saved many a Brit- honor, I do not think it an exaggeration to supish ship, when other seamen would have run be- pose it may. low deck, and left the ship to the mercy of the waves, or, perhaps, of a more cruel enemy, a piFor God's sake, sir, let us not, by our new projects, put our seamen into such a condition as must soon make them worse than the cowardly slaves of France or Spain. rate. The learned gentlemen were next pleased to show us that the government were already possessed of such a power as is now desired. And how did they show it? Why, sir, by showing that this was the practice in the case of felony, and in the case of those who are as bad as felons, I mean those who rob the public, or dissipate the public money. Shall we, sir, put our brave sailors upon the same footing with felons and public robbers? Shall a brave, honest sailor be treated as a felon, for no other reason but because, after a long voyage, he has a mind to solace himself among his friends in the country, and for that purpose absconds for a few weeks, in order to prevent his being pressed upon a Spithead, or some such pacific expedition? For I dare answer for it, there is not a sailor in Britain but would immediately offer his services, if he thought his country in any real danger, or expected to be sent upon an expedition where he might have a chance of gaining riches to himself and glory to his country. I am really ashamed, sir, to hear such arguments made use of in any case where our seamen are concerned. Can we expect that brave men will not resent such treatment? Could we expect they would stay with us, if we should make a law for treating them in such a contemptible manner? The honorable gentlemen say no other remedy has been proposed. Sir, there have been several other remedies proposed. Let us go into a committee to consider of what has been, or may be proposed. Suppose no other remedy should be offered to tell us we must take this, because no other remedy can be thought of, is the same with a physician's telling his patient, "Sir, there is no known remedy for your distemper, there fore you shall take poison-I'll cram it down your throat." I do not know how the nation may treat its physicians; but, I am sure, if my physician told me so, I should order my servants to turn him out of doors. Such desperate remedies, sir, are never to be applied but in cases of the utmost extremity, and how we come at present to be in such extremity I can not comprehend. In the time of Queen Elizabeth we were not thought to be in any such extremity, though we were then threatened with the most formidable invasion that was ever prepared against this nation. In our wars with the Dutch, a more formidable maritime power than France and Spain now would be, if they were united against us, we were not supposed to be in any such extremity, either in the time of the Commonwealth or of King Charles the Second. In King William's war against France, when her naval power was vastly superior to what it is at present, and when we had more reason to be afraid of an invasion than we can have at present, we were thought to be in no such extremity. In Queen Anne's time, when we were engaged in a war both against France and Spain, and were obliged to make great lev ies yearly for the land service, no such remedy was ever thought of, except for one year only, and then it was found to be far from being ef fectual. But suppose, sir, we had no regard for our seamen, I hope we shall have some regard for the rest of the people, and for ourselves in particular; for I think I do not in the least exaggerate when I say, we are laying a trap for the lives of all the men of spirit in the nation. This, sir, I am convinced, would be the case Whether the law, when made, is to be carried now, as well as it was then. It was at that into execution, I do not know; but if it is, we time computed that, by means of such a law as are laying a snare for our own lives. Every this, there were not above fourteen hundred sea. gentleman of this House must be supposed, I men brought into the service of the government; hope justly, to be a man of spirit Would any and, conside, ing the methods that have been | I shall be for leaving this clause out of the bill, and every other clause relating to it. The bill will be of some service without them; and when we have passed it, we may then go into a committee to consider of some lasting methods for increasing our stock of seamen, and for encourthem upon all occasions to enter into his Majesty's service. ready taken, and the reward proposed by this But suppose this law were to have a great In consequence of these remarks, all the clauses relating to search-warrants were ultimately struck out of the bill. It was during this debate that the famous altercation took place between Mr. Pitt and Hc ratio Walpole, in which the latter endeavored to put down the young orator by representing him as having too little experience to justify his discussing such subjects, and charging him with "petulancy of invective," "pompous diction," and "theatrical emotion." The substance of Mr. Pitt's reply was reported to Johnson, who wrote it out in his own language, forming one of the most bitter retorts in English oratory. It has been so long connected with the name of Mr. Pitt, that the reader would regret its omis. sion in this work. It is therefore given below, not as a specimen of his style, which was exactly the reverse of the sententious manner and bal. anced periods of Johnson, but as a general ex hibition of the sentiments which he expressed. REPLY OF LORD CHATHAM WHEN ATTACKED BY HORATIO WALPOLE, DELIVERED MARCH 6, 1741. SIR,-The atrocious crime of being a young | man, which the honorable gentleman has, with such spirit and decency, charged upon me, I shall neither attempt to palliate nor deny, but content myself with wishing that I may be one of those whose follies may cease with their youth, and not of that number who are ignorant in spite of experience. Whether youth can be imputed to any man as a reproach, I will not, sir, assume the province of determining; but surely age may become justly contemptible, if the opportunities which it brings have passed away without improvement, and vice appears to prevail when the passions have subsided. The wretch who, after having seen the consequences of a thousand errors, continues still to blunder, and whose age has only added obstinacy to stupidity, is surely the object of either abhorrence or contempt, and 2 "Certainly his (Henry the Seventh's) times for good commonwealth's laws did excel, so as he may justly be celebrated for the best lawgiver to this nation after King Edward the First; for his laws, whoso marks them well, are deep, and not vulgar; not made upon the spur of a particular occasion for the present, but out of providence for the future, to make the estate of his people still more and more happy, after the manner of the legislators in ancient and heroical times."-Bacon's Works, rol. iii., p. 233, edition 1834. F deserves not that his gray hairs should secure him from insult. Much more, sir, is he to be abliorred, who, as he has advanced in age, has receded from virtue, and becomes more wicked with less temptation; who prostitutes himself for money which he can not enjoy, and spends the remains of his life in the ruin of his country. But youth, sir, is not my only crime; I have been accused of acting a theatrical part. A theatrical part may either imply some peculiarities of gesture, or a dissimulation of my real sentiments, and an adoption of the opinions and language of another man. In the first sense, sir, the charge is too trifling to be confuted, and deserves only to be mentioned to be despised. I am at liberty, like every other man, to use my own language; and though, perhaps, I may have some ambition to please this gentleman, I shall not lay myself under any restraint, nor very solicitously copy his diction or his mien, however matured by age, or modeled by experience. If any man shall, by charging me with theatrical behavior, imply that I utter any sentiments but my own, I shall treat him as a calumniator and a villain; nor shall any protection shelter him from the treatment he deserves. I shall, on such an occasion, without scruple, trample upon all those forms with which wealth and dignity intrench themselves. nor shall any thing but age restrain my resentment-age, which always brings one privilege, that of being insolent and supercilious without punishment. But with regard, sir, to those whom I have offended, I am of opinion, that if I had acted a borrowed part, I should have avoided their censure. The heat that offended them is the ardor of conviction, and that zeal for the service of my country which neither hope nor fear shall influence me to suppress. I will not sit unconcerned while my liberty is invaded, nor look in silence upon public robbery. I will exert my endeavors, at whatever hazard, to repel the aggressor, and drag the thief to justice, whoever may protect them in their villainy, and whoever may partake of their plunder. And if the honorable gentleman [At this point Mr. Pitt was called to order by Mr. Wynnington, who went on to say, "No diversity of opinion can justify the violation of decency, and the use of rude and virulent expressions, dictated only by resentment, and uttered without regard to—" Here Mr. Pitt called to order, and proceeded thus:] Sir, if this be to preserve order, there is no danger of indecency from the most licentious tongues. For what calumny can be more atrocious, what reproach more severe, than that of speaking with regard to any thing but truth. Order may sometimes be broken by passion or inadvertency, but will hardly be re-established by a monitor like this, who can not govern his own passions while he is restraining the impetuosity of others. Happy would it be for mankind if every one knew his own province. We should not then see the same man at once a criminal and a judge; nor would this gentleman assume the right of dictating to others what he has not learned himself. That I may return in some degree the favor he intends me, I will advise him never hereafter to exert himself on the subject of order; but whenever he feels inclined to speak on such occasions, to remember how he has now succeeded, and condemn in silence what his censures will never amend. SPEECH OF LORD CHATHAM ON A MOTION FOR INQUIRING INTO THE CONDUCT OF SIR ROBERT WALPOLE, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 9, 1742. INTRODUCTION. SIR ROBEBT WALPOLE was driven from power on the 11th of February, 1742. So greatly were the public excited against him, that the cry of "blood" was heard from every quarter; and a motion was made by Lord Limerick, on the 9th of March, 1742, for a committee "to inquire into the conduct of affairs at home and abroad during the last twenty years." This, of course, gave the widest scope for arraigning the conduct of the ex-minister; while, at the same time, no specific charges were requisite, because the question was simply on an inquiry, which was expected to develop the evidence of his guilt. This motion was strongly opposed by Walpole's friends, and especially by Mr. Henry Pelham, who remarked, in allusion to one of the preceding speakers, that "it would very much shorten the debate if gentlemen would keep close to the argument, and not run into long harangues or flowers of rhetoric, which might be introduced upon any other subject as well as the present." Mr. Pitt followed, and took his exordium from this sarcasm of Mr. Pelham. He then went fully, and with great severity of remark, into a review of the most important measures of Walpole's administration. This led him over the same ground which had been previously traversed by Walpole, in his defense against the attack of Mr. Sandys and others about a year before. The reader will therefore find it interesting to compare this speech on the several points, as they come up, with that of Walpole, which is given on a preceding page. He will there see some points explained in the notes, by means of evidence which was not accessible to the public at the time of this discussion. SPEECH, &c. WHAT the gentlemen on the other side mean by long harangues or flowers of rhetoric, I shall not pretend to determine. But if they make use of nothing of the kind, it is no very good argument of their sincerity, because a man who speaks from his heart, and is sincerely affected with the subject upon which he speaks (as every honest man must be when he speaks in the cause of his country), such a man, I say, falls naturally into expressions which may be called flowers of rhetoric; and, therefore, deserves as little to be charged with affectation, as the most stu pid sergeant-at-law that ever spoke for a halfguinea fee. For my part, I have heard nothing in favor of the question but what I think very proper, and very much to the purpose. What has been said, indeed, on the other side of the question, especially the long justification that has been made of our late measures, I can not think so proper; because this motion is founded upon the present melancholy situation of affairs, and upon the general clamor without doors, against the conduct of our late public servants. Either of these, with me, sl all always be a suffi. cient reason for agreeing to a parliamentary inquiry; because, without such inquiry, I can not, even in my own mind, enter into the disquisition whether our public measures have been right or not; without such inquiry, I can not be furnished with the necessary information. But the honorable gentlemen who oppose this motion seem to mistake, I do not say willfully, the difference between a motion for an impeachment and a motion for an inquiry. If any member of this House were to stand up in his place, and move to impeach a minister, he would be obliged to charge him with some particular crimes or misdemeanors, and produce some proof, or declare that he was ready to prove the facts. But any gentleman may move for an inquiry, without any particular allegation, and without offering any proof, or declaring what he is ready to prove; because the very design of an inquiry is to find out particular facts and particular proofs. The general circumstances of things, or general rumors without doors, are a sufficient foundation for such a motion, and for the House agreeing to it when it is made. This, sir, has always been the practice, and has been the foundation of almost all the inquiries that have ever been set on foot in this House, especially those that have been carried on by secret and select committees. What other foundation was there for the secret committee appointed in the year 1694 (to go no further back), to inquire into, and inspect the books and accounts of the East India Company, and of the Chamberlain of London? Nothing but a general rumor that some corrupt practices had been made use of. What was the foundation of the inquiry in the year 1715 ? Did the honorable gentleman who moved the appointment of the secret committee upon the latter occasion, charge the previous administration with any particular crimes? Did he offer any proofs, or declare that he was ready to prove any thing? It is said, the measures pursued by that administration were condemned by a great majority of the House of Commons. What, sir! were those ministers condemned before they were heard? Could any gentleman be so unjust as to pass sentence, even in his own mind, upon a measure before he had inquired into it? He might, perhaps, dislike the Treaty of Utrecht, but, upon inquiry, it might appear to be the best that could be obtained; and it has since been so far justified, that it appears at least as good, if not better, than any treaty we have subsequently made. Sir, it was not the Treaty of Utrecht, nor any measure openly pursued by the administration which negotiated it, that was the foundation or the cause of an inquiry into their conduct. It was the loud complaints of a great party against them; and the general suspicion of their having carried on treasonable negotiations in favor of the Pretender, and for defeating the Protestant succession. The inquiry was set on foot in or. 1 See Parl. Hist., vol. v., p. 896 and 900. Ibid., vol. vii., p. 53. der to detect those practices, if any such existed, and to find proper evidence for convicting the offenders. The same argument holds with regard to the inquiry into the management of the South Sea Company in the year 1721.3 When that affair was first moved in the House by Mr. Neville, he did not, he could not, charge the directors of that company, or any of them, with any particular delinquencies; nor did he attempt to offer, or say that he was ready to offer, any particular proofs. His motion was, "That the directors of the South Sea Company should forthwith lay before the House an account of their proceedings," and it was founded upon the general circumstances of things, the distress brought upon the public credit of the nation, and the general and loud complaints without doors. This motion, indeed, reasonable as it was, we know was opposed by the Court party at the time, and, in particular, by two doughty brothers, who have been attached to the Court ever since; but their opposition raised such a warmth in the House, that they were glad to give it up, and never after durst directly oppose that inquiry. I wish I could now see the same zeal for public justice. The circumstances of affairs I am sure deserve it. Our public credit was then, indeed, brought into distress; but now the nation itself, nay, not only this nation, but all our friends upon the Continent, are brought into the most imminent danger.. This, sir, is admitted even by those who oppose this motion; and if they have ever lately conversed with those that dare speak their minds, they must admit, that the murmurs of the people against the conduct of the administration are now as general and as loud as ever they were upon any occasion. But the misfortune is, that gentlemen who are in office seldom converse with any but such as either are, or want to be, in office; and such men, let them think as they will, will always applaud their superiors; consequently, gentlemen who are in the administration, or in any office under it, can rarely know the voice of the people. The voice of this House was formerly, I grant, and always ought to be, the voice of the people. If new Parliaments were more frequent, and few placemen, and no pensioners, admitted, it would be so still; but if long Parliaments be continued, and a corrupt influence should prevail, not only at elections, but in this House, the voice of this House will generally be very different from, nay, often directly contrary to, the voice of the people. However, as this is not, I believe, the case at present, I hope there is a majority of us who know what is the voice of the people. And if it be admitted by all that the nation is at present in the utmost distress and danger, if it be admitted by a majority that the voice of the people is loud against the conduct of our late administration, this mo tion must be agreed to, because I have shown at these two circumstances, without any par. |