1741.

LAST SESSION OF THIS PARLIAMENT.

69.

CHAPTER XXIII.

WHEN Parliament met in November 1740, the Opposition, mindful of the approaching elections, under the Septennial Act, strained every nerve to aggravate the difficulties and blacken the character of Walpole. No sooner had the King's Speech been read by the Lord Chancellor, than the Duke of Argyle suddenly started up, anticipating Lord Holderness, the intended mover of the Ministerial Address, and proposed an Address of his own; he arraigned the whole conduct of the war, and, instead of following the various topics of the Royal Speech, suggested merely a general assurance of support. On the same side Lord Carteret bitterly inveighed against "a Minister who has for almost twenty "years been demonstrating to the world that he has neither "wisdom nor conduct. He may have a little low cunning, "such as those have that buy cattle in Smithfield market, or "such as a French valet makes use of for managing an in"dulgent master, but the whole tenour of his conduct has "shown that he has no true wisdom: this our allies know and "bemoan; this our enemies know and rejoice in!" Still more invidiously did Chesterfield represent the Government, as "begging hard for a little incense, and endeavouring to "have a motion rejected with which even they themselves 66 can find no fault, in order to make room for encomiums "which themselves have prepared!" However, the motion of Lord Holderness, being brought forward as an amendment, was carried by 66 votes against 38; and in the Commons as decisive a majority declared in favour of the original Address.*

* Mr. Orlebar to the Rev. H. Etough, Nov. 22. 1740. Parl. Hist. vol. xi. p. 613-696. The account of the Commons' debate is extremely meagre, and no mention made of either Pitt or Lyttleton's speeches, except that Mr. Orlebar says they were "very warm, which occasioned Sir Robert to "be so too."

In pursuance of this opening, the Opposition proceeded night after night to heap imputations on the Minister, and to harass him with incessant motions for the production of papers and letters, such as might tend either to criminate him if disclosed, or afford a handle for invective if refused. The Upper House especially was the chosen scene of this warfare. First came an Address for the Instructions to Vernon in taking Porto Bello, intended to show that the whole merit belonged to the Admiral, and none to the Minister. "Can we expect," cried Chesterfield, "that he who gave "Admiral Hosier orders to persuade the enemy's ships to "surrender, and to lie with his squadron till it rotted before a sea port which Mr. Vernon has taken with a fourth part of "the force, I say can we expect that he will give proper "orders to any Admiral?" Next appeared a motion for the letters from and to Vernon; after this another for the Instructions to Haddock, who, having been sent with a large squadron to the Mediterranean, had, it was alleged, remained shamefully inactive. In vain did Newcastle urge that Haddock had guarded Gibraltar and Port Mahon, blockaded Cadiz, and protected the British trade; such considerations it was answered were but mean and mercantile. "My Lords," began Bathurst, with his usual caustic wit, "the two noble young Lords who opened this debate" (Sandwich and Halifax) "spoke with such dignity, such "strength of argument, and such propriety of expression, "that I began to imagine myself in an old Roman or Lacedæ"monian Senate, and therefore I must return thanks to the "Noble Duke who spoke last, for he has brought me back "to a British House of Peers!"*

These motions, and another strangely inconsistent with them, against any augmentation of the army, were, indeed, rejected by the Ministerial majority, but served, as was intended, to agitate and inflame the public mind, and prepare

Parl. Hist. vol. xi. p. 787. Lord Sandwich afterwards filled many high offices in the State, but was never again compared to a Roman Senator.

1741. MOTION FOR THE REMOVAL OF SIR R. WALPOLE. 71

the way for the main attack, designed in both Houses to be aimed personally and directly against the Prime Minister. The cry of "Down with Walpole!" was almost the only one on which the Tories and Whigs in Opposition could heartily join, especially since the death of Wyndham, which had greatly loosened the bonds of their alliance. All of them concurred in hatred of the Minister; but few, as to the men or the measures that should follow his dismissal. That cry was also well adapted for effect upon the people, who, it may be observed, are far more easily excited by personal than by political questions, although they have never any interest in the first, and are often deeply concerned in the latter. On that cry, therefore, did Argyle and the other Whigs in Opposition determine to concentrate their whole strength; but it appears that, satisfied with having found a subject well adapted for concert, they neglected to secure that concert by previous communication with their Tory friends, and reckoned on probabilities instead of obtaining promises.

Thus resolved upon, the great attack was fixed in both Houses for the same day, the 13th of February; to be brought forward in the Peers by Lord Carteret, in the Commons by Mr. Samuel Sandys. It is difficult to understand why so important a motion should have been entrusted to a member hitherto of no great note in the ranks of Opposition*, unless either Mr. Sandys had the merit of first suggesting it, or that the principal leaders wished to reserve themselves for reply. Two days previously, Sandys, crossing over the floor in the House of Commons, accosted the Minister, saying that he thought himself bound in common courtesy to inform him that he intended to bring an accusation of several articles against him; and soon afterwards, rising in his

The abilities of Sandys are spoken of with much contempt by his enemies. Sir Charles Hanbury Williams satirically laments that he could not spell (Sir C. H. Williams's Works, vol. i. p. 151. ed. 1822); and Horace Walpole calls him, in 1755, "the outcast of a former silly administration" (Memoirs, vol. i. p. 484). He had been M.P. for Worcester ever since 1717.

place, he gave public notice that he should on the ensuing Friday open a matter of great importance, which personally concerned the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who he therefore hoped would be present. Walpole received the intimation with great composure and dignity; he rose to thank his opponent for his notice; said that he desired no favour, but only fair play, and would not fail to attend the accusation as not conscious of any crime, and he concluded with an appropriate line from his favourite Horace.*

On the appointed day the public expectation rose to the highest pitch; the gallery was thronged with eager spectators; several members had secured their seats at six in the morning, and at one time there were nearly 500 in the House. The debate began at one o'clock. The speech of Sandys, probably concerted with the principal Opposition leaders, was elaborate and able. Having first lamented the dreadful calamities of the nation, and urged an inquiry into the causes of them, he declared that he should divide his accusation into three branches, - foreign negotiations, domestic government, and the conduct of the war. As to the former, he inveighed, especially, against the Treaty of Hanover, the Act of the Pardo, the acquisition of Lorraine by France, and the Spanish Convention. With respect to affairs at home, he charged Sir Robert with fraudulent views in adjusting the South Sea Scheme; he computed the produce of the Sinking

* A remarkable incident then occurred between Walpole and Pulteney. According to the custom of that period, these leaders of adverse parties used to sit together on the Treasury Bench as Privy Councillors. Walpole had quoted

"Nil conscire sibi, nulli pallescere culpâ."

When he sat down Pulteney drily observed to him that it was false Latin; Sir Robert betted him a guinea it was not; and they agreed to refer their dispute to Mr. Nicholas Hardinge, clerk of the House, who was known as an excellent scholar. Hardinge decided for Pulteney, the right word being nullâ instead of nulli. The guinea was immediately tossed to Pulteney, who caught it, and held it up to the House, exclaiming, "It is the only public "money I have received for many years, and it shall be the last!"— This anecdote, with a few slight variations, is recorded in nearly all the histories of that time. Mr. Nicholas Hardinge was the grandfather of my gallant and distinguished friend Sir Henry (now Viscount Hardinge, 1852,); and the original guinea of the wager is preserved at the British Museum; a donation in 1828 from Lady Murray.

1741.

MR. SAMUEL SANDYS.

73

Fund in 1727, and asserted that the national debt was not diminished, although the Sinking Fund had, since that period, produced no less than 15,000,0007.-"all spent in Spithead "expeditions and Hyde Park reviews!" He next enumerated many instances of unconstitutional conduct. A larger standing army than was necessary squadrons fitted out at an enormous expense, and never employed against an enemy all methods to secure the Constitution against corruption rejected many penal laws passed of an arbitrary tendency - votes of credit frequent expenses of the Civil List increased the abolition of burthensome taxes opposed merely because their collection required a great number of placemen officers dismissed for voting against the Excise Scheme, one of the weakest yet most violent projects ever set on foot by any Minister. Entering next upon the conduct of the war, Sandys complained that no sufficient reinforcements had been sent to Vernon in the West Indies, and that Haddock in the Mediterranean had been almost equally neglected. "Things being thus," said he, "I shall now name "the author of all these public calamities. I believe no one can mistake the person to whom I allude; every one must "be convinced that I mean the Right Honourable Gentleman "opposite..... If it should be asked why I impute all these "evils to one person, I reply, because that one person has "grasped in his own hands every branch of government; that one person has attained the sole direction of affairs, mono'polised all the favours of the Crown, compassed the dis"posal of all places, pensions, titles, ribands, as well as all "preferments, civil, military, and ecclesiastical; that one 'person has made a blind submission to his will, both in "Elections and Parliament, the only terms of present favour

แ

"and future expectation.... I therefore mové, That an

"humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he would "be graciously pleased to remove the Right Honourable Sir "Robert Walpole from His Majesty's presence and counsels "for ever."

Lord Limerick having seconded this motion, it was next