Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

er can you expect that any seaman will stay in the country, if he can by any means make his escape? Sir, if you pass this law, you must, in my opinion, do with your seamen as they do with their galley-slaves in France-you must chain them to their ships, or chain them in couples when they are ashore. But suppose this should both increase the number of your seamen, and render them more willing to serve you, it will render them incapable. It is a common observation, that when a man becomes a slave, he loses half his virtue. What will it signify to have your ships all manned to their full complement? Your men will have neither the courage nor the temptation to fight; they will strike to the first enemy that attacks them, because their condition can not be made worse by a surrender. Our seamen have always been famous for a matchless alacrity and intrepidity in time of danger; this has saved many a British ship, when other seamen would have run below 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 ne might have a chance of gaining riches to aimself 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?

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. Whether the law, when made, is to be carried into execution, I do not know; but if it is, we are laying a snare for our own lives. Every gentleman of this House must be supposed, I hope justly, to be a man of spirit Would any

of you, gentlemen, allow this law to be execute in its full extent? If, at midnight, a petty con stable, with a press-gang, should come thunder ing at the gates of your house in the country. and should tell you he had a search-warrant and must search your house for seamen, would you at that time of night allow your gates to be opened? I protest I would not. What, then, would be the consequence? He has by this law a power to break them open. Would any of you patiently submit to such an indignity? Would not you fire upon him, if he attempted to break open your gates? I declare I would, let the consequence be never so fatal, and if you happened to be in the bad graces of a minister the consequence would be your being either killed in the fray, or hanged for killing the constable or some of his gang. This, sir, may be the case of even some of us here; and, upon my honor, I do not think it an exaggeration to sup. pose it may.

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 saine with a physician's telling his patient, "Sir, there is no known remedy for your distemper, there fore you shall take poison-I'll crɛm 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 sup posed 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 lov 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.

This, sir, I am convinced, would be the case now, as well as it was then. It was at that time computed that, by means of such a law as this, there were not above fourteen hundred seamen brought into the service of the government 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 wher we have passed it, we may then go into a com. mittee 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
bill to be offered to volunteers, I am convinced
that the most strict and general search would
not bring in half the number. Shall we, then,
for the sake of adding six or seven hundred, or
even fourteen hundred seamen to his Majesty's
navy expose our Constitution to so much dan-aging
ger, and every housekeeper in the kingdom to
the danger of being disturbed at all hours in the
night?

In consequence of these remarks, all the claus. es relating to search-warrants were ultimately struck out of the bill.

[ocr errors]

But suppose this law were to have a great effect, it can be called nothing but a temporary expedient, because it can in no way contribute It was during this debate that the famous altoward increasing the number of our seamen, or tercation took place between Mr. Pitt and Hc toward rendering them more willing to enter ratio Walpole, in which the latter endeavored to into his Majesty's service. It is an observation put down the young orator by representing him made by Bacon upon the laws passed in Henry as having too little experience to justify his disthe Seventh's reign, that all of them were cal- cussing such subjects, and charging him with culated for futurity as well as the present time. "petulancy of invective," pompous diction," This showed the wisdom of his councils; I wish and "theatrical emotion." The substance of I could say so of our present. We have for Mr. Pitt's reply was reported to Johnson, who some years thought of nothing but expedients wrote it out in his own language, forming one for getting rid of some present inconvenience by of the most bitter retorts in English oratory. running ourselves into a greater. The ease or It has been so long connected with the name of convenience of posterity was never less thought Mr. Pitt, that the reader would regret its omis of, I believe, than it has been of late years. I sion in this work. It is therefore given below, wish I could see an end of these temporary ex- not as a specimen of his style, which was exactpedients; for we have been pursuing them so ly the reverse of the sententious manner and bal. long, that we have almost undone our country anced periods of Johnson, but as a general ex and overturned our Constitution. Therefore, sir,hibition of the sentiments which he expressed.

REPLY

OF LORD CHATHAM WHEN ATTACKED BY HORATIO WALPOLE, DELIVERED MARCH 6, 1741.

SIE, 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. €33 edition 1834.

deserves not that his gray hairs should secure him from insult. Much more, sir, is he to be abhorred, 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 licentiou 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 is own passions while he is restraining the impetu osity 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 succeed. ed, 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 | pid sergeant-at-law that ever spoke for a halfby long harangues or flowers of rhetoric, I shall guinea fee. For my part, I have heard nothing not pretend to determine. But if they make use in favor of the question but what I think very of nothing of the kind, it is no very good argu- proper, and very much to the purpose. What ment of their sincerity, because a man who has been said, indeed, on the other side of the speaks from his heart, and is sincerely affected question, especially the long justification tha: with the subject upon which he speaks (as every has been made of our late measures, I can no honest man must be when he speaks in the cause think so proper; because this motion is founded of his country), such a man, I say, falls natu- upon the present melancholy situation of affairs, rally into expressions which may be called flow- and upon the general clamor without doors, ers of rhetoric; and, therefore, deserves as little against the conduct of our late public servants. to be charged with afferation, as the most stu- Either of these, with me, shall always be a suff

cient reason for agreeing to a parliamentary in- | quiry; because, without such inquiry, I can not, sven 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 inuiry, 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, especialy 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

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. 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, gen tlemen 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 Parlia ments 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.

[blocks in formation]

ticular charge, have been the foundation of almost every parliamentary inquiry.

false in fact, and contrary to experience. We have had many parliamentary inquiries into the conduct of ministers of state; and yet I defy any one to show that any state affair which ought to have been concealed was thereby discovered, or that our affairs, either abroad or at home, eve suffered by any such discovery. There are

readily admit, sir, that we have very little to do with the character or reputation of a minister, but as it always does, and must affect our sovereign. But the people may become disaffected as well as discontented, when they find the King continues obstinately to employ a min-methods, sir, of preventing papers of a very seister who, they think, oppresses them at home and betrays them abroad. We are, therefore, n duty to our sovereign, obliged to inquire into the conduct of a minister when it becomes generally suspected by the people, in order that we may vindicate his character if he be innocent of the charges brought against him, or, if he be guilty, that we may obtain his removal from the councils of our sovereign, and also condign punishment on his crimes.

cret nature from coming into the hands of the servants attending, or even of all the members of a secret committee. If his Majesty should, by message, inform us, that some of the papers sealed up and laid before us required the utmos: secrecy, we might refer them to our committee, instructing them to order only two or three of their number to inspect such papers, and to report from them nothing but what they thought might safely be communicated to the whole. By this method, I presume, the danger of discovery would be effectually removed; this dan ger, therefore, is no good argument against a parliamentary inquiry.

The other objection, sir, is really surprising, because it is founded upon a circumstance which in all former times, has been admitted as a strong argument in favor of an immediate in quiry. The honorable gentlemen are so ingen uous as to confess that our affairs, both abroac and at home, are at present in the utmost embarrassment; but, say they, you ought to free yourselves from this embarrassment before you inquire into the cause of it. Sir, according to this way of arguing, a minister who has plundered and betrayed his country, and fears being called to an account in Parliament, has nothing to do but to involve his country in a dangerous war, or some other great distress, in order to prevent an inquiry into his conduct; because he may be dead before that war is at an end, or that distress is surmounted. Thus, like the most detestable of all thieves, after plundering the

After having said thus much, sir, I need scarcely answer what has been asserted, that no parliamentary inquiry ought ever to be instituted, unless we are convinced that something has been done amiss. Sir, the very name given to this House of Parliament proves the contrary. We are called The Grand Inquest of the Nation; and, as such, it is our duty to inquire into every step of public management, both abroad and at home, in order to see that nothing has been done amiss. It is not necessary, upon every occasion, to establish a secret committee. This is never necessary but when the affairs to be brought before it, or some of those affairs, are supposed to be of such a nature as to require secrecy. But, as experience has shown that nothing but a superficial inquiry is ever made by a general committee, or a committee of the whole House, I wish that all estimates and accounts, and many other affairs, were respectively referred to select committees. Their inquiries would be more exact, and the receiving of their reports would not occupy so much of our time as is represented. But, if it did, our duty being to make strict in-house, he has only to set it on fire, that he may quiries into every thing relative to the public, our assembling here being for that purpose, we must perform our duty before we break up; and his present Majesty, I am sure, will never put an end to any session till that duty has been fully performed.

It is said by some gentlemen, that by this inquiry we shall be in danger of discovering the secrets of our government to our enemies. This argument, sir, by proving too much, proves nothing. If it were admitted, it would always have been, and its admission forever will be, an argument against our inquiring into any affair in which our government can be supposed to be concerned. Our inquiries would then be confined to the conduct of our little companies, or of inferior custom-house officers and excisemen; for, if we should presume to inquire into the conduct of commissioners or of great companies, it would be said the government had a concern in their conduct, and the secrets of government must not be divulged. Every gentleman must see that this would be the consequence of admitting such an argument. But, besides, it is

escape in the confusion. It is really astonishing to hear such an argument seriously urged in this House. But, say these gentlemen, if you found yourself upon a precipice, would you stand to inquire how you were led there, before you considered how to get off? No, sir; but if a guide had led me there, I should very probably be provoked to throw him over, before I thought of any thing else. At least I am sure I should not trust to the same guide for bringing me off; and this, sir, is the strongest argument that can be used for an inquiry.

We have been, for these twenty years, under the guidance, I may truly say, of one man-of one single minister. We now, at last, find ourselves upon a dangerous precipice. Ought we not, then, immediately to inquire, whether we have been led upon this precipice by his ignorance or wickedness; and if by either, to take care not to trust to his guidance for our safety? This is an additional and a stronger argument for this inquiry than ever was urged for any former one, for, if we do not inquire, we shall prob. ably remain under his guidance; because, thougt

« AnteriorContinuar »