Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

ions had been distributed among the poor sort of annuitants, it would have been both generous and charitable; but to give it among the propri etors in general was neither generous nor just, because most of them deserved no favor fror. the public. As the proceedings of the directors were authorized by general courts, those who were then the proprietors were in some measure accessary to the frauds of the directors, and therefore deserved to be punished rather than rewarded, as they really were; because every one of them who continued to hold stock in that company received nearly fifty per cent., added to his capital, most part of which arose from the high price annuitants were, by act of Parliament, obliged to take stock at, and was therefore a most flagrant piece of injustice done to the an

he be removed from the Treasury Board, he is
not removed from the King's Court, nor will he
be, probably, unless it be by our advice, or un-
less we lodge him in a place at the other end of
the town [i. e., the Tower], where he can not so
well injure his country. Sir, our distress at
home evidently proceeds from want of economy,
and from our having incurred many unnecessary
expenses. Our distress and danger abroad are
evidently owing to the misconduct of the war
with Spain, and to the little confidence which our
natural and ancient allies have reposed in our
councils. This is so evident, that I should not
think it necessary to enter into any particular
explanation, if an honorable gentleman on the
other side had not attempted to justify most of
our late measures both abroad and at home.
But as he has done so, though not, in my opin-nuitants.
ion, quite to the purpose of the present debate,
I hope I shall be allowed to make some remarks
upon what he has said on the subject; begin-
ning, as he did, with the measures taken for pun-
ishing the South Sea directors, and restoring
public credit after the terrible shock it received
in the year 1720.

As those measures, sir, were among the first exploits of our late (I fear I must call him our present) prime minister, and as the committee proposed, if agreed to, will probably consist of one-and-twenty members, I wish the motion had extended one year further back, that the number of years might have corresponded with the number of inquirers, and that it might have comprehended the first of those measures to which I have before alluded. As it now stands, it will not comprehend the methods taken for penishing the directors [of the South Sea Company], nor the first regalation made for restoring public credit; and with regard to both, some practices might be discovered that would deserve a much severer punishment than any of those directors experienced. Considering the many frauds made use of by the directors and their agents for luring people to their ruin, I am not a little surprised to hear it now said that their punishment was considered too severe. Justice by the lump was an epithet given to it, not because it was thought too severe, but because it was an artifice to screen the most heinous offenders, who, if they did not deserve death, deserved, at least, to partake of that total ruin which they had brought upon many unthinking men. They very ill deserved, sir, those allowances which were made them by Parlia

ment.

Then, sir, as to public credit, its speedy restoration was founded upon the conduct of the nation, and not upon the wisdom or justice of the measures adopted. Was it a wise method to remit to the South Sea Company the whole seven millions, or thereabouts, which they had solemnly engaged to pay to the public? It might as well be said, that a private man's giving away a great part of his estate to those who no way reserved it, would be a wise method of reviving or establishing his credit. If hose seven mill

But we need not be at a loss for the true cause of this act of injustice, when we con sider that a certain gentleman had a great many friends among the old stockholders, and few or none among the annuitants.

Another act of injustice, which I believe we may ascribe to the same cause, relates to those who were engaged in heavy contracts for stock or subscription, many of whom groan under the load to this very day. For after we had, by act of Parliament, quite altered the nature, though not the name, of the stock they had bought, and made it much less valuable than it was when they engaged to pay a high price for it, it was an act of public injustice to leave them liable to be prosecuted at law for the whole money which they had engaged to pay. I am sure this was not the method to restore that private credit upon which our trade and navigation so much depend. Had the same regulation been here adopted which was observed toward those who had bor. rowed money of the company, or had a sort of uti possidetis been enacted, by declaring all such contracts void so far as related to any future payments, this would not have been unjust; on the contrary, such a regulation, sir, was extremely necessary for quieting the minds of the people, for preventing their ruining one another at law, and for restoring credit between man and man. But there is reason to suppose that a certain gentleman [Walpole] had many friends among the sellers in those contracts, and very few among the buyers, which was the reason that the latter could obtain little or no relief or mercy by any public law or regulation.

Then, sir, with regard to the extraordinary grants made to the civil list, the very reason given by the honorable gentleman for justifying those grants is a strong reason for an immediate inquiry. If considerable charges have arisen upon that revenue, let us see what they are; let us examine whether they were necessary. We have the more reason to do this, because the revenue settled upon his late Majesty's civil list was at least as great as that which was settled upon King William or Queen Anne. Besides, there is a general rumor without doors, that the civil list is now greatly in arrear, which, if true, renders an inquiry absolutely necessary.

For it

is inconsistent with the honor and dignity of the Crown of these kingdoms to be in arrear to its tradesinen and servants; and it is the duty of this House to take care that the revenue which we have settled for supporting the honor and dignity of the Crown, shall not be squandered or misapplied. If former Parliaments have failed in this respect, they must be censured, though they can not be punished; but we ought now to atone for their neglect.

ready heard one reason assigned why no other measures have been particularly mentioned and condemned in this debate. If it were necessary, many others might be mentioned and condemned. Is not the maintaining so numerous an army in time of peace to be condemned? Is not the fitting out so many expensive and useless squadrons to be condemned? Are not the encroach. ments made upon the Sinking Fund; the reviv ing the salt duty; the rejecting many useful bills and motions in Parliament, and many other do mestic measures, to be condemned? The weak ness or the wickedness of these measures has often been demonstrated. Their ill consequences were at the respective times foretold, and those consequences are now become visible by our distress.

I come now, in course, to the Excise Scheme, which the honorable gentleman says ought to be forgiven, because it was easily given up."5 Sir, it was not easily given up. The promoter of that scheme did not easily give it up; he gave it up with sorrow, with tears in his eyes, when he saw, and not until he saw, it was impossible to carry it through the House. Did not Now, sir, with regard to the foreign meas his majority decrease upon every division? Itures which the honorable gentleman has attemptwas almost certain that if he had pushed it far-ed to justify. The Treaty of Hanover deserves ther, his majority would have turned against to first mentioned, because from thence him. His sorrow showed his disappointment; springs the danger to which Europe is now exand his disappointment showed that his design was deeper than simply to prevent frauds in the customs. He was, at that time, sensible of the influence of the excise laws and excise men with regard to elections, and of the great occasion he should have for that sort of influence at the approaching general election. His attempt, sir, was most flagrant against the Constitution; and he deserved the treatment he met with from the people. It has been said that there were none but what gentlemen are pleased to call the mob concerned in burning him in effigy ; but, as the mob consists chiefly of children, journeymen, and servants, who speak the sentiments of their parents and masters, we may thence judge of the sentiments of the higher classes of the people.

The honorable gentleman has said, these were all the measures of a domestic nature that could be found fault with, because none other have been mentioned in this debate. Sir, he has al

5 The Excise Scheme of Sir Robert Walpole was simply a warehousing system, under which the duties on tobacco and wine were payable, not when the articles were imported, but when they were taken out to be cousumed. It was computed, that, in consequence of the check which this change in the mode of collecting the duties on these articles would give to smuggling, the revenue would derive an increase which, with the continuance of the salt tax (revived the preceding year), would be amply sufficient to compensate for the total abolition of the land tax. The political opponents of Sir Robert Walpole, by representing his proposition as a scheme for a general excise, succeeded in raising so violent a clamor against it, and in rendering it so unpopular, that, much against his own inclination, he was obliged to abandon it. It was subsequently approved of by Adam Smith; and Lord Chatham, at a later period of his life, candidly acknowledged, that his opposition to it was founded in misconception. For an interesting account of the proceedings rela. tive to the Excise Scheme, see Lord Hervey's Memoirs of the Court of George II., chaps. viii. and ix.

See Lord Hervey's Memoirs of the Court of George II., vol. i., p. 203.

posed; and it is impossible to assign a reason for our entering into that treaty, without supposing that we then resolved to be revenged on the Emperor for refusing to grant us some favor in Germany. It is in vain now to insist upon the secret engagements entered into by the courts of Vienna and Madrid as the cause of that treaty. Time has fully shown that there never were any such engagements, and his lato

In the year 1717, the surplus of the public income over the public expenditure, was converted into what was called The Sinking Fund, for the purpose of liquidating the national debt. During the whole reign of George I., this fund was invari ably appropriated to the object for which it had been created; and, rather than encroach upon it, money was borrowed upon new taxes, when the supplies in general might have been raised by dedicating the surplus of the old taxes to the current services of the year. The first direct encroachment

upon the Sinking Fund took place in the year 1729, when the interest of a sum of £1,250,000, required for the current service of the year, was charged on that fund, instead of any new taxes being imposed upon the people to meet it. The second encroach. ment took place in the year 1731, when the income arising from certain duties which had been imposed in the reign of William III., for paying the interest due to the East India Company, and which were now no longer required for that purpose, in conse quence of their interest being reduced, was made use of in order to raise a sum of £1,200,000, instead of throwing such income into the Sinking Fund, as ought properly to have been done. A third perversion of this fuud took place in the year 1733, before the introduction of the Excise Scheme. In the previous year the land tax had been reduced to one shilling in the pound; and, in order to maintain it at the same rate, the sum of £500,000 was taken from the Sinking Fund and applied to the services of the year. In 1734 the sum of £1,200,000, the whole produce of the Sinking Fund, was taken from it; and in 1735 and 1736, it was anticipated and alienated.Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue, vol. i., p. 484, et seq. Coxe's Walpole, chap. xl.

Here Lord Chatham was mistaken. It is now certainly known that secret engagements did exist,

Majesty's speech from the throne can not here Je admitted as any evidence of the fact. Every one knows that in Parliament the King's speech is considered as the speech of the minister; and surely a minister is not to be allowed to bring his own speech as an evidence of a fact in his own justification. If it be pretended that his late Majesty had some sort of information, that such engagements had been entered into, that very pretense furnishes an unanswerable argument for an inquiry. For, as the information now appears to have been groundless, we ought o inquire into it; because, if it appears to be such information as ought not to have been believed, that minister ought to be punished who advised his late Majesty to give credit to it, and who, in consequence, has precipitated the nation into the most pernicious measures.

afterward did in the most absolute manner, and
without any
10
conditions.1 We wanted nothing
from Spain but a relinquishment of the pretense
she had just begun, or, I believe, hardly begun,
to set up, in an express manner, with regard to
searching and seizing our ships in the American
seas; and this we did not obtain, perhaps did
not desire to obtain, by the Treaty of Seville."
By that treaty we obtained nothing; but we ad-
vanced another step toward that danger in which
Europe is now involved, by uniting the courts of
France and Spain, and by laying a foundation
for a new breach between the courts of Spain
and Vienna.

I grant, sir, that our ministers appear to have been forward and diligent enough in negotiating, and writing letters and memorials to the court of Spain; but, from all my inquiries, it appears At the time this treaty was entered into, we that they never rightly understood (perhaps they wanted nothing from the Emperor upon our own would not understand) the point respecting which account. The abolition of the Ostend Company they were negotiating. They suffered themwas a demand we had no right to make, nor was selves to be amused with fair promises for ten it essentially our interest to insist upon it, be- long years; and our merchants plundered, our cause that Company would have been more hos- trade interrupted, now call aloud for inquiry. tile to the interests both of the French and Dutch | If it should appear that ministers allowed themEast India trades than to our own; and if it had selves to be amused with answers which no man been a point that concerned us much, we might of honor, no man of common sense, in such cirprobably have gained it by acceding to the Vien- cumstances, would take, surely, sir, they must na treaty between the Emperor and Spain, or by have had some secret motive for being thus guaranteeing the Pragmatic Sanction, which we grossly imposed on. This secret motive we may perhaps discover by an inquiry; and as it must and there is no reason to doubt that the most im- be a wicked one, if it can be discovered, the portant of them were correctly stated by Walpole. They were said to have been to the effect, that the parties ought to be severely punished. Emperor should give in marriage his daughters, the two arch-duchesses, to Don Carlos and Don Philip, the two Infants of Spain; that he should assist the King of Spain in obtaining by force the restitution of Gibraltar, if good offices would not avail; and that the two courts should adopt measures to place the Pretender on the throne of Great Britain. The fact of there having been a secret treaty, was placed beyond doubt by the Austrian embassador at the court of London having shown the article relating to Gibraltar in that treaty, in order to clear the Emperor of having promised any more than his good offices and mediation upon that head. (Coxe's History of the House of Austria, chap. xxxvii.) With reference to the stipulation for placing the Pretender on the throne of Great Britain, Mr. J. W. Croker, in a note to Lord Hervey's Memoirs of the Court of George II., vol. i., p. 78, says that its existence "is rery probable;" but that it is observable that Lord ervey, who revised his Memoirs some years after A 29th of March, 1734, when Sir Robert Walpole asted in the House of Commons that there was such ▲ Socament, and who was so long in the full confidence of Walpole, speaks very doubtfully of it.

On the 2d of August, 1718, the Emperor Charles V. promulgated a new law of succession for the inberitance of the house of Austria, under the name cf the Pragmatic Sanction. In this he ordained that, in the event of his having no male issue, his own daughters should succeed to the Austrian throne, in preference to the daughters of his elder brother, as previously provided; and that such succession should be regulated according to the order of primogeniture, so that the elder should be preferred to the younger, and that she should inherit his entire dominions

But, in excuse for their conduct, it is said that our ministers had a laudable repugnance to involving their country in a war. Sir, this repugnance could not proceed from any regard to their country. It was involved in a war. Spain was carrying on a war against our trade, and that in the most insulting manner, during the whole time of their negotiations. It was this very repugnance, at least it was the knowledge of it which Spain possessed, that at length made

10 By the second Treaty of Vienna, concluded on the 16th of March, 1731, England guaranteed the Pragmatic Sanction on the condition of the sup pression of the Ostend Company, and that the archduchess who succeeded to the Austrian dominions should not be married to a prince of the house of Bourbon, or to a prince so powerful as to endanger the balance of Europe.-Coxe's House of Austria chap. lxxxviii.

By the Treaty of Seville, concluded between Great Britain, France, and Spain, on the 9th of September, 1729, and shortly after acceded to by Holland, all former treaties were confirmed, and the several contracting parties agreed to assist each other in case of attack. The King of Spain revoked the privileges of trade which he had granted to the subjects of Austria by the Treaty of Vienna, and commissioners were to be appointed for the final adjustment of all commercial difficulties between Spain and Great Britain. In order to secure the succession of Parma and Tuscany to the Infant Dor Carlos, it was agreed that 6000 Spanish troops should be allowed to garrison Leghorn, Porto For rajo, Parma, and Placentia. This treaty passed over ir total silence the claim of Spain to Gibraltar.

absolutely necessary for us to commence the war. If ministers had at first insisted properly and peremptorily upon an explicit answer, Spain would have expressly abandoned her new and insolent claims and pretensions. But by the long experience we allowed her, she found the fruits of those pretensions so plentiful and so gratifying, that she thought them worth the hazard of a war. Sir, the damage we had sustained became so considerable, that it really was worth that hazard. Besides, the court of Spain was convinced, while we were under such an administration, that either nothing could provoke us to commence the war, or, that if we did, it would be conducted in a weak and miserable manner. Have we not, sir, since found that their opinion was correct? Nothing, sir, ever more demanded a parliamentary inquiry than our conduct in the war. The only branch into which we have inquired we have already censured and condemned. Is not this a good reason for inquiring into every other branch? Disappointment and ill success have always, till now, occasioned a parliamentary inquiry. Inactivity, of itself, is a sufficient cause for inquiry. We have now all these reasons combined. Our admirals abroad desire nothing more; because they are conscious that our inactivity and ill success will appear to proceed, not from their own misconduct, but from the misconduct of those by whom they were employed.

I can not conclude, sir, without taking notice of the two other foreign measures mentioned by the honorable gentleman. Our conduct in the year 1734, with regard to the war between the Emperor and France, may be easily accounted for, though not easily excused. Ever since the last accession of our late minister to power, we seem to have had an enmity to the house of Austria. Our guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction was an effect of that enmity, because we entered into it when, as hath since appeared, we had no intention to perform our engagement; and by that false guarantee we induced the Emperor to admit the introduction of the Spanish troops into Italy, which he would not otherwise have done.12 The preparations we made in that year, the armies we raised, and the fleet we fitted out, were not to guard against the event of the war abroad, but against the event of the ensuing elections at home. The new commissions, the promotions, and the money laid out in these preparations, were of admirable use at the time of a general election, and in come measure atoned for the loss of the excise scheme. But France and her allies were well convinced, that we would in no

12 See Walpole's explanation of his reason for remaining neutral, in his speech, page 39. Although England remained neutral during the progress of these hostilities, she augmented her naval and miiitary forces, "in order," said Mr. Pe'ham, in the course of the debate, "to be ready to put a stop to the arms of the victorious side, in case their ambi. tion should lead them to push their ques farther than was consonant with the balance of power in Europe."-Parl. Hist., vol xii. p. 479.

event declare against them, otherwise they would not then have dared to attack the Emperor; for Muscovy, Poland, Germany, and Britain would have been by much an over-match for them. It was not our preparations that set bounds to the ambition of France, but her getting all she want. ed at that time for herself, and all she dosired for her allies. Her own prudence suggested that it was not then a proper time to push her views further; because she did not know but that the spirit of this nation might overcome (as it since has with regard to Spain) the spirit of our administration; and should this have happened, the house of Austria was then in such a condition, that our assistance, even though late, would have been of effectual service.

I am surprised, sir, to hear the honorable gentleman now say, that we gave up nothing, or that we acquired any thing, by the infamous Convention with Spain. Did we not give up the freedom of our trade and navigation, by submitting it to be regulated by plenipotentiaries? Can freedom be regulated without being confined, and consequently in some part destroyed? Did we not give up Georgia, or some part of it, by submitting to have new limits settled by plenipotentiaries? Did we not give up all the reparation of the damage we had suffered, amount ing to five or six hundred thousand pounds, for the paltry sum of twenty-seven thousand pounds? This was all that Spain promised to pay, after deducting the sixty-eight thousand pounds which we, by the declaration annexed to that treaty, allowed her to insist on having from our South Sea Company, under the penalty of stripping them of the Assiento Contract, and all the privi leges to which they were thereby entitled. Even this sum of twenty-seven thousand pounds, or more, they had before acknowledged to be due on account of ships they allowed to have been unjustly taken, and for the restitution of wh.ch they had actually sent orders: so that by this infamous treaty we acquired nothing, while wa gave up every thing. Therefore, in my opinion, the honor of this nation can never be retrieved, unless the advisers and authors of it be censured and punished. This, sir, can not regularly be done without a parliamentary inquiry.

By these, and similar weak, pusillanimous, and wicked measures, we are become the ridicule of every court in Europe, and have lost the confidence of all our ancient allies. By these measures we have encouraged France to extend her ambitious views, and now at last to attempt carrying them into execution. By bad economy, by extravagance in our domestic measures, we have involved ourselves in such distress at home, that we are almost wholly incapable of entering into & war; while by weakness or wick. edress in our foreign measures, we have brought the affairs of Eurone to such distress that it is lust mesole for us to avoid it. Sir, we Pre teer brought upon a dangerous precipice. here we w find ourselves; and shall we trust to be led safely off by the same guide who has led cuf Sir, it is impossible for him to lead

as off. Sir, it is impossible for us to get off, without first recovering that confidence with our scient allies which formerly we possessed. This we can not do, so long as they suppose that our councils are influenced by our iate minister; and this they will suppose so long as he has access to the King's closet-so long as his conduct remains uninquired into and uncensured. It is not, therefore, in revenge for our past disasters, but from a desire to prevent them in future, that I am now so zealous for this inquiry. The punishment of the minister, be it ever so severe, will be but a small atonement for the past. But his impunity will be the source of many future mis

eries to Europe, as well as to his country. Let us be as merciful as we will, as merciful as any man can reasonably desire, when we come to pronounce sentence, but sentence we must pro nounce. For this purpose, unless we are resolved to sacrifice our own liberties, and the liberties of Europe, to the preservation of one guilty man, we must make the inquiry.

The motion was rejected by a majority of two A second motion was made a fortnight after, for an inquiry into the last ten years of Walpole's administration, which gave rise to another speech of Mr. Pitt. This will next be given.

SECOND SPEECH

OF LORD CHATHAM ON A MOTION TO INQUIRE INTO THE CONDUCT OF SIR ROBERT WAL. POLE, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 23, 1742.

INTRODUCTION.

LORD LIMERICK's first motion for an inquiry into the conduct of Walpole was lost chiefly through the bsence of Mr. Pulteney from the House during the illness of a favorite daughter. On the return of Pulteey at the end of a fortnight, the motion was renewed, with a variation in one respect, viz., that the in quiry be extended only to the last ten years of Walpole's continuance in office.

On that occasion, Mr. Pitt made the following speech in answer to Mr. Cook Harefield, who had re ently taken his seat in the House. In it he shows his remarkable power of reply; and argues with great force the propriety of inquiry, as leading to a decision whether an impeachment should be comnenced.

SPEECH, &c.

As the honorable gentleman who spoke last against the motion has not been long in the House, it is but charitable to believe him sincere in professing that he is ready to agree to a parliamentary inquiry when he thinks the occasion requires it. But if he knew how often such professions are made by those who upon all occasions o pose inquiry, he would now avoid them, be ause they are generally believed to be insincere. He may, it is true, have nothing to dread, on his own account, from inquiry. But when a gentleman has contracted, or any of his near relations have contracted, a friendship with one who may be brought into danger, it is very natural to suppose that such a gentleman's opposition to an inquiry does not entirely proceed from public motives; and if that gentleman follows the advice of some of his friends, I very much question whether he will ever think the cccasion requires an inquiry into the conduct of our public affairs.

As a parliamentary inquiry must always be founded upon suspicions, as well as upon facts or manifest crimes, reasons may always be found for alleging those suspicions to be without foundation; and upon the principle that a parliamentary inquiry must necessarily lay open the secrets of government, no time can ever be proper or convenient for such inquiry, because it is impossible to suppose a time when the goverument has no secrets to disclose

This, sir, would be a most convenient doctrine for ministers, because it would put an end to all parliamentary inquiries into the conduct of our public affairs; and, therefore, when I hear it urged, and so much insisted on, by a certain set of gentlemen in this House, I must suppose their hopes to be very extensive. I must suppose them to expect that they and their posterity will forever continue in office. Sir, this doctrine has been so often contradicted by experience, that I am surprised to hear it advanced by gentlemen now. This very session has afforded us a convincing proof that very little foundation exists for asserting, that a parliamentary inquiry must necessarily reveal the secrets of the gov ernment. Surely, in a war with Spain, which must be carried on principally by sea, if the government have secrets, the Lords of the Admiralty must be intrusted with the most import ant of them. Yet, sir, in this very session, we have, without any secret committees, made inquiry into the conduct of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. We have not only inquired into their conduct, but we have cen sured it in such a manner as to put an end to the trust which was before reposed in them. Has that inquiry discovered any of the secrets: of our government? On the contrary, the com. mittee found that there was no occasion to probe into such secrets. They found cause enough for censure without it and none of the Commission

« AnteriorContinuar »