the protestant succession, and introduced the more narrow distinction of Whig and Tory. He said, "I have always gloried in being thought a Whig; I hope I shall never by my behaviour, either in this house, or without doors, give the least occasion to the world to think otherwise of me; and for this very reason, I am for keeping up an army, because I think the keeping up an army absolutely necessary for supporting the Whig interest, and preserving the peace and quiet of the people. In every dispute that has happened of late years about our army, I have looked upon the question to be chiefly, whether Whig or Tory should prevail? And as I have always thought, as I believe every unprejudiced Whig in the kingdom thinks, that if the army should be disbanded, or very much reduced, the Tory interest would prevail; therefore, I have generally been against such reductions, and always shall be cautious of agreeing to any such proposition. Nay, I am so firmly attached to the Whig interest, that if I should think four times the number of troops absolutely necessary for supporting that interest, I would be for keeping up a standing army four times as numerous as that we have now on foot."

These injudicious assertions infused a new spirit into the anti-ministerial Whigs. Lord Polwarth, in a sensible and animated speech, justified the Whigs who opposed government, and explained the nature of the old Whig principles. He endeavoured to prove that the question did not turn on distinguishing who were Whigs,

and who were Tories, but simply according to their present behaviour and political conduct. From thence he insinuated, that the ministerial party, who affected to distinguish themselves by the appellation of Whigs, acted in contradiction to the principles of that body, and were in reality Tories; and that those whom they invidiously styled Tories, while they were directed and actuated by this principle, were in reality Whigs. After making these observations, he added, "I am apt to suspect that my honourable friend calls this the Whig interest, and if so, I shall readily agree with him, that what he calls the Whig interest, being what I call the Tory interest, cannot be supported without a standing army. This may be a prevailing argument with him for being against any reduction; but it is an argument that has quite a different influence with me; for I think no interest, nor any party of men, ought to be supported, if a standing army becomes necessary for their support."* Neither the minister, nor any of his adherents, took any share in these frivolous altercations, which only tended to the unnecessary prolongation of the debate. After speeches from Lyttleton, Sir Thomas Saunderson, and Pitt, the motion for reducing the army was negatived by 249 against

164.

I have thought it necessary to enlarge on this debate, and to particularize the part taken by the minister, as well because it proves that the address which Walpole had employed to render

• Chandler.

the Tories odious, by confounding them with the Jacobites, had not been unsuccessful, as because the substance of the speech has been shamefully misrepresented by some modern writers, who have indirectly attributed to Walpole, expressions used by others which he never employed, and have totally mistaken the spirit and meaning of his arguments."

* The accounts of this debate given by Smollett and Belsham, are here subjoined to show that Smollett has misrepresented the debate, and how carelessly Belsham has copied his narrative, and added his own errors.

SMOLLETT.

"The adherents of the minister fairly owned, that if the army should be disbanded, or even considerably reduced, the Tory interest would prevail: that the present number of forces was absolutely necessary to maintain the peace of the kingdom, which was filled with clamour and discontent, as well as to support the Whig interest; and that they would vote for keeping up four times the number, should it be found expedient for that purpose. The members in the opposition replied, that this was a severe satire on the ministry, whose conduct had given birth to such a spirit of discontent. They said it was in effect a tacit acknowledgment, that what they called the Whig interest was no more than an inconsiderable party, which had engrossed the administration by indirect methods, which acted contrary to the sense of the nation, and de

BELSHAM.

The ministry scrupled not to affirm, "That if the army was disbanded, the Tory interest would quickly predominate: that the kingdom was filled with clamour and discontent, which a standing military force only could effectually suppress that the support of the Whig interest demanded the maintenance of this force; and it was hoped and presumed the house would triple the number, if adjudged necessary for this purpose." The members of the opposition replied, in their accustomed strain of vain reasoning, "that this vindication contained in it a sentence of selfcondemnation, for to what cause could the spirit of clamour and discontent be ascribed, but to the conduct of the ministry? and it was from their own acknowledgment clear, that what they were pleased to style the Whig interest, was, in fact, an inconsiderable party, which had en

The Spanish affairs so much occupied the public attention, that all other considerations were totally overlooked. Had not this been the

pended for support upon a military power, by whom the people in general were overawed, and consequently enslaved. They affirmed, that the discontent of which the ministry complained, was in effect owing to that very standing army, which perpetuated their taxes, and hung over their heads as the instruments of arbitrary power and oppression. Lord Polwarth explained the nature of Whig principles, and demonstrated that the party which distinguished itself by this appellation, no longer retained the maxims by which the Whigs were originally characterised. Sir John Hynde Cotton who spoke with the courage and freedom of an old English baron, declared he never knew a member of that house, who acted on true Whig principles, vote for a standing army in time of peace, &c." History of England, vol. 3. p. 5.

Smollett imputes to the adhe rents of the minister, expressions which were only used by one individual member, who was not in administration; and Belsham, omitting the words adherents of, and putting only the ministry, leaves the reader to suppose, that Walpole himself, or some of the ministry, had been so absurd as to declare, that a standing army was necessary to support the Whig interest, and that if the army was disbanded, the Tory interest would prevail.

grossed the power of government by indirect and unconstitutional methods, which acted contrary to the sense of the nation, and which depended for support upon that very military force which was the grand source of the national discontent, which perpetuated the national taxes, and which menaced the national liberties with destruction. The claim of the ministry and their adherents in the house to the appellation of Whigs, was warmly disputed; and Sir John Hynde Cotton declared, that a genuine Whig could never vote for a standing army in time of peace, &c."

This author has substituted, of his own authority, frequent parliaments, for triennial parliaments, the expression used both in Chandler and Smollett. Memoirs of the Brunswick Family, vol. 1. p. 372.

case, a resolution made this session, would have attracted public notice, and have incurred the censure of those writers, who affect a high regard for the liberty of the press. I allude to the enforcement of the standing order, prohibiting the publication of the debates, while the house was sitting, and the extension of that prohibition to the recess. The speaker said, he saw with concern, that an account of their proceedings was inserted in the newspapers, and other periodical publications, by which means the speeches were liable to great misrepresentation, and hoped the house would find some method of preventing this abuse. Sir William Yonge, Sir William Wyndham, and Winnington, agreed with the speaker on the propriety, of this measure. Pulteney enforced the necessity of putting a stop to the practice so justly. complained of. He was of opinion, that no appeals should be made to the public, concerning the proceedings of the house. He urged, that to print speeches, even if they should not be misrepresented, was making the speakers accountable without doors, for what they said within. He then declared, that however anxious to check this scandalous practice, he was unwilling that it should be done in such a manner, as might affect the liberty of the press, or appear as if the house claimed a privilege to which it was not entitled. That although he had no doubt it was in the power of that house to punish printers for publishing an account of their proceedings, even during the recess; yet as that