-1739.] 85 insults, peace exposed to injuries, is the most abject, is the most deplorable, is the most calamitous circumstance of human affairs. It is the worst effect that could be produced by the most ruinous war. With scorn let us reject it, that to all we have suffered before, to all the accumulated insults ever heaped upon a nation, a worse dishonour may not be added, and that dishonour fall upon the parliament. I therefore give my most hearty negative to this question."*

The minister spoke last in this important debate. His principal efforts were directed to remove the objection of its not being a definitive treaty. He readily allowed that it was not, but contended that it laid the foundation for one. He again adverted to the share which he had taken, in laying this foundation, and declared it to be his greatest boast at present, and would be his greatest honour in succeeding times, to be mentioned as the minister who had endea voured by this convention to prevent the necessity of making war upon a nation with whom it was our greatest interest to be at peace, at a time when the doubtful situation of Europe left us little hopes of assistance, and gave wellfounded apprehensions of being attacked by other powers. He declared that a war with Spain, after the concessions already made, was unjust, impolitic, and dishonourable; that England being a trading nation, the prosperity of that trade ought to be the principal object in

• Chandler.

view. "Admitting, however," he said, "that the convention has not effectually answered the expectations of the house, should it not be considered whether the declaration of war would benefit trade, what prospect of success could be reasonably entertained, and particularly whether even a successful war with Spain, might not involve us in a very doubtful and expensive war with other powers? These considerations seem never once to have occupied the thoughts of those who are adverse to the question. It is laid down as a maxim, that we ought immediately to enter into a war, and yet nothing is allowed for the uncertainty of the event, for the interruption of commerce, and the prodigious expense with which it would be attended. But should we even lay aside these considerations, are we to have no regard to common justice, to those treaties, the observance of which has been so justly contended for? These treaties pro hibit all trade with the Spanish West Indies, excepting that carried on by the annual Asiento ship. In contradiction then to these express stipulations, are our ships never to be searched, and is the trade to the Spanish West Indies open to every interloper? For what difference is there between throwing that trade open, and having a liberty not only of approaching their coasts, but even of hovering on them as long as we please, without being stopped or searched? These are the unjust concessions which the advocates of war require. The convention, on the contrary, stipulates that the treaties subsisting

between the two crowns, should be the rule for settling disputes relating to trade. We are, therefore, in no danger of suffering from the convention, because it is admitted that all we ought in reason to claim is, the observance of those treaties." He hoped, therefore, that the address would pass.

The address was carried by a majority of only 28; 260 against 232.*

On the ensuing day, March 9, the report of the resolution in the committee to address the king, being read, the re-commitment was warmly urged. Pulteney, who had reserved himself for this day, opened the debate, and was seconded by Sir William Wyndham. Their speeches were full of declamation and invective, and contained no new arguments. The minister replied in a long and elaborate speech, in which he defended the convention, and explained the treaties of 1667 and 1670. He showed that the demand of not searching British ships was new, and therefore it could not be expected that the Spaniards should renounce a right which they had hitherto exercised, without due examination. He observed, that the business was of so intricate, as well as delicate a nature, that it could not be settled at once, and in a moment, and therefore in reason, justice, and prudence, was properly left to the discussion of the plenipotentiaries. After a few other speeches of little consequence, the motion for a re-commitment was negatived by 244 against 214.†

CHAPTER 53.

1739.

Secession of the Minority-Consequences-Beneficial Acts of Parliament-Danish Subsidy-Attempt to repeal the Test Act-Opposition and Anecdotes of John Duke of Argyle-Vote of CreditTermination of the Spanish Negotiation-Declaration of WarConduct of England:-And of Sir Robert Walpole-Divisions in the Cabinet Lord Hervey made Privy Seal-Disputes with the Duke of Newcastle-Walpole thwarted by the King-Offers to resign.

THE last effort to prevent the address on the convention having proved ineffectual, great part of the minority carried into execution, a design which they had previously concerted. It was no less than to absent themselves, or, as it was called to secede from parliament.

Accordingly, Sir William Wyndham, to whose advice, at the instigation of Bolingbroke, this measure has been usually attributed, said, "I have seen with the utmost concern, this shameful, this fatal measure, approved by a majority of but 28, and I now rise to pay my last duty to my country, as a member of this house. !!!

"I was in hopes that the many unanswerable arguments urged in the debate against the convention, might have prevailed upon gentlemen for once to have listened to the dictates of reason; for once to have distinguished them

selves from being a faction, against the liberties and properties of their fellow subjects. I was the more in hopes of this, since in all the companies I have been in from the time this convention has been spoken of, I have not found one single person without doors pretend to justify it. Is it not strange, that the eloquence of one man' should have so great an effect within these walls, and the unanimous voice of a brave suffering people without, should have so little? I am surprised that I should be so blind as not to discern one argument that has the least appearance of reason, among all that has been offered, for our agreeing to this address. This must proceed either from the majority of this house being determined by arguments that we have not heard, or from my wanting common sense to comprehend the force of those we have heard. In the first case, I think I cannot, with honour, sit in an assembly determined by motives which I am not at liberty to mention; and if the last is the case, I look upon myself as a very unfit person to serve as a senator. I here, Sir, bid a final adieu to this house. Perhaps when another parliament shall succeed, I may be again at liberty to serve my country in the same capacity, I therefore appeal, Sir, to a future, free, uninflu enced house of commons. Let it be the judge of my conduct, [and that of my friends, on this occasion. Mean time, I shall conclude with doing that duty to my country, I am still at liberty to perform, which is to pray for its preservation: