Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

against him; that he desired no favor, but simply a fair hearing; and concluded by laying his hand on his breast, and declaring, in the words of his favorite Horace, that he was "conscious of no crime, and dreaded no accusation." At the end of two days the motion was made; and such was the eagerness of public expectation, that the galleries were filled before daybreak, and many of the members took their places in the House at six o'clock in the morning to secure themselves a seat. At one o'clock, when the debate opened, nearly five hundred members of Parliament were present.

On bringing forward his motion, Sandys, in a speech of great length and considerable ability, went over all the charges which from time to time had been urged against the minister. As to none of them did he attempt any new proofs; and nearly all were of that general nature which would certainly justify inquiry, but hardly authorize any decisive action. His main argument, after all, was, that Walpole had been at the head of affairs for twenty years, and that the people were tired of him as a minister, and hated him as a man. He ended by saying, "I have not, at present, any occasion for showing that the Favorite I am now complaining of has been guilty of heinous crimes, yet I will say that there is a very general suspicion against him; that this suspicion is justified by the present situation of our affairs both at home and abroad; and that it is ridiculous to expect that any proper discovery should be made as long as he is in possession of all the proofs, and has the distribution of all the penalties the crown can inflict, as well as of all the favors the crown can bestow. Remove him from the King's councils and presence; remove him from those high offices and power he is now possessed of. If he has been guilty of any crimes, the proofs may then be come at, and the witnesses against him will not be afraid to appear. Till you do this, it is impossible to determine whether he is guilty or innocent; and, considering the universal clamor against him, it is high time to reduce him to such a condition that he may be brought to a fair, an impartial, and a strict account. If he were conscious of his being entirely innocent, and had a due regard to the security and glory of his master and sovereign, he would have chosen to have put himself into this condition long before this time. Since he has not thought fit to do so, it is our duty to endeavor to do it for him; and, therefore, I shall conclude with moving, 'That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to remove the right honorable Sir Robert Walpole, knight of the most noble order of the garter, first commissioner for executing the office of treasurer of the exchequer, chancellor and under-treasurer of the exchequer, and one of his Majesty's most honorable privy council, from his Majesty's presence and councils forever.'"

A few days after, Walpole made a speech of four hours, in reply to Sandys and others, by whom he had been attacked. We have only an imperfect outline of his argument in the speech given below, but there is reason to believe that the introductory part and the conclusion are very nearly in his own words.

SPEECH, &c.

It has been observed by several gentlemen, in vindication of this motion, that if it should be carried, neither my life, liberty, nor estate will be affected. But do the honorable gentlemen consider my character and reputation as of no moment? Is it no imputation to be arraigned before this House, in which I have sat forty years, and to have my name transmitted to pos

1 In quoting the words of Horace (Epistle I., 61), Walpole gave them thus:

Nil conscire sibi, nulli pallescere culpa, Pulteney, who sat by, cried out, "Your Latin is as

bad as your logic!" "Nulla pallescere culpâ !" Walpole defended his quotation, and offered to bet

a guinea on its correctness. The question was accordingly referred to Sir Nicholas Hardinge, clerk of the House, whose extraordinary erudition was acknowledged by all, and he at once decided in favor of Pulteney. Walpole tossed him the guinea, and Pulteney, as he caught it, held it up before the House, exclaiming, "It is the only money I have received from the treasury for many years, and it shall be the last." He kept the guinea to the end of his

life, as a memento of this occurrence, and left it to

his children, with a paper stating how it was won, and adding, "This guinea I desire may be kept as an heir-loom. It will prove to my posterity the use of knowing Latin, and will encourage them in their learning." It is now deposited in the medal-room of the British Museum.

terity with disgrace and infamy? I will not conceal my sentiments, that to be named in Parliament as a subject of inquiry, is to me a matter of great concern. But I have the satisfaction, at the same time, to reflect, that the impression to be made depends upon the consistency of the charge and the motives of the prosecutors.

Had the charge been reduced to specific allegations, I should have felt myself called upon for a specific defense. Had I served a weak or wicked master, and implicitly obeyed his dictates, obedience to his commands must have been

my only justification. But as it has been my good fortune to serve a master who wants no bad ministers, and would have hearkened to none, my defense must rest on my own conduct. The consciousness of innocence is also a sufficient support against my present prosecutors. A further justification is derived from a consideration of the views and abilities of the prosecutors. Had I been guilty of great enormities, they want neither zeal and inclination to bring them forward, nor ability to place them in the scious of no crime, my own experience convinces most prominent point of view. But as I am conme that none can be justly imputed.

I must therefore ask the gentlemen, From whence does this attack proceed? From the passions and prejudices of the parties combined

That

court side more united than on the other? Are not the Tories, Jacobites, and Patriots equally determined? What makes this strict union? What cements this heterogeneous mass? Party

ever different their views and principles, they all agree in opposition. The Jacobites distress the government they would subvert; the Tories contend for party prevalence and power. The Patriots, from discontent and disappointment, would change the ministry, that themselves may exclusively succeed. They have labored this point twenty years unsuccessfully. They are impatient of longer delay. They clamor for change of measures, but mean only change of ministers.

against me, who may be divided into three class- | be asked on this point, Are the people on the es, the Boys, the riper Patriots, and the Tories.1 The Tories I can easily forgive. They have unwillingly come into the measure; and they do me honor in thinking it necessary to remove me, as their only obstacle. What, then, is the infer-engagements and personal attachments. Howence to be drawn from these premises? demerit with my opponents ought to be considered as merit with others. But my great and principal crime is my long continuance in office; or, in other words, the long exclusion of those who now complain against me. This is the heinous offense which exceeds all others. I keep from them the possession of that power, those honors, and those emoluments, to which they so ardently and pertinaciously aspire. I will not attempt to deny the reasonableness and necessity of a party war; but in carrying on that war, all principles and rules of justice should not be departed from. The Tories must confess that the most obnoxious persons have felt few instances of extra-judicial power. Wherever they have been arraigned, a plain charge has been exhibited against them. They have had an impartial trial, and have been permitted to make their defense. And will they, who have experienced this fair and equitable mode of proceeding, act in direct opposition to every principle of justice, and establish this fatal precedent of parliamentary inquisition? Whom would they conciliate by a conduct so contrary to principle and precedent?

Can it be fitting in them [the Tories], who have divided the public opinion of the nation, to share it with those who now appear as their competitors? With the men of yesterday, the boys in politics, who would be absolutely contemptible did not their audacity render them detestable? With the mock patriots, whose practice and professions prove their selfishness and malignity; who threatened to pursue me to destruction, and who have never for a moment lost sight of their object? These men, under the name of Separatists, presume to call themselves exclusively the nation and the people, and under that character assume all power. In their estimation, the King, Lords, and Commons are a faction, and they are the government. Upon these principles they threaten the destruction of all authority, and think they have a right to judge, direct, and resist all legal magistrates. They withdraw from Parliament because they succeed in nothing; and then attribute their want of success, not to its true cause, their own want of integrity and importance, but to the effect of places, pensions, and corruption. May it not

[blocks in formation]

In party contests, why should not both sides be equally steady? Does not a Whig administration as well deserve the support of the Whigs as the contrary? Why is not principle the cement in one as well as the other; especially when my opponents confess that all is leveled against one man? Why this one man? Because they think, vainly, nobody else could withstand them. All others are treated as tools and vassals. The one is the corrupter; the numbers corrupted. But whence this cry of corruption, and exclusive claim of honorable distinction? Compare the estates, characters, and fortunes of the Commons on one side with those on the other. Let the matter be fairly investigated. Survey and examine the individuals who usually support the measures of government, and those who are in opposition. Let us see to whose side the balance preponderates. Look round both Houses, and see to which side the balance of virtue and talents preponderates! Are all these on one side, and not on the other? Or are all these to be counterbalanced by an affected claim to the exclusive title of patriotism? Gentlemen have talked a great deal of patriotism. A venerable word, when duly practiced. But I am sorry to say that of late it has been so much hackneyed about, that it is in danger of falling into disgrace. The very idea of true patriotism is lost, and the term has been prostituted to the very worst of purposes. A patriot, sir! Why, patriots spring up like mushrooms! I could raise fifty of them within the four-and-twenty hours. I have raised many of them in one night. It is but refusing to gratify an unreasonable or an insolent demand, and up starts a patriot. I have never been afraid of making patriots; but I disdain and despise all their efforts. This pretended virtue proceeds from personal malice and disappointed ambition. There is not a man among them whose particular aim I am not able to ascertain, and from what motive they have entered into the lists of opposition.

I shall now consider the articles of accusation

which they have brought against me, and which they have not thought fit to reduce to specific charges; and I shall consider these in the same

ency some months after, when war was declared against Spain.

order as that in which they were placed by the honorable member who made the motion. First, in regard to foreign affairs; secondly, to domestic affairs; and, thirdly, to the conduct of the war. I. As to foreign affairs, I must take notice of the uncandid manner in which the gentlemen on the other side have managed the question, by blending numerous treaties and complicated negotiations into one general mass.

I hope it will not be said we had any reason to quarrel with France upon that account; and therefore, if our accepting of that mediation might have produced a rupture with France, it was not our duty to interfere unless we had something very beneficial to expect from the acceptance. A reconciliation between the courts of Vienna and Madrid, it is true, was desirable to all Europe as well as to us, provided it had been brought about without any design to disturb our tranquillity or the tranquillity of Europe. But both parties were then so high in their de

if the negotiation had ended without effect, we might have expected the common fate of arbitrators, the disobliging of both. Therefore, as it was our interest to keep well with both, I must still think it was the most prudent part we could act to refuse the offered mediation.

To form a fair and candid judgment of the subject, it becomes necessary not to consider the treaties merely insulated; but to advert to the time in which they were made, to the circum-mands that we could hope for no success; and stances and situation of Europe when they were made, to the peculiar situation in which I stand, and to the power which I possessed. I am called repeatedly and insidiously prime and sole minister. Admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that I am prime and sole minister in this country, am I, therefore, prime and sole minister of all Europe? Am I answerable for the conduct of other countries as well as for that of my own? Many words are not wanting to show, that the particular view of each court occasioned the dangers which affected the public tranquillity; yet the whole is charged to my account. Nor is this sufficient. Whatever was the conduct of England, I am equally arraigned. If we maintained ourselves in peace, and took no share in foreign transactions, we are reproached for tameness and pusillanimity. If, on the contrary, we interfered in these disputes, we are called Don Quixotes, and dupes to all the world. If we contracted guarantees, it was asked why is the nation wantonly burdened? If guarantees were declined, we were reproached with having no allies.

I have, however, sir, this advantage, that all the objections now alleged against the conduct of the administration to which I have the honor to belong, have already been answered to the satisfaction of a majority of both houses of Parliament, and I believe to the satisfaction of a majority of the better sort of people in the nation. I need, therefore, only repeat a few of these answers that have been made already, which I shall do in the order of time in which the several transactions happened; and consequently must begin with our refusing to accept of the sole mediation offered us by Spain, on the breach between that court and the court of France, occasioned by the dismission of the Infanta of Spain.3

3 The Infanta of Spain was betrothed to Louis XV., king of France, when four years old, and was sent to Paris to be educated there. At the end of two years, Louis broke off the engagement and sent her back to Madrid. This indignity awakened the keenest resentment at the Spanish court, which sought to involve England in the quarrel by offering to make her sole mediator in respect to existing differences between Spain and the Emperor of Germany, thus throwing Spain entirely into the hands of England. The English government, for the reasons here assigned by Walpole, wisely rejected the mediation, and this was now imputed to him as a crime.

The next step of our foreign conduct, exposed to reprehension, is the treaty of Hanover. Sir if I were to give the true history of that treaty, which no gentleman can desire I should, I am sure I could fully justify my own conduct. But as I do not desire to justify my own without justifying his late Majesty's conduct, I must observe that his late Majesty had such information as convinced not only him, but those of his council, both at home and abroad, that some dangerous designs had been formed between the Emperor and Spain at the time of their concluding the treaty at Vienna, in May, 1725; designs, sir, which were dangerous not only to the liberties of this nation, but to the liberties of Europe. They were not only to wrest Gibraltar and Port Mahon from this nation, and force the Pretender upon us; but they were to have Don Carlos married to the Emperor's eldest daughter, who would thereby have had a probability of uniting in his person, or in the person of some of his successors, the crowns of France and Spain, with the imperial dignity and the Austrian dominions. It was therefore highly reasonable, both in France and us, to take the alarm at such designs, and to think betimes of preventing their being carried into execution. But with regard to us, it was more particularly our business to take the alarm, because we were to have been immediately attacked. I shall grant, sir, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for Spain

Spain now turned her resentment against England, and settled her differences with the Emperor of Germany on terms so favorable to the latter, as to awaken suspicions (which were confirmed by se. cret intelligence) that some hidden compact had been made, for conjointly attacking the dominions of England. To counteract this, England, in 1725, united with France, Prussia, Denmark, and Holland, in an opposing league, by a compact called the treaty of Hanover, from the place where it was made. The evidence of these facts could not then be brought forward to defend the ministry; and hence the treaty of Hanover, and the consequent expenditures on the Continent, were extremely unpopular in England. But subsequent disclosures have made it nearly or quite certain, that every thing here alleged by Walpole was strictly true.

and the Emperor joined together, to have invaded or made themselves masters of any of the British dominions. But will it be said they might not have invaded the King's dominions in Germany, in order to force him to a compliance with what they desired of him as King of Great Britain ? And if those dominions had been invaded on account of a quarrel with this nation, should we not have been obliged, both in honor and interest, to defend them? When we were thus threatened, it was therefore absolutely necessary for us to make an alliance with France; and that we might not trust too much to their assistance, it was likewise necessary to form alliances with the northern powers, and with some of the princes in Germany, which we never did, nor ever could do, without granting them immediate subsidies. These measures were, therefore, I still think, not only prudent, but necessary; and by these measures we made it much more dangerous for the Emperor and Spain to attack us, than it would otherwise have been.

But still, sir, though by these alliances we put ourselves upon an equal footing with our enemies in case of an attack, yet, in order to preserve the tranquillity of Europe as well as our own, there was something else to be done. We knew that war could not be begun and carried on without money; we knew that the Emperor had no money for that purpose without receiving large remittances from Spain; and we knew that Spain could make no such remittances without receiving large returns of treasure from the West Indies. The only way, therefore, to render these two powers incapable of disturbing the tranquillity of Europe, was by sending a squadron to the West Indies to stop the return of the Spanish galleons; and this made it necessary, at the same time, to send a squadron to the Mediterranean for the security of our valuable possessions in that part of the world. By these measures the Emperor saw the impossibility of attacking us in any part of the world, because Spain could give him no assistance either in money or troops; and the attack made by the Spaniards upon Gibraltar was so feeble, that we had no occasion to call upon our allies for assistA small squadron of our own prevented their attacking it by sea, and from their attack by land we had nothing to fear. They might have knocked their brains out against inaccessible rocks to this very day, without bringing that fortress into any danger.

ance.

I do not pretend, sir, to be a great master of foreign affairs. In that post in which I have the honor to serve his Majesty, it is not my business to interfere; and as one of his Majesty's council, I have but one voice. But if I had been the sole adviser of the treaty of Hanover, and of all the measures which were taken in pursuance of it, from what I have said I hope it will appear

that I do not deserve to be censured either as a weak or a wicked minister on that account.

The next measures which incurred censure were the guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction by the second treaty of Vienna, and the refusal

of the cabinet to assist the house of Austria, in conformity with the articles of that guarantee.5

As to the guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction, I am really surprised to find that measure objected to. It was so universally approved of, both within doors and without, that till this very day I think no fault was ever found with it, unless it was that of being too long delayed. If it was so necessary for supporting the balance of power in Europe, as has been insisted on in this debate, to preserve entire the dominions of the house of Austria, surely it was not our business to insist upon a partition of them in favor of any of the princes of the empire. But if we had, could we have expected that the house of Austria would have agreed to any such partition, even for the acquisition of our guarantee? The King of Prussia had, it is true, a claim upon some lordships in Silesia; but that claim was absolutely denied by the court of Vienna, and was not at that time so much insisted on by the late King of Prussia. Nay, if he had lived till this time, I believe it would not now have been insisted on; for he acceded to that guarantee without any reservation of that claim; therefore I must look upon this as an objection which has since arisen from an accident that could not then be foreseen or provided against.

I must therefore think, sir, that our guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction, or our manner of doing it, can not now be objected to, nor any person censured by Parliament for advising that measure. In regard to the refusal of the cabinet to assist the house of Austria, though it was prudent and right in us to enter into that guarantee, we were not therefore obliged to enter into every broil the house of Austria might afterward lead themselves into. And therefore, we were not in honor obliged to take any share in the war which the Emperor brought upon himself in the year 1733; nor were we in interest obliged to take a share in that war as long as neither side attempted to push their conquests farther than was consistent with the balance of power in Europe, which was a case that did not happen. For the power of the house of Austria was not diminished by the event of that war, because they got Tuscany, Parma, and Placentia in lieu of Naples and Sicily; nor was the power of France much increased, because Lor

5 Charles VI., emperor of Germany, having no male issue, made an instrument called a Pragmatic Sanction, by which all his hereditary estates were to devolve on his female descendants. To give this instrument greater force, he induced nearly all the powers of Europe (and England among the rest, for reasons assigned by Walpole) to unite in a guarantee for carrying it into effect. But this, although designed to secure Austria against a partition be tween various claimants, in case of his death, was other power to interfere in all the quarrels in which certainly not intended to pledge England or any

the Emperor might engage. When he became involved in war with France, therefore, in 1733, by supporting Augustus for the vacant throne of Poland, against the remonstrances of Walpole, the latter was under no obligation to afford him aid.

raine was a province she had taken and kept | English counsels ? And if to English counsels, possession of during every war in which she had why are they to be attributed to one man? been engaged.

As to the disputes with Spain, they had not then reached such a height as to make it necessary for us to come to an open rupture. We had then reason to hope, that all differences would be accommodated in an amicable manner; and while we have any such hopes, it can never be prudent for us to engage ourselves in war, especially with Spain, where we have always had a very beneficial commerce. These hopes, it is true, sir, at last proved abortive; but I never heard it was a crime to hope for the best. This sort of hope was the cause of the late Convention. If Spain had performed her part of that preliminary treaty, I am sure it would not have been wrong in us to have hoped for a friendly accommodation; and for that end to have waited nine or ten months longer, in which time the plenipotentiaries were, by the treaty, to have adjusted all the differences subsisting between the two nations. But the failure of Spain in performing what had been agreed to by this preliminary, put an end to all our hopes, and then, and not till then, it became prudent to enter into hostilities, which were commenced as soon as possible after the expiration of the term limited for the payment of the £95,000.o

II. I now come, sir, to the second head, the conduct of domestic affairs. And here a most heinous charge is made, that the nation has been burdened with unnecessary expenses, for the sole purpose of preventing the discharge of our debts and the abolition of taxes. But this attack is more to the dishonor of the whole cabinet council than to me. If there is any ground for this imputation, it is a charge upon King, Lords, and Commons, as corrupted, or imposed upon. And they have no proof of these allegations, but affect to substantiate them by common fame and public notoriety!

No expense has been incurred but what has been approved of, and provided for, by Parliament. The public treasure has been duly applied to the uses to which it was appropriated by Parliament, and regular accounts have been annually laid before Parliament, of every article of expense. If by foreign accidents, by the disputes of foreign states among themselves, or by their designs against us, the nation has often been put to an extraordinary expense, that expense can not be said to have been unnecessary; because, if by saving it we had exposed the balance of power to danger, or ourselves to an attack, it would have cost, perhaps, a hundred times that sum before we could recover from that danger, or repel that attack.

In all such cases there will be a variety of opinions. I happened to be one of those who thought all these expenses necessary, and I had the good fortune to have the majority of both houses of Parliament on my side. But this, it seems, proceeded from bribery and corruption.

it had been shown that I ever offered a reward to any member of either House, or ever threatened to deprive any member of his office or employment, in order to influence his vote in Parliament, there might have been some ground for this charge. But when it is so generally laid, I do not know what I can say to it, unless it be to deny it as generally and as positively as it has

Strong and virulent censures have been cast on me for having commenced the war without a single ally; and this deficiency has been ascribed to the multifarious treaties in which I have bewildered myself. But although the authors of this imputation are well apprised, that all these treaties have been submitted to and approved by Parliament, yet they are now brought forward as crimes, without appealing to the judg-Sir, if any one instance had been mentioned, if ment of Parliament, and without proving or declaring that all or any of them were advised by me. A supposed sole minister is to be condemned and punished as the author of all; and what adds to the enormity is, that an attempt was made to convict him uncharged and unheard, without taking into consideration the most arduous crisis which ever occurred in the annals of Europe. Sweden corrupted by France; Denmark tempted and wavering; the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel almost gained; the King of Prussia, the Emperor, and the Czarina, with whom alliances had been negotiating, dead; the Austrian dominions claimed by Spain and Bavaria; the Elector of Saxony hesitating whether he should accede to the general confederacy planned by France; the court of Vienna irresolute and indecisive. In this critical juncture, if France enters into engagements with Prussia, and if the Queen of Hungary hesitates and listens to France, are all or any of those events to be imputed to

This is the only point on which Walpole is tame and weak. It is exactly the point where, if he had acted a manly part eighteen months before, his defense would have been most triumphant. He knew there was no ground for a war with Spain; and he ought to have held to the truth on that point, even at the sacrifice of his office.

This "critical juncture" was occasioned by the recent death of the Emperor Charles VI. Under the Pragmatic Sanction, his Austrian possessions fell to his daughter Maria Theresa, queen of Hungary; but were claimed in part by Spain, though chiefly by the Elector of Bavaria, supported by France. Frederick of Prussia, afterward called the Great, between France and the Queen; but offered to supwho had just succeeded his father, was fluctuating port the latter if she would cede to him Silesia. Walpole, who wished to defeat the plans of France, advised her to yield to this demand, though unjust, and thus prevent a general war. Her ministers were weak and irresolute, and the affairs of Europe were in utter confusion. The proud spirit of the Queen soon decided the question. She refused the surrender of Silesia, was attacked by Frederick and the French, and was on the brink of ruin; when she made, seven months after this speech was delivered, her celebrated appeal for support to the Diet of Hungary, by which, in the words of Johnson, “The Queen, the Beauty, set the world in arms."

« AnteriorContinuar »