Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

been asserted. And, thank God! till some proof be offered, I have the laws of the land, as well as the laws of charity, in my favor.

Some members of both Houses have, it is true, been removed from their employments under the Crown; but were they ever told, either by me, or by any other of his Majesty's servants, that it was for opposing the measures of the administration in Parliament? They were removed because his Majesty did not think fit to continue them longer in his service. His Majesty had a right so to do; and I know no one that has a right to ask him, "What doest thou?" If his Majesty had a mind that the favors of the Crown should circulate, would not this of itself be a good reason for removing any of his servants? Would not this reason be approved of by the whole nation, except those who happen to be the present possessors? I can not, therefore, see how this can be imputed as a crime, or how any of the King's ministers can be blamed for his doing what the public has no concern in; for if the public be well and faithfully served, it has no business to ask by whom.

As to the particular charge urged against me, I mean that of the army debentures, I am surprised, sir, to hear any thing relating to this affair charged upon me. Whatever blame may attach to this affair, it must be placed to the account of those that were in power when I was, as they call it, the country gentleman. It was by them this affair was introduced and conducted, and I came in only to pay off those public securities, which their management had reduced to a great discount; and consequently to redeem our public credit from that reproach which they had brought upon it. The discount at which these army debentures were negotiated, was a strong and prevalent reason with Parliament to apply the sinking fund first to the payment of those debentures; but the sinking fund could not be applied to that purpose till it began to produce something considerable, which was not till the year 1727. That the sinking fund was then to receive a great addition, was a fact publicly known in 1726; and if some people were sufficiently quick-sighted to foresee that the Parliament would probably make this use of it, and cunning enough to make the most of their own foresight, could I help it, or could they be blamed for doing so? But I defy my most inveterate enemy to prove that I had any hand in bringing these debentures to a discount, or that I had any share in the profits by buying them up.

In reply to those who confidently assert that the national debt is not decreased since 1727, and that the sinking fund has not been applied to the discharge of the public burdens, I can with truth declare, that a part of the debt has been paid off; and the landed interest has been very much eased with respect to that most unequal and grievous burden, the land tax. I say so, sir, because upon examination it will appear, that within these sixteen or seventeen years, no

• One who held himself bound to neither party.

less than £8,000,000 of our debt has been actually discharged, by the due application of the sinking fund; and at least £7,000,000 has been taken from that fund, and applied to the ease of the land tax. For if it had not been applied to the current service, we must have supplied that service by increasing the land tax; and as the sinking fund was originally designed for paying off our debts, and easing us of our taxes, the application of it in ease of the land tax, was certainly as proper and necessary a use as could be made. And I little thought that giving relief to landed gentlemen, would have been brought against me as a crime.9

III. I shall now advert to the third topic of accusation: the conduct of the war. I have already stated in what manner, and under what circumstances, hostilities commenced; and as I am neither general nor admiral-as I have nothing to do either with our navy or army-I am sure I am not answerable for the prosecution of it. But were I to answer for every thing, no fault could, I think, be found with my conduct in the prosecution of the war. It has from the beginning been carried on with as much vigor, and as great care of our trade, as was consistent with our safety at home, and with the circumstances we were in at the beginning of the war. If our attacks upon the enemy were too long delayed, or if they have not been so vigorous or so frequent as they ought to have been, those only are to blame who have for many years been haranguing against standing armies; for, without a sufficient number of regular troops in proportion to the numbers kept up by our neighbors, I am sure we can neither defend ourselves nor offend our enemies. On the supposed miscarriages of the war, so unfairly stated, and so unjustly imputed to me, I could, with great ease, frame an incontrovertible defense. But as I have trespassed so long on the time of the House, I shall not weaken the effect of that forcible exculpation, so generously and disinterestedly advanced by the right honorable gentleman who so meritoriously presides at the Admiralty.

If my whole administration is to be scrutinized and arraigned, why are the most favorable parts to be omitted? If facts are to be accumulated on one side, why not on the other? And why

• Here Walpole dexterously avoids the main point of the difficulty. In 1717, it was provided by law be converted into what was called the Sinking that all the surplus income of the government should Fund, which was to be used for paying off the public debt. This principle was strictly adhered to down to 1729, when more than a million of this fund was used for current expenses, instead of laying taxes to meet them. The same thing was done in six other instances, under Walpole's administration. Now it is true, as Walpole says, that by thus applying the fund, he lessened the land tax. Still, sign; and if the taxes had been uniformly laid for it was a perversion of the fund from its original deall current expenses, and the fund been faithfully applied to its original purpose, the debt (small as it then was) might perhaps have wholly been extinguished.

to see those honors which their ancestors have worn, restored again to the Commons.

would have followed? Have I acted wrong in giving the place of auditor to my son, and in providing for my own family? I trust that their advancement will not be imputed to me as a crime, unless it shall be proved that I placed them in offices of trust and responsibility for which they were unfit.

But while I unequivocally deny that I am sole and prime minister, and that to my influence and direction all the measures of the government must be attributed, yet I will not shrink from the responsibility which attaches to the post I have the honor to hold; and should, during the

any one step taken by government be proved to be either disgraceful or disadvantageous to the nation, I am ready to hold myself accountable.

may not I be permitted to speak in my own favor? Was I not called by the voice of the King and the nation to remedy the fatal effects of the Have I given any symptoms of an avaricious South Sea project, and to support declining cred- disposition? Have I obtained any grants from it? Was I not placed at the head of the treas- the Crown, since I have been placed at the head ury when the revenues were in the greatest con- of the treasury? Has my conduct been differfusion? Is credit revived, and does it now flour-ent from that which others in the same station ish? Is it not at an incredible height, and if so, to whom must that circumstance be attributed? Has not tranquillity been preserved both at home and abroad, notwithstanding a most unreasonable and violent opposition? Has the true interest of the nation been pursued, or has trade flourished? Have gentlemen produced one instance of this exorbitant power; of the influence which I extend to all parts of the nation; of the tyranny with which I oppress those who oppose, and the liberality with which I reward those who support me? But having first invested me with a kind of mock dignity, and styled me a prime minister, they impute to me an unpardon-long period in which I have sat upon this bench, able abuse of that chimerical authority which they only have created and conferred. If they are really persuaded that the army is annually established by me, that I have the sole disposal of posts and honors, that I employ this power in the destruction of liberty and the diminution of commerce, let me awaken them from their delusion. Let me expose to their view the real condition of the public weal. Let me show them that the Crown has made no encroachments, that all supplies have been granted by Parliament, that all questions have been debated with the same freedom as before the fatal period in which my counsels are said to have gained the ascendency; an ascendency from which they deduce the loss of trade, the approach of slavery, the preponderance of prerogative, and the extension of influence. But I am far from believing that they feel those apprehensions which they so earnestly labor to communicate to others; and I have too high an opinion of their sagacity not to conclude that, even in their own judgment, they are complaining of grievances that they do not suffer, and promoting rather their private interest than that of the public.

To conclude, sir, though I shall always be proud of the honor of any trust or confidence from his Majesty, yet I shall always be ready to remove from.his councils and presence when he thinks fit; and therefore I should think myself very little concerned in the event of the present question, if it were not for the encroachment that will thereby be made upon the prerogatives of the Crown. But I must think that an address to his Majesty to remove one of his servants, without so much as alleging any particular crime against him, is one of the greatest encroachments that was ever made upon the prerogatives of the Crown. And therefore, for the sake of my master, without any regard for my own, I hope all those that have a due regard for our constitution, and for the rights and prerogatives of the Crown, without which our constitution can not be preserved, will be against this motion.

This speech had a great effect. The motion for an address was negatived by a large majority. But the advantage thus gained was only temA spirit of disaffection had spread throughout the kingdom; and the next elecWhat have been the effects of the corruption, tions, which took place a few months after, ambition, and avarice with which I am so abund-showed that the power and influence of Walpole antly charged?

What is this unbounded sole power which is imputed to me? How has it discovered itself,porary. or how has it been proved?

were on the decline. Still he clung to office Have I ever been suspected of being corrupt- with a more desperate grasp than ever. He ed? A strange phenomenon, a corrupter him- used some of the most extraordinary expedients self not corrupt! Is ambition imputed to me? ever adopted by a minister, to divide the OppoWhy then do I still continue a commoner? I, sition and retain his power. He even opened a who refused a white staff and a peerage. I had, negotiation with the Pretender at Rome, to ob indeed, like to have forgotten the little ornament tain the support of the Jacobites. But his ef about my shoulders [the garter], which gentle- forts were in vain. He lost his majority in the men have so repeatedly mentioned in terms of House; he was compelled to inform the King sarcastic obloquy. But surely, though this may that he could no longer administer the governbe regarded with envy or indignation in another ment; he was created Earl of Orford with a place, it can not be supposed to raise any resent-pension of £4000 a year, and resigned all his ment in this House, where many may be pleased offices on the 11th of February, 1742.

MR. PULTENEY.

WILLIAM PULTENEY, first Earl of Bath, was born in 1682. He was elected a member of Parliament in early life, and applied himself to the diligent study of the temper of the House, and the best mode of speaking in so mixed and discordant an assembly. He made no attempts to dazzle by any elaborate display of eloquence; for it was his maxim, that "there are few real orators who commence with set speeches." His powers were slowly developed. He took part in almost every important debate, more (at first) for his own improvement than with any expectation of materially changing the vote. He thus gradually rose into one of the most dexterous and effective speakers of the British Senate.

His speeches, unfortunately, have been worse reported, in respect to the peculiar characteristics of his eloquence, than those of any of his contemporaries. The following one, however, though shorter than might be wished, is undoubtedly a fair specimen of the bold, direct, and confident, though not overbearing manner, in which he ordinarily addressed himself to the judgment and feelings of the House. The language is uncommonly easy, pointed, and vigorous. The sentences flow lightly off in a clear and varied sequence, without the slightest appearance of stateliness or mannerism. It is the exact style for that conversational mode of discussion which is best adapted to the purposes of debate.

Walpole, when displaced by the exertions of Pulteney in 1742, had the satisfaction of dragging down his adversary along with him. He saw that the Opposition must go to pieces the moment they were left to themselves; that a new administration could never be framed out of such discordant materials; and that whoever should undertake it would be ruined in the attempt. He therefore induced the King to lay that duty upon Pulteney. The result was just what he expected. The King insisted on retaining a large proportion of Walpole's friends. Comparatively few offices remained for others, and both Whigs and Tories were disappointed and enraged. Pulteney shrunk from taking office himself, under these circumstances. He professed great disinterestedness; he had no desire for power; he would merely accept a peerage, which all parties regarded as the reward of his perfidy. He was created Earl of Bath; and the name of Patriot, as Horace Walpole tells us, became a term of derision and contempt throughout all the kingdom. When the newly-created earls met for the first time in the House of Lords, Walpole walked up to Pulteney, and said to him, with a mixture of pleasantry and bitterness, for which he was always distinguished, "Here we are, my Lord, the two most insignificant fellows in England." Pulteney died on the 8th of June, 1764.

SPEECH

OF MR. PULTENEY ON A MOTION FOR REDUCING THE ARMY, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

SIR, We have heard a great deal about Parliamentary armies, and about an army continued from year to year. I have always been, sir, and always shall be, against a standing army of any kind. To me it is a terrible thing, whether under that of Parliamentary or any other designa

tion. A standing army is still a standing army, whatever name it be called by. They are a body of men distinct from the body of the people; they are governed by different laws; and blind obedience, and an entire submission to the orders of their commanding officer, is their only principle.

The nations around us, sir, are already enslaved, | that case happens, I am afraid that, in place of and have been enslaved by these very means: Parliament's dismissing the army, the army will by means of their standing armies they have ev- dismiss the Parliament, as they have done hereery one lost their liberties. It is indeed impos- tofore. Nor does the legality or illegality of that sible that the liberties of the people can be pre- Parliament, or of that army, alter the case. For served in any country where a numerous stand- with respect to that army, and according to their ing army is kept up. Shall we, then, take any way of thinking, the Parliament dismissed by of our measures from the examples of our neigh-them was a legal Parliament; they were an bors? No, sir, on the contrary, from their misfortunes we ought to learn to avoid those rocks upon which they have split.

It signifies nothing to tell me, that our army is commanded by such gentlemen as can not be supposed to join in any measures for enslaving their country. It may be so. I hope it is so! I have a very good opinion of many gentlemen now in the army. I believe they would not join in any such measures. But their lives are uncertain, nor can we be sure how long they may be continued in command; they may be all dismissed in a moment, and proper tools of power put in their room. Besides, sir, we know the passions of men; we know how dangerous it is to trust the best of men with too much power. Where was there a braver army than that under Julius Cesar? Where was there ever an army that had served their country more faithfully? That army was commanded generally by the best citizens of Rome-by men of great fortune and figure in their country; yet that army enslaved their country.

army raised and maintained according to law; and at first they were raised, as they imagined, for the preservation of those liberties which they afterward destroyed.

It has been urged, sir, that whoever is for the
Protestant succession must be for continuing the
army for that very reason, sir, I am against
continuing the army. I know that neither the
Protestant succession in his Majesty's most illus-
trious house, nor any succession, can ever be safe
so long as there is a standing army in the coun-
try. Armies, sir, have no regard to hereditary
successions. The first two Cesars at Rome did
pretty well, and found means to keep their armies
in tolerable subjection, because the generals and
officers were all their own creatures. But how
did it fare with their successors ?
Was not ev-
ery one of them named by the army, without
any regard to hereditary right, or to any right?
A cobbler, a gardener, or any man who hap-
pened to raise himself in the army, and could
gain their affections, was made Emperor of the
The affections of the sol-world. Was not every succeeding Emperor
raised to the throne, or tumbled headlong into
the dust, according to the mere whim or mad
phrensy of the soldiers?

diers toward their country, the honor and integ-
rity of the under officers, are not to be depended
on. By the military law, the administration of
justice is so quick, and the punishments so se-
vere, that neither officer nor soldier dares offer
to dispute the orders of his supreme commander;
he must not consult his own inclinations. If an
officer were commanded to pull his own father
out of this House, he must do it; he dares not
disobey;
immediate death would be the sure
consequence of the least grumbling. And if an
officer were sent into the Court of Requests, ac-
companied by a body of musketeers with screw-
ed bayonets, and with orders to tell us what we
ought to do, and how we were to vote, I know
what would be the duty of this House; I know
it would be our duty to order the officer to be
taken and hanged up at the door of the lobby.
But, sir, I doubt much if such a spirit could be
found in the House, or in any House of Com-
mons that will ever be in England.

We are told this army is desired to be continued but for one year longer, or for a limited term of years. How absurd is this distinction! Is there any army in the world continued for any term of years? Does the most absolute monarch tell his army, that he is to continue them any number of years, or any number of months? How long have we already continued our army from year to year? And if it thus continues, wherein will it differ from the standing armies of those countries which have already submitted their necks to the yoke? We are now come to the Rubicon. Our army is now to be reduced, or never will. From his Majesty's own mouth we are assured of a profound tranquillity abroad, and we know there is one at home. If this is not a proper time, if these circumstances do not afford us a safe opportunity for reducing at least a part of our regular forces, we never can ex

Sir, I talk not of imaginary things. I talk of what has happened to an English House of Com-pect to see any reduction. This nation, already mons, and from an English army; and not only overburdened with debts and taxes, must be loadfrom an English army, but an army that was ed with the heavy charge of perpetually supportraised by that very House of Commons, an army ing a numerous standing army; and remain forthat was paid by them, and an army that was ever exposed to the danger of having its liberties commanded by generals appointed by them. and privileges trampled upon by any future king Therefore do not let us vainly imagine that an or ministry, who shall take in their head to do army raised and maintained by authority of Par- | so, and shall take a proper care to model the liament will always be submissive to them. If army for that purpose. an army be so numerous as to have it in their power to overawe the Parliament, they will be submissive as long as the Parliament does nothing to disoblige their favorite general; but when

The bill for continuing the army on the same footing was passed by a large majority.

LORD CHESTERFIELD.

PHILIP DORMER STANHOPE, fourth Earl of Chesterfield, was born in 1694. He was equally distinguished for his love of polite literature, the grace of his manners, the pungency of his wit, and the elegance of his literary productions. In later times he has been most known by his Letters to his Son. These, though admirable models of the epistolary style, are disfigured by a profligacy of sentiment which has cast a just odium on his character; while the stress they lay upon mere accomplishments has created a very natural suspicion, among those who have seen him only in that correspondence, as to the strength and soundness of his judgment. He was unquestionably, however, a man of great acuteness and force of intellect. As an orator, Horace Walpole gave him the preference over all the speakers of his day. This may have arisen, in part, from the peculiar dexterity with which he could play with a subject that he did not choose to discuss-a kind of talent which Walpole would be very apt to appreciate. It often happens that weak and foolish measures can be exposed more effectually by wit than by reasoning. In this kind of attack Lord Chesterfield had uncommon power. His fancy supplied him with a wide range of materials, which he brought forward with great ingenuity, presenting a succession of unexpected combinations, that flashed upon the mind with all the liveliness and force of the keenest wit or the most poignant satire. The speech which follows is a specimen of his talent for this kind of speaking. "It will be read with avidity by those who relish the sprightly sallies of genius, or who are emulous of a style of eloquence which, though it may not always convince, will never fail to delight.”

The speech relates to a bill for granting licenses to gin-shops, by which the ministry hoped to realize a very large annual income. This income they proposed to employ in carrying on the German war of George II., which arose out of his exclusive care for his Electorate of Hanover, and was generally odious throughout Great Britain. Lord Chesterfield made two speeches on this subject, which are here given together, with the omission of a few unimportant paragraphs. It has been hastily inferred, from a conversation reported by Boswell, that these speeches, as here given, were written by Johnson. Subsequent inquiry, however, seems to prove that this was not the fact; but, on the contrary, that Lord Chesterfield prepared them for publication himself.

Lord Chesterfield filled many offices of the highest importance under the reign of George II. In 1728 he was appointed embassador to Holland; and, by his adroitness and diplomatic skill, succeeded in delivering Hanover from the calamities of war which hung over it. As a reward for his services, he was made Knight of the Garter and Lord Steward of the Royal Household. At a later period he was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. This difficult office he discharged with great dexterity and self-command, holding in check the various factions of that country with consummate skill. On his return to England in 1746, he was called to the office of Secretary of State; but, having become wearied of public employments, he soon resigned, and devoted the remainder of his life to the pursuits of literature and the society of his friends. He now carried on the publication of a series of papers in imitation of the Spectator, entitled the World, in which some of the best specimens may be found of his light, animated, and easy style of writing. Toward the close of his life he became deaf, and suffered from numerous bodily infirmities, which filled his latter days with gloom and despondency. He bore the most emphatic testimony to the folly and disappointment of the course he had led, and died in 1773, at the age of seventy-nine.

« AnteriorContinuar »