Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

SPEECH

OF LORD CHATHAM ON A MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS ON THE MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCE OF WALES, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL, 29, 1736.

INTRODUCTION.

THIS was Mr. Pitt's maiden speech; and, literally understood, it is a mere string of courtly compliments, expressed in elegant diction. But it seems plainly to have had a deeper meaning. The King, who was extremely irritable, had quarreled with the Prince of Wales, and treated him with great severity. There was an open breach between them. They could not even speak to each other; and although the King desired the marriage, he would not allow the usual Address of Congratulation to be brought in by his ministers. In view of this extraordinary departure from established usage, and the feelings which it indicated on the King's part, Mr. Pitt's emphatic commendations of the young prince have a peculiar significance; while the manner in which he speaks of "the tender, paternal delight" which the King must feel in yielding to "the most dutiful application" of his son, has an air of the keenest irony. Viewed in this light, the speech shows great tact and talent in asserting the cause of the Prince, and goading the feelings of the King, in language of the highest respect-the very language which could alone be appropriate to such an occasion.

SPEECH, &c.

I am unable, sir, to offer any thing suitable to personage through his hours of retirement, to the dignity and importance of the subject, which view him in the milder light of domestic life, we has not already been said by my honorable friend should find him engaged in the noblest exercise who made the motion. But I am so affected of humanity, benevolence, and every social virwith the prospect of the blessings to be derived tue. But, sir, however pleasing, however captiby my country from this most desirable, this long-vating such a scene may be, yet, as it is a pridesired measure-the marriage of his Royal vate one, I fear I should offend the delicacy of Highness the Prince of Wales-that I can not that virtue to which I so ardently desire to do forbear troubling the House with a few words justice, were I to offer it to the consideration of expressive of my joy. I can not help mingling this House. But, sir, filial duty to his royal pamy offering, inconsiderable as it is, with this ob- | rents, a generous love of liberty, and a just revlation of thanks and congratulation to His Maj-erence for the British Constitution-these are esty.

public virtues, and can not escape the applause and benedictions of the public. These are virtues, sir, which render his Royal Highness not only a noble ornament, but a firm support, if any could possibly be wanting, of that throne so greatly filled by his royal father.

I have been led to say thus much of his Royal Highness's character, because it is the consideration of that character which, above all things,

However great, sir, the joy of the public may be-and great undoubtedly it is-in receiving this benefit from his Majesty, it must yet be inferior to that high satisfaction which he himself enjoys in bestowing it. If I may be allowed to suppose that any thing in a royal mind can transcend the pleasure of gratifying the earnest wishes of a loyal people, it can only be the tender, paternal delight of indulging the most dutiful ap-enforces the justice and goodness of his Majesplication, the most humble request, of a submissive and obedient son. I mention, sir, his Royal Highness's having asked a marriage, because something is in justice due to him for having asked what we are so strongly bound, by all the ties of duty and gratitude, to return his Majesty our humble acknowledgments for having granted.

The marriage of a Prince of Wales, sir, has at all times been a matter of the highest importance to the public welfare, to present and to future generations. But at no time (if a character at once amiable and respectable can embellish, and even dignify, the elevated rank of a Prince of Wales) has it been a more important, dearer consideration than at this day. Were it not a sort of presumption to follow so great a

ty in the measure now before us-a measure which the nation thought could never be taken too soon, because it brings with it the promise of an additional strength to the Protestant succession in his Majesty's illustrious and royal house. The spirit of liberty dictated that succession; the same spirit now rejoices in the prospect of its being perpetuated to the latest posterity. It rejoices in the wise and happy choice which his Majesty has been pleased to make of a princess so amiably distinguished in herself, so illustrious in the merit of her family, the glory of whose great ancestor it is to have sacrificed himself in the noblest cause for which a prince can draw a sword-the cause of liberty and the Protestant religion.

Such, sir, is the marriage for which our most

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

OF LORD CHATHAM ON THE SPANISH CONVENTION, delivered IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS MARCH 8, 1739.

INTRODUCTION.

DIFFICULTIES had arisen between England and Spain, from the measures adopted by the latter to suppress an illicit trade carried on by English adventurers with the coast of South America. The Spanish cruisers searched British merchantmen found in that quarter, and in so doing, either through mistake or design, committed outrages to a considerable extent upon lawful traders. Exaggerated accounts of these outrages were circulated throughout England. The public mind became greatly inflamed on the subject, and many went so far as to contend that the British flag covered her merchant ships and protected them from search under all circumstances.

ances.

Walpole opened a negotiation with the Court of Madrid for the redress and removal of these grievAfter due examination, the just claims of the English merchants upon Spain were set down at £200,000. On the other hand, the sum of £60,000 was now adjudged, under the stipulations of a former treaty, to be due from England to Spain, for captures made in 1718 by Admiral Byng. The balance due to England was thus settled at £140,000; and Walpole, to avoid the usual delay of the Spaniards in money matters, offered to make an abatement of £45,000 for prompt payment, thus reducing the entire amount to £95,000. To this the Spanish government gave their assent, but on the express condition that this arrangement should be considered as in no way affecting certain claims of Spain on the English South Sea Company.

As the result of this negotiation, a Convention was drawn up on the 14th of January, 1739, stipulating for the payment of £95,000 within four months from the exchange of ratifications. It also provided for the removal of all remaining difficulties, by agreeing that commissioners from England and Spain should meet within six weeks, to adjust all questions respecting trade between Europe and the colonies in America; and also to establish the boundary lines between Florida and the English settlements in Carolina, then embracing Georgia. It further stipulated that, during the sitting of this commission, the erection of fortifications should be suspended, both in Carolina and Florida. At the moment when this Convention was to be signed, the Spanish government gave notice, that as the South Sea Company was not embraced in this arrangement, the King of Spain held them to be his debtors to the amount of £68,000, for his share of the profits they had realized under previous engagements; and that, unless payment was made within a specified time, he would deprive them of the Assiento, or contract, which he had granted them for supplying South America with slaves. Such were the provisions of the famous Spanish Convention, and the circumstances under which it was signed.

The House of Commons appointed March 6th, 1739, for considering this Convention. The public mind was greatly agitated on the subject. There was a general outcry against it, as betraying at once the interests of the merchants and the honor of the country. Such was the excitement and expectation when the day arrived, that four hundred members took their seats in the House at 8 o'clock A.M., five hours before the time appointed for entering upon business. Two days were spent in examining witnesses and hearing numerous written documents relating to the subject. On the 8th of March, Mr. Horace Walpole, brother to the minister, after a long and able speech, moved in substance that "the House return thanks to his Majesty for communicating the Convention; for having taken measures to obtain speedy payment for the losses sustained by the merchants; and also for removing similar abuses in future, and preserving a lasting peace." After a number of members had expressed their views, Mr. Pitt rose and delivered the following speech, which gave him at once, and at the age of thirty, that ascendency as a speaker in the House of Commons which he afterward maintained.

SPEECH, &c.

you.

SIR,-There certainly has never been in Par- by the complicated question that is now before liament a matter of more high national concern than the Convention referred to the consideration of this committee; and, give me leave to say, there can not be a more indirect manner of taking the sense of the committee upon it than

We have here the soft name of an humble address to the Throne proposed, and for no other end than to lead gentlemen into an approbation of the Convention. Is this that full, deliberate

examination, which we were with defiance called upon to give to this Convention? Is this cursory, blended disquisition of matters of such variety and extent, all that we owe to ourselves and to our country? When trade is at stake, it is your last intrenchment; you must defend it or perish; and whatever is to decide that, deserves the most distinct consideration, and the most direct, undisguised sense of Parliament. But how are we now proceeding? Upon an artificial, ministerial question. Here is all the confidence, here is the conscious sense of the greatest service that ever was done to this country to be complicating questions, to be lumping sanction and approbation, like a commissary's account! to be covering and taking sanctuary in the royal name, in- | stead of meeting openly, and standing fairly, the direct judgment and sentence of Parliament upon the several articles of this Convention.

You have been moved to vote an humble address of thanks to his Majesty for a measure which (I will appeal to gentlemen's conversation in the world) is odious throughout the kingdom. Such thanks are only due to the fatal influence that framed it, as are due for that low, unallied condition abroad which is now made a plea for this Convention.

To what are gentlemen reduced in support of it? They first try a little to defend it upon its own merits; if that is not tenable, they throw out general terrors-the House of Bourbon is united, who knows the consequence of a war? Sir, Spain knows the consequence of a war in AmerWhoever gains, it must prove fatal to her. She knows it, and must therefore avoid it; but she knows that England does not dare to make it.

ica.

And what is a delay, which is all this magnified Convention is sometimes called, to produce? Can it produce such conjunctures as those which you lost while you were giving kingdoms to Spain, and all to bring her back again to that great branch of the house of Bourbon which is now held out to you as an object of so much terror? If this union be formidable, are we to delay only till it becomes more formidable, by being carried farther into execution, and by being more strongly cemented? But be it what it will, is this any longer a nation? Is this any longer an English Parliament, if, with more ships in your harbors than in all the navies of Europe; with above two millions of people in your American colonies, you will bear to hear of the expediency of receiving from Spain an insecure, unsatisfactory, dishonorable Convention? Sir, I call it no more than it has been proved in this debate; it carries fallacy or downright subjection in almost every line. It has been laid open and exposed in so many strong and glaring lights, that I can not pretend to add any thing to the conviction and indignation which it has raised.

Sir, as to the great national objection, the searching of your ships, that favorite word, as it

1 Alluding to the extravagant terms of praise in which Mr. H. Walpole had spoken of the Convention, and of those who framed it.

was called, is not, indeed, omitted in the preamble to the Convention, but it stands there as the reproach of the whole, as the strongest evidence of the fatal submission that follows. On the part of Spain, a usurpation, an inhuman tyranny, claimed and exercised over the American seas; on the part of England, an undoubted right by treaties, and from God and nature declared and asserted in the resolutions of Parliament, are referred to the discussion of plenipotentiaries upon one and the same equal footing! Sir, I say this undoubted right is to be discussed and to be regulated! And if to regulate be to prescribe rules (as in all construction it is), this right is, by the express words of this Convention, to be given up and sacrificed; for it must cease to be any thing from the moment it is submitted to limits.

The court of Spain has plainly told you (as appears by papers upon the table), that you shall steer a due course, that you shall navigate by a line to and from your plantations in America— if you draw near to her coast (though, from the circumstances of the navigation, you are under an unavoidable necessity of doing so), you shall be seized and confiscated. If, then, upon these terms only she has consented to refer, what becomes at once of all the security we are flattered with in consequence of this reference? Plenipotentiaries are to regulate finally the respective pretensions of the two crowns with regard to trade and navigation in America; but does a man in Spain reason that these pretensions must be regulated to the satisfaction and honor of England? No, sir, they conclude, and with reason, from the high spirit of their administration, from the superiority with which they have so long treated you, that this reference must end, as it has begun, to their honor and advantage.

But, gentlemen say, the treaties subsisting are to be the measure of this regulation. Sir, as to treaties, I will take part of the words of Sir William Temple, quoted by the honorable gentleman near me; it is vain to negotiate and to make treaties, if there is not dignity and vigor sufficient to enforce their observance. Under the misconstruction and misrepresentation of these very treaties subsisting, this intolerable grievance has arisen. It has been growing upon you, treaty after treaty, through twenty years of negotiation, and even under the discussion of commissaries, to whom it was referred. You have heard from Captain Vaughan, at your bar, at what time these injuries and indignities were continued. As a kind of explanatory comment upon this Convention which Spain has thought fit to grant you, as another insolent protest, under the validity and force of which she has suffered this Convention to be proceeded upon, she seems to say, 'We will treat with you, but we will search and take your ships; we will sign a Convention, but we will keep your subjects prisoners in Old Spain; the West Indies are remote; Europe shall witness in what manner we use you."

Sir, as to the inference of an admission of our right not to be searched, drawn from a reparation made for ships unduly seized and confis

cated, I think that argument very inconclusive. | lute, imperious manner, and most tamely and The right claimed by Spain to search our ships abjectly received by the ministers of England. is one thing, and the excesses admitted to have Can any verbal distinctions, any evasions whatbeen committed in consequence of this pretend- ever, possibly explain away this public infamy? ed right is another. But surely, sir, to reason To whom would we disguise it? To ourselves from inference and implication only, is below the and to the nation! I wish we could hide it from dignity of your proceedings upon a right of this the eyes of every court in Europe. They see vast importance. What this reparation is, what that Spain has talked to you like your master. sort of composition for your losses forced upon They see this arbitrary fundamental condition you by Spain, in an instance that has come to standing forth with a pre-eminence of shame, as light, where your own commissaries could not in a part of this very Convention. conscience decide against your claim, has fully appeared upon examination; and as for the payment of the sum stipulated (all but seven-andtwenty thousand pounds, and that, too, subject to a drawback), it is evidently a fallacious nominal payment only. I will not attempt to enter into the detail of a dark, confused, and scarcely intelligible account; I will only beg leave to conclude with one word upon it, in the light of a submission as well as of an adequate reparation. Spain stipulates to pay to the Crown of England ninety-five thousand pounds; by a preliminary protest of the King of Spain, the South Sea Company is at once to pay sixty-eight thousand of it: if they refuse, Spain, I admit, is still to pay the ninety-five thousand pounds; but how does it stand then? The Assiento Contract is to be suspended. You are to purchase this sum at the price of an exclusive trade, pursuant to a national treaty, and of an immense debt of God knows how many hundred thousand pounds, due from Spain to the South Sea Company. Here, sir, is the submission of Spain by the payment of a stipulated sum; a tax laid upon subjects of England, under the severest penalties, with the reciprocal accord of an English minister as a preliminary that the Convention may be signed; a condition imposed by Spain in the most abso

This Convention, sir, I think from my soul, is nothing but a stipulation for national ignominy; an illusory expedient to baffle the resentment of the nation; a truce, without a suspension of hostilities, on the part of Spain; on the part of England, a suspension, as to Georgia, of the first law of nature, self-preservation and self-defense; a surrender of the rights and trade of England to the mercy of plenipotentiaries, and, in this infinitely highest and most sacred point-future security-not only inadequate, but directly repugnant to the resolutions of Parliament and the gracious promise from the Throne. The complaints of your despairing merchants, and the voice of England, have condemned it. Be the guilt of it upon the head of the adviser: God forbid that this committee should share the guilt by approving it!

The motion was carried by a very small ma. jority, the vote being 260 to 232. Mr. Burke's statement respecting the merits of this question, as it afterward appeared, even to those who took the most active part against the Convention, may be found in his Regicide Peace. Whether Lord Chatham was one of the persons referred to by Mr. Burke as having changed their views, does not appear, but it is rather presumed not.

SPEECH

OF LORD CHATHAM AGAINST SEARCH-WARRANTS FOR SEAMEN, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 6, 1741.

INTRODUCTION.

WAR was declared against Spain in October, 1739, and it soon became extremely difficult to man the British fleets. Hence a bill was brought forward by Sir Charles Wager, in January, 1741, conferring authority on Justices of the Peace to issue search-warrants, under which constables might enter private dwellings either by day or by night-and, if need be, might force the doors-for the purpose of discovering seamen, and impressing them into the public service. So gross an act of injustice awakened the indignation of Mr. Pitt, who poured out the following invective against the measure, and those who were endeavoring to force it on the House.

SPEECH, &c.

SIR,-The two honorable and learned gentle- | men' who spoke in favor of this clause, were pleased to show that our seamen are half slaves already, and now they modestly desire you should 1 The Attorney and Solicitor General, Sir Dudley Ryder and Sir John Strange. The former was subsequently Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and the latter Master of the Rolls.

make them wholly so.
Will this increase your
number of seamen? or will it make those you
have more willing to serve you? Can you expect
that any man will make himself a slave if he can
avoid it? Can you expect that any man will
breed his child up to be a slave? Can you ex-
pect that seamen will venture their lives or their
limbs for a country that has made them slaves?

or can you expect that any seaman will stay in | the country, if he can by any means make his escape? Sir, if you pass this law, you must, in my opinion, do with your seamen as they do with their galley-slaves in France-you must chain them to their ships, or chain them in couples when they are ashore. But suppose this should both increase the number of your seamen, and render them more willing to serve you, it will render them incapable. It is a common observation, that when a man becomes a slave, he loses half his virtue. What will it signify to have your ships all manned to their full complement? Your men will have neither the courage nor the temptation to fight; they will strike to the first enemy that attacks them, because their condition can not be made worse by a surrender. Our seamen have always been famous for a matchless alacrity and intrepidity in time of danger; this has saved many a British ship, when other seamen would have run below deck, and left the ship to the mercy of the waves, or, perhaps, of a more cruel enemy, a piFor God's sake, sir, let us not, by our new projects, put our seamen into such a condition as must soon make them worse than the cowardly slaves of France or Spain.

rate.

The learned gentlemen were next pleased to show us that the government were already possessed of such a power as is now desired. And how did they show it? Why, sir, by showing that this was the practice in the case of felony, and in the case of those who are as bad as felons, I mean those who rob the public, or dissipate the public money. Shall we, sir, put our brave sailors upon the same footing with felons and public robbers? Shall a brave, honest sailor be treated as a felon, for no other reason but because, after a long voyage, he has a mind to solace himself among his friends in the country, and for that purpose absconds for a few weeks, in order to prevent his being pressed upon a Spithead, or some such pacific expedition? For I dare answer for it, there not a sailor in Britain but would immediately offer his services, if he thought his country in any real danger, or expected to be sent upon an expedition where he might have a chance of gaining riches to himself and glory to his country. I am really ashamed, sir, to hear such arguments made use of in any case where our seamen are concerned. Can we expect that brave men will not resent such treatment? Could we expect they would stay with us, if we should make a law for treating them in such a contemptible manner?

But suppose, sir, we had no regard for our seamen, I hope we shall have some regard for the rest of the people, and for ourselves in particular; for I think I do not in the least exaggerate when I say, we are laying a trap for the lives of all the men of spirit in the nation. Whether the law, when made, is to be carried into execution, I do not know; but if it is, we are laying a snare for our own lives. Every gentleman of this House must be supposed, I hope justly, to be a man of spirit. Would any

of you, gentlemen, allow this law to be executed in its full extent? If, at midnight, a petty constable, with a press-gang, should come thundering at the gates of your house in the country, and should tell you he had a search-warrant, and must search your house for seamen, would you at that time of night allow your gates to be opened? I protest I would not. What, then, would be the consequence? He has by this law a power to break them open. Would any of you patiently submit to such an indignity? Would not you fire upon him, if he attempted to break open your gates? I declare I would, let the consequence be never so fatal; and if you happened to be in the bad graces of a minister, the consequence would be your being either killed in the fray, or hanged for killing the constable or some of his gang. This, sir, may be the case of even some of us here; and, upon my honor, I do not think it an exaggeration to suppose it may.

[ocr errors]

The honorable gentlemen say no other remedy has been proposed. Sir, there have been several other remedies proposed. Let us go into a committee to consider of what has been, or may be proposed. Suppose no other remedy should be offered to tell us we must take this, because no other remedy can be thought of, is the same with a physician's telling his patient, “Sir, there is no known remedy for your distemper, therefore you shall take poison-I'll cram it down your throat." I do not know how the nation may treat its physicians; but, I am sure, if my physician told me so, I should order my servants to turn him out of doors.

Such desperate remedies, sir, are never to be applied but in cases of the utmost extremity, and how we come at present to be in such extremity I can not comprehend. In the time of Queen Elizabeth we were not thought to be in any such extremity, though we were then threatened with the most formidable invasion that was ever prepared against this nation. In our wars with the Dutch, a more formidable maritime power than France and Spain now would be, if they were united against us, we were not supposed to be in any such extremity, either in the time of the Commonwealth or of King Charles the Second. In King William's war against France, when her naval power was vastly superior to what it is at present, and when we had more reason to be afraid of an invasion than we can have at present, we were thought to be in no such extremity. In Queen Anne's time, when we were engaged in a war both against France and Spain, and were obliged to make great levies yearly for the land service, no such remedy was ever thought of, except for one year only, and then it was found to be far from being effectual.

This, sir, I am convinced, would be the case now, as well as it was then. It was at that time computed that, by means of such a law as this, there were not above fourteen hundred seamen brought into the service of the government; and, considering the methods that have been al

« AnteriorContinuar »