ers pretended to justify their conduct by the as- | perpetrated with so much caution and secrecy sertion that the papers contained secrets which ought not to be disclosed. This, sir, is so recent, so strong a proof that there is no necessary connection between a parliamentary inquiry and a discovery of secrets which it behooves the nation to conceal, that I trust gentlemen will no longer insist upon this danger as an argument against the inquiry. Sir, the First Commissioner of the Treasury has nothing to do with the application of secret service money. He is only to take care that it be regularly issued from his office, and that no more be issued than the conjuncture of affairs appears to demand. As to the particular application, it properly belongs to the Secretary of State, or o such other persons as his Majesty employs. Hence we can not suppose the proposed inquiry will discover any secrets relative to the application of that money, unless the noble lord has acted as Secretary of State, as well as First Commissioner of the Treasury; or unless a great part of the money drawn out for secret service has been delivered to himself or persons employed by him, and applied toward gaining a corrupt influence in Parliament or at elections. Of both these practices he is most grievously suspected, and both are secrets which it very much behooves him to conceal. But, sir, it equally behooves the nation to discover them. His country and he are, in this cause, equally, although oppositely concerned. The safety or ruin of one or the other depends upon the fate of the question; and the violent opposition which this question has experienced adds great strength to the suspicion. I admit, sir, that the noble lord [Walpole], whose conduct is now proposed to be inquired into, was one of his Majesty's most honorable Privy Council, and consequently that he must have had a share at least in advising all the measures which have been pursued both abroad and at home. But I can not from this admit, that an inquiry into his conduct must necessarily occasion a discovery of any secrets of vital importance to the nation, because we are not to inquire into the measures themselves. But, sir, suspicions have gone abroad relative to his conduct as a Privy Counselor, which, if true, are of the utmost consequence to be inquired into. It has been strongly asserted that he was not only a Privy Counselor, but that he usurped the whole and sole direction of his Majesty's Privy Council. It has been asserted that he gave the Spanish court the first hint of the unjust claim they afterward advanced against our South Sea Company, which was one chief cause of the war between the two nations. And has been asserted that this very minister has advised the French in what manner to proceed in order to bring our Court into their measures; particularly, that he advised them as to the numerous army they have this last summer sent into Westphalia. What truth there is in these assertions, I pretend not to decide. The facts re of such a nature, and they must have been that it will be difficult to bring them to light even by a parliamentary inquiry; but the very suspicion is ground enough for establishing such inquiry, and for carrying it on with the utmost strictness and vigor. Whatever my opinion of past measures may be, I shall never be so vain, or bigoted to that opinion, as to determine, without any inquiry, against the majority of my countrymen. If 1 found the public measures generally condemned, let my private opinions of them be ever so favorable, I should be for inquiry in order to convince the people of their error, or at least to furnish myself with the most authentic arguments in favor of the opinion I had embraced. The desire of bringing others into the same senti. ments with ourselves is so natural, that I shall always suspect the candor of those who, in poli. tics or religion, are opposed to free inquiry. Besides, sir, when the complaints of the people are general against an administration, or against any particular minister, an inquiry is a duty which we owe both to our sovereign and the people. We meet here to communicate to our sovereign the sentiments of his people. We meet here to redress the grievances of the people. By performing our duty in both respects, we shall always be enabled to establish the throne of our sovereign in the hearts of his people, and to hinder the people from being led into insurrection and rebellion by misrepresenta tions or false surmises. When the people com plain, they must either be right or in error. It they be right, we are in duty bound to inquire into the conduct of the ministers, and to punish those who appear to have been most guilty. If they be in error, we ought still to inquire intc the conduct of our ministers, in order to convince the people that they have been misled. We ought not, therefore, in any question relating to inquiry, to be governed by our own sentiments. We must be governed by the sentiments of our constituents, if we are resolved to perform our duty, both as true representatives of the people, and as faithful subjects of our King. I perfectly agree with the honorable gentleman, that if we are convinced that the public measures are wrong, or that if we suspect them to be so, we ought to make inquiry, although there is not much complaint among the people. But I wholly differ from him in thinking that notwithstanding the administration and the minister are the subjects of complaint among the people, we ought not to make inquiry into his conduct unless we are ourselves convinced that his measures have been wrong. Sir, we can no more determine this question without in quiry, than a judge without a trial can declare any man innocent of a crime laid to his charge. Common fame is a sufficient ground for an inquisition at common law; and for the same reason, the general voice of the people of England ought always to be regarded as a sufficien ground for a parliamentary inquiry. But, say gentlemen, of what is this ministe accused? What crime is laid to his charge? | suppose our minister eithe: personally or by oth For, unless some misfortune is said to have hap- ers, has ever corrupted an election, because nc pened, or some crime to have been committed, information has been brought against him. Sir, no inquiry ought to be set on foot. Sir, the ill nothing but a pardon, upon the conviction of the posture of our affairs both abroad and at home; offender, has ever yet been offered in this case; the melancholy situation we are in; the distress and how could any informer expect a pardon, es to which we are now reduced, are sufficient and much less a reward, when he knew that the eauses for an inquiry, even supposing the minis- very man against whom he was to inform had ter accused of no particular crime or misconduct. not only the distribution of all public rewards, The nation lies bleeding, perhaps expiring. The but the packing of a jury or a Parliament against balance of power has been fatally disturbed. him? While such a minister preserves the faShall we acknowledge this to be the case, and vor of the Crown, and thereby the exercise of its shall we not inquire whether it has happened by power, this information can never be expected. mischance, or by the misconduct, perhaps by the malice prepense, of the minister? Before the Treaty of Utrecht, it was the general opinion that in a few years of peace we should be able to pay off most of our debts. We have now beer very nearly thirty years in profound peace, at least we have never been engaged in any war but what we unnecessarily brought upon ourselves, and yet our debts are almost as great as they were when that treaty was concluded.' Is not this a misfortune, and shall we not make inquiry into its cause? I am surprised to hear it said that no inquiry ought to be set on foot unless it is known that some public crime has been committed. Sir, the suspicion that a crime has been committed has always been deemed a sufficient reason for instituting an inquiry. And is there not now a suspicion that the public money has been applied toward gaining a corrupt influence at elections? Is it not become a common expression, "The food-gates of the Treasury are opened against a general election ?" I desire no more than that every gentleman who is conscious that such practices have been resorted to, either for or against him, should give his vote in favor of the motion. Will any gentleman say that this is no crime, when even private corruption has such high penalties inflicted by express statute against it? Sir, a minister who commits this crimewho thus abuses the public money, adds breach of trust to the crime of corruption; and as the erinic, when committed by him, is of much more dangerous consequence than when committed by a private man, it becomes more properly the object of a parliamentary inquiry, and merits the severest punishment. The honorable gentleman may with much more reason tell us that Porteous was never murdered by the mob at Edinburgh, because, notwithstanding the high reward as well as pardon proffered, his murderers were never discovered, than tell us that we can not Debt on the accession of George Decrease during the peace £54,145,363 £46,954,623 The case of Porteous, here referred to, was the one on which Sir Walter Scott founded ais "Heart of Midlothian." Porteous had been condemned to death for firing on the people of Edinburgh, but was reprieved at the moment when the execution was to have taken place. Exasperated at this, the mob, This shows, sir, the impotence of the act, mentioned by the honorable gentleman, respecting that sort of corruption which is called bribery. With regard to the other sort of corruption, which consists in giving or taking away those posts, pensions, or preferments which depend upon the arbitrary will of the Crown, the act is still more inefficient. Although it would be considered most indecent in a minister to tell any man that he gave or withheld a post, pension, or preferment, on account of his voting for or against any ministerial measure in Parliament, or any ministerial candidate at an election; yet, if he makes it his constant rule never to give a post, pension, or preferment, but to those who vote for his measures and his candidates; if he makes a few examples of dismissing those who vote otherwise, it will have the same effect as when he openly declares it.3 Will any gentleman say that this has not been the practice of the minister? Has he not declared, in the face of this House, that he will continue the prac tice? And will not this have the same effect as if he went separately to every particular man, and told him in express terms, "Sir, if you vote for such a measure or such a candidate, you shall have the first preferment in the gift of the Crown; if you vote otherwise, you must not expect to keep what you have ?" Gentlemen may deny that the sun shines at noon-day; but if they have eyes, and do not willfully shut them, or turn their backs, no man will believe them to be ingenuous in what they say. I think, therefore, that the honorable gentleman was in the right who endeavored to justify the practice. It was more candid than to deny it. But as his arguments have already been fully answered, I shall not farther discuss them. Gentlemen exclaim, "What! will you take from the Crown the power of preferring or cashiering the officers of the army?" No, sir, this is neither the design, nor will it be the effect of our agreeing to the motion. The King at presa few nights after, broke open his prison, and hanged him on the spot where he had fired. A reward of £200 was offered, but the perpetrators could not be discovered. 3 It will be recollected that, in consequence of his parliamentary opposition to Sir Robert Walpole, Mr. Pitt had been himself dismissed from the army. The Duke of Bolton and Lord Cobham had also, for a similar reason, been deprived of the command o their regiments. ent possesses the absolute power to prefer or cashier the officers of our army. It is a prerogative which he may employ for the benefit or safety of the public; but, like other prerogatives, it may be abused, and when it is so abused, the minister is responsible to Parliament. When an officer is preferred or cashiered for voting in favor of or against any court measure or candidate, it is an abuse of this prerogative, for which the minister is answerable. We may judge from circumstances or outward appearances-from these we may condemn, and I hope we have stili a power to punish a minister who dares to advise the King to prefer or cashier from such motives! Sir, whether this prerogative ought to remain as it is, without any limitation, is a question foreign to this debate. But I must observe, that the argument employed for it might, with equal justice, be employed for giving our King an absolute power over every man's property; because a large property will always give the possessor a command over a great body of men, whom he may arm and discipline if he pleases. I know of no law to restrain him-I hope none will ever exist-I wish our gentlemen of estates would make more use of this power than they do, because it would tend to keep our domestic as well as our foreign enemies in awe. For my part, I think that a gentleman who has earned his commission by his services (in his railitary capacity, I mean), or bought it with his money, has as much a property in it as any man has in his estate, and ought to have it as well secured by the laws of his country. While it remains at the absolute will of the Crown, he must, unless he has some other estate to depend on, be a slave to the minister; and if the officers of our army long continue in that state of slavery in which they are at present, I am afraid it will make slaves of us all. The only method to prevent this fatal consequence, as the law now stands, is to make the best and most constant use of the power we possess as members of this House, to prevent any minister from daring to advise the King to make a bad use of his prerogative. As there is such a strong suspicion that this minister has done so, we ought certainly to inquire into it, not only for the sake of punishing him if guilty, but as a terror to all future ministers. This, sir, may therefore be justly reckoned among the many other sufficient causes for the inquiry proposed. The suspicion that the civil list is greatly in debt is another; for if it is, it must either have been misapplied, or profusely thrown away, which abuse it is our duty both to prevent and to punish. It is inconsistent with the honor of this nation that the King should stand indebted to his servants or tradesmen, who may be ruined by delay of payment. The Parliament has provided sufficiently to prevent this dishonor from being brought upon the nation, and, if the provision we have made should be lavished or misapplied, we must supply the deficiency. We ought to do it, whether the King nakes any application for that purpose or not; and the reason is plain, because we ought first to inquire into the management of that revenue, and punish those who have occasioned the defi ciency. They will certainly choose to leave the creditors of the Crown and the honor of the nation in a state of suffering, rather than advise the King to make an application which may bring censure upon their conduct, and condign punishment upon themselves. Besides this, sir, another and a stronger reason exists for promot ing an inquiry. There is a strong suspicion that the public money has been applied toward corrupting voters at elections, and members when elected; and if the civil list be in debt, it affords reason to presume that some part of this revenue has, under the pretense of secret service money, been applied to this infamous purpose. I shall conclude, sir, by making a few remarks upon the last argument advanced against the proposed inquiry. It has been said that the minister delivered in his accounts annually; that these accounts were annually passed and approved by Parliament; and that therefore it would be unjust to call him now to a general account, because the vouchers may be lost, or many expensive transactions have escaped his memory. It is true, sir, estimates and accounts were annually delivered in. The forms of proceeding made that necessary. But were any of these estimates and accounts properly inquired into? Were not all questions of that description rejected by the minister's friends in Parlia ment? Did not Parliament always take them upon trust, and pass them without examination ? Can such a superficial passing, to call it no worse, be deemed a reason for not calling him to a new and general account? If the steward to an infant's estate should annually, for twenty years together, deliver in his accounts to the guardians; and the guardians, through negli gence, or for a share of the plunder, should annually pass his accounts without examination, or at least without objection; would that be a reason for saying that it would be unjust in the infant, when he came of age, to call his steward to account? Especially if that steward had built and furnished sumptuous palaces, living, during the whole time, at a much greater expense than his visible income warranted, and yet amassing great riches? The public, sir, is always in a state of infancy; therefore no prescription can be pleaded against it—not even a general release, if there is the least cause for supposing that it was surreptitiously obtained Public vouchers ought always to remain on record; nor ought any public expense to be incurred without a voucher-therefore the case of the public is still stronger than that of an infant Thus, sir, the honorable gentleman who made use of this objection, must see how little it avails in the case before us; and therefore I trust we shall have his concurrence in the question. The motion prevailed by a majority of seven A committee of twenty-one was appointed, com posed of Walpole's political and personal oppe nents. They entered on the inquiry with great tion from peculators and others, who might visn zeal and expectation. But no documentary to cover their crimes by making the minister a proofs of importance coula be found. Witnesses partaker in their guilt. "The result of all their were called up for examination as to their trans- inquiries," says Cooke, "was charges so few and actions with the treasury; but they refused to so ridiculous, when compared with those put fortestify, unless previously indemnified against the ward at the commencement of the investigation, consequences of the evidence they might be re- that the promoters of the prosecution were them. quired to give. The House passed a bill of in-selves ashamed of their work. Success was demnity, but the Lords rejected it, as dangerous found impracticable, and Lord Orford enjoyed his n its tendency, and celer lated to invite accusa- honors unmolested."-Hist. of Party, ii., 316. SPEECH OF LORD CHATHAM ON TAKING THE HANOVERIAN TROOPS INTO THE PAY OF GREAT BRITAIN, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, DEC. 10, 1742. INTRODUCTION. GEORGE II., when freed from the trammels of Walpole's pacific policy, had a silly ambition of appear. ing on the Continent, like William III., at the head of a confederate army against France, while he sought, at the same time, to defend and aggrandize his Electorate of Hanover at the expense of Great Britain. In this he was encouraged by Lord Carteret, who succeeded Walpole as actual minister. The King therefore took sixteen thousand Hanoverian troops into British pay, and sent them with a large English force into Flanders. His object was to create a diversion in favor of Maria Theresa, queen of Hungary, to whom the English were now affording aid, in accordance with their guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanc. tion. Two subsidies, one of £300,000 and another of £500,000, had already been transmitted for her re. lief; and so popular was her cause in England, that almost any sum would have been freely given. But there was a general and strong opposition to the King's plan of shifting the burdens of Hanover on to the British treasury. Mr. Pitt, who concurred in these views, availed himself of this opportunity to come out as the opponent of Carteret. He had been neglected and set aside in the arrangements which were made after the fall of Walpole; and he was not of a spirit tamely to bear the arrogance of the new min ister. Accordingly, when a motion was made to provide for the payment of the Hanoverian troops, he delivered the following speech, in reply to Henry Fox, who had said that he should continue to vote fr these measures till better could be proposed." SPEECH, &c. Sir, if the honorable gentleman determines to abandon his present sentiments as soon as any better measures are proposed, the ministry will quickly be deprived of one of their ablest defenders; for I consider the measures hitherto pursued so weak and so pernicious, that scarcely any alteration can be proposed that will not be for the advantage of the nation. The honorable gentleman has already been informed that no necessity existed for hiring auxiliary troops. It does not appear that either justice or policy required us to engage in the quarrels of the Continent; that there was any need of forming an army in the Low Countries; or that, in order to form an army, auxiliaries were necessary. But, not to dwell upon disputable points, I think it may justly be concluded that the measures of our ministry have been ill concerted, because it is undoubtedly wrong to squander the public money without effect, and to pay armies, only to be a show to our friends and a scorn to our enemies. The troops of Hanover, whom we are now expected to pay, marched into the Low Countries, sir, where they still remain. They marched to 1 See note to Walpole's speech, p. 40. | the place most distant from the enemy, least in danger of an attack, and most strongly fortified, had an attack been designed. They have, therefore, no other claim to be paid, than that they left their own country for a place of greater security. It is always reasonable to judge of the future by the past; and therefore it is probable that next year the services of these troops will not be of equal importance with those for which they are now to be paid. I shall not, therefore, be surprised, if, after such another glorious campaign, the opponents of the ministry be challenged to propose better measures, and be told that the money of this nation can not be more properly employed than in hiring Hanoverians to eat and sleep. But to prove yet more particularly that better measures may be taken-that more useful troops may be retained-and that, therefore, the honorable gentleman may be expected to quit those to whom he now adheres, I shall show that, in hiring the forces of Hanover, we have obstructed our own designs; that, instead of assisting the Queen of Hungary, we have withdrawn from her a part of the allies, and have burdened the nation with troops from which no service can reasonably be expected. The advocates of the ministry have, on this occasion, affected to speak of the balance of power, the Pragmatic Sanction, and the preservation of the Queen of Hungary, not only as if they were to be the chief care of Great Britain, which (although easily controvertible) might, in compliance with long prejudices, be possibly admitted; but as if they were to be the care of Great Britain alone. These advocates, sir, have spoken as if the power of France were formidable to no other people than ourselves; as if no other part of the world would be injured by becoming a prey to a universal monarchy, and subject to the arbitrary government of a French deputy; by being drained of its inhabitants only to extend the conquests of its masters, and to make other nations equally wretched; and by being oppressed with exorbitant taxes, levied by military executions, and employed only in supporting the state of its oppressors. They dwell upon the importance of public faith and the necessity of an exact observation of treaties, as if the Pragmatic Sanction had been signed by no other potentate than the King of Great Britain; as if the public faith were to be obligatory upon ourselves alone. That we should inviolably observe our treaties-observe them although every other nation should disregard them; that we should show an example of fidelity to mankind, and stand firm in the practice of virtue, though we should stand alone, I readily allow. I am, therefore, far from advising that we should recede from our stipulations, whatever we may suffer in their fulfillment; or that we should neglect the support of the Pragmatic Sanction, however we may be at present embarrassed, or however disadvantageous may be its assertion. But surely, sir, for the same reason that we observe our stipulations, we ought to excite other powers also to observe their own; at the least, sir, we ought not to assist in preventing them from doing so. But how is our present conduct agreeable to these principles? The Pragmatic Sanction was guaranteed, not only by the King of Great Britain, but by the Elector of Hanover also, who (if treaties constitute obligation) is thereby equally obliged to defend the house of Austria against the attacks of any foreign power, and to send his proportion of troops for the Queen of Hungary's support. Whether these troops have been sent, those whose province obliges them to possess some knowledge of foreign affairs, are better able to inform the House than myself. But, since we have not heard them mentioned in this debate, and since we know by experience that none of the merits of that Electorate are passed over in silence, it may, I think, be concluded that the distresses of the Queen of Hungary have yet received no alleviation from her alliance with Hanover; that her complaints have excited no compassion at that court, and that the justice of her cause has obtained no attention. To what can be attributed this negligence of treaties, this disregard of justice, this defect of compassion, but to the pernicious counse's of those who have advised his Majesty to hire and to send elsewhere those troops which should have been employed for the Queen of Hungary's assistance. It is not to be imagined, sir, that his Majesty has more or less regard to justice as King of Great Britain, than as Electer of Hanover; or that he would not have sent his proportion of troops to the Austrian army, had not the temptation of greater proît been laid industriously before him. But this is not all tha: may be urged against such conduct. For, can we imagine that the power, that the designs of France, are less formidable to Hanover than Great Britain? Is it less necessary for the security of Hanover than of ourselves, that the house of Austria should be re-established it its former splendor and influence, and enabled to support the liberties of Europe against the enormous attempts at universal monarchy by France? If, therefore, our assistance to the Queen of Hungary be an act of honesty, and granted in consequence of treaties, why may it not be equally required of Hanover? If it be an act of generosity, why should this country alone be obliged to sacrifice her interests for those of others? or why should the Elector of Hanover exer; his liberality at the expense of Great Britain? It is now too apparent, sir, that this great, this powerful, this mighty nation, is considered only as a province to a despicable Electorate; and that in consequence of a scheme formed long ago, and invariably pursued, these troops are hired only to drain this unhappy country of its money. That they have hitherto been of ao use to Great Britain or to Austria, is evident beyond a doubt; and therefore it is plain that they are retained only for the purposes of Hano ver. How much reason the transactions of almost every year have given for suspecting this absurd, ungrateful, and perfidious partiality, it is not necessary to declare. I doubt not that most of those who sit in this House can recollect a great number of instances in point, from the purchase of part of the Swedish dominions, to the contract which we are now called upon to ratify. Few, I think, can have forgotten the memorable stipulation for the Hessian troops: for the forces of the Duke of Wolfenbuttle, which we were scarcely to march beyond the verge of their own country or the ever memorable treaty, the tendency of which is discovered in the name. A treaty by which we disunited ourselves from Austria; destroyed that building which we now endeavor, perhaps in vain, to raise again; and weakened the only power to which it was our interest to give strength. : To dwell on all the instances of partiality which have been shown, and the yearly visits which have been paid to that delightful country; to reckon up all the sums that have been spent to aggrandize and enrich it, would be an irksome and invidious task-invidious to those who are afraid to be told the truth, and irksome to those who are unwilling to hear of the dishonor and injuries of their country. I shall not dwell far |