the reward proposed by this bill to be offered to volunteers, I am convinced that the most strict and general search would not bring in half the number. Shall we, then, for the sake of adding six or seven hundred, or even fourteen hundred seamen to his Majesty's navy, expose our constitution to so much danger, and every housekeeper in the kingdom to the danger of being disturbed at all hours in the night?

"But suppose this law were to have a great effect, it can be called nothing but a temporary expedient; because it can no way contribute towards increasing the number of our seamen, or towards rendering them more willing to enter into his Majesty's service. It is an observation made by Bacon upon the laws passed in Henry the Seventh's reign, that all of them were calculated for futurity as well as the present time.* This showed the wisdom of his councils: I wish I could say so of our present. We have for some years thought of nothing but expedients for getting rid of some present inconvenience by running ourselves into a greater. The ease or convenience of posterity was never less thought of, I believe, than it has been of late years. I wish I could see an end of these temporary expedients; for we have been pursuing them so long, that we have almost undone our country, and overturned our constitution. Therefore, Sir, I shall be for leaving this clause out of the bill, and every other clause relating to it. The bill will be of some service without them; and when we have passed it, we may then go into a committee to consider of some lasting methods for increasing our stock of seamen, and for encouraging them upon all occasions to enter into his Majesty's service."

All the clauses relative to the granting of search warrants were rejected.†

LORD LIMERICK'S MOTION FOR AN INQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS DURING THE LAST TWENTY YEARS.

On the assembling of a new Parliament in December, 1742, Sir Robert Walpole found himself in repeated minorities, and was forced, reluctantly, to retire from office. On the 9th February, 1741, he was created Earl of Orford, and on the 11th he resigned.

1742. March 9. A motion was this day made in the House of Commons, by Lord Limerick, for a committee to inquire into the conduct of affairs at home and abroad, during the last twenty years. This motion was opposed

"Certainly his (Henry the Seventh's) times for good commonwealth's laws did excel, so as he may justly be celebrated for the best lawgiver to this nation, after King Edward the First; for his laws, whoso marks them well, are deep, and not vulgar; not made upon the spur of a particular occasion for the present, but out of providence for the future, to make the estate of his people still more and more happy; after the manner of the legislators in ancient and heroical times."-Bacon's Works, vol. iii. p. 233, Edition 1834.

A measure somewhat similar, but more exceptionable, had been rejected in the previous year.

by Mr. Pelham,* who, in the course of his speech, observed that "it would very much shorten the debate, if gentlemen would keep close to the argument, and not run into long harangues or flowers of rhetoric, which might be introduced upon any other subject as well as the present."

"What the gentlemen on the other side mean by long harangues or flowers of rhetoric, I shall not pretend to determine, but if they make use of nothing of the kind, it is no very good argument of their sincerity, because a man who speaks from his heart, and is sincerely affected with the subject upon which he speaks, as every honest man must be when he speaks in the cause of his country, such a man, I say, falls naturally into expressions which may be called flowers of rhetoric, and, therefore, deserves as little to be charged with affectation, as the most stupid serjeant-at-law that ever spoke for a half-guinea fee. For my part, I have heard nothing in favour of the question but what I think very proper, and very much to the purpose. What has been said, indeed, on the other side of the question, especially the long justification that has been made of our late measures, I cannot think so proper, because this motion is founded upon the present melancholy situation of affairs, and upon the general clamour without doors, against the conduct of our late public servants; and either of these, with me, shall always be a sufficient reason for agreeing to a parliamentary inquiry, because, without such inquiry, I cannot, even in my own mind, enter into the disquisition, whether our public measures have been right or not; without such inquiry I cannot be furnished with the necessary information.

"But the honourable gentlemen who oppose this motion, seem to mistake, I do not say wilfully, the difference between a motion for an impeachment, and a motion for an inquiry. If any member of this House were to stand up in his place, and move to impeach a minister, he would be obliged to charge him with some particular crimes or misdemeanors, and produce some proof, or declare that he was ready to prove the facts; but any gentleman may move for an inquiry, without any particular allegation, and without offering any proof, or declaring what he is ready to prove; because the very design of an inquiry is to find out particular facts and particular proofs. The general circumstances of things, or general rumours without doors, are a sufficient foundation for such a motion, and for the House agreeing to it when it is made. This, Sir, has always been the practice, and has been the foundation of almost all the inquiries that have ever been set on foot in this House, especially those that have been carried on by secret and select committees. What other foundation was there for the secret committee appointed in the year 1694 (to go no further back), to inquire into, and inspect the books and accounts of the East India Company, and of the Chamberlain of London? Nothing but a general rumour

Paymaster of the Forces. Mr. Pelham had held the same office under Sir Robert Walpole.

† See Parl. Hist. vol. v. pp. 896 and 900.

that some corrupt practices had been made use of. What was the foundation of the inquiry in the year 1715 ? Did the honourable gentleman who moved the appointment of the secret committee upon the latter occasion, charge the previous administration with any particular crimes? Did he offer any proofs, or declare that he was ready to prove anything? It is said, the measures pursued by that administration were condemned by a great majority of the House of Commons. What, Sir! were those Ministers condemned before they were heard? Could any gentleman be so unjust as to pass sentence, even in his own mind, upon a measure before he had inquired into it? He might, perhaps, dislike the Treaty of Utrecht, but, upon inquiry, it might appear to be the best that could be obtained; and it has since been so far justified, that it appears at least as good, if not better, than any treaty we have subsequently made.

66

6

Sir, it was not the Treaty of Utrecht, nor any measure openly pursued by the administration which negotiated it, that was the foundation or the cause of an inquiry into their conduct. It was the loud complaints of a great party against them, and the general suspicion of their having carried on treasonable negotiations in favour of the Pretender, and for defeating the Protestant succession. The inquiry was set on foot in order to detect those practices, if any such existed, and to find proper evidence for convicting the offenders. The same argument holds with regard to the inquiry into the management of the South Sea Company in the year 1721. When that affair was first moved in the House by Mr. Neville, he did not, he could not, charge the directors of that Company, or any of them, with any particular delinquencies nor did he attempt to offer, or say that he was ready to offer, any particular proofs. His motion was, That the directors of the South Sea Company should forthwith lay before the House an account of their proceedings,' and it was founded upon the general circumstances of things, the distress brought upon the public credit of the nation, and the general and loud complaints without doors. This motion, indeed, reasonable as it was, we know was opposed by the Court party at the time, and, in particular, by two doughty brothers, who have been attached to the Court ever since; but their opposition raised such a warmth in the House, that they were glad to give it up, and never after durst directly oppose that inquiry. I wish I could now see the same zeal for public justice. The circumstances of affairs I am sure deserve it. Our public credit was then, indeed, brought into distress; but now the nation itself, nay, not only this nation, but all our friends upon the continent, are brought into the most imminent danger.

66

This, Sir, is admitted even by those who oppose this motion; and if they have ever lately conversed with those that dare speak their minds, they must admit, that the murmurs of the people against the conduct of the administration are now as general and as loud as ever they were upon any occasion. But the misfortune is, that gentlemen who are in office seldom converse with any but such as either are, or want to be, in office; and such

*See Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 53. + Ibid. p. 685.

+ Sir Robert and Mr. Horace Walpole.

+

men, let them think as they will, will always applaud their superiors; consequently, gentlemen who are in administration, or in any office under it, can rarely know the voice of the people. The voice of this House was formerly, I grant, and always ought to be, the voice of the people. If new Parliaments were more frequent, and few placemen, and no pensioners, admitted, it would be so still; but if long Parliaments be continued, and a corrupt influence should prevail, not only at elections, but in this House, the voice of this House will generally be very different from, nay, often directly contrary to, the voice of the people. However, as this is not, I believe, the case at present, I hope there is a majority of us who know what is the voice of the people; and if it be admitted by all that the nation is at present in the utmost distress and danger, if it be admitted by a majority that the voice of the people is loud against the conduct of our late administration, this motion must be agreed to, because I have shown that these two circumstances, without any particular charge, have been the foundation of almost every parliamentary inquiry.

"I readily admit, Sir, that we have very little to do with the character or reputation of a minister, but as it always does, and must affect our sovereign. But the people may become disaffected as well as discontented, when they find the King continues obstinately to employ a minister who, they think, oppresses them at home, and betrays them abroad. We are, therefore, in duty to our Sovereign, obliged to inquire into the conduct of a minister when it becomes generally suspected by the people, in order that we may vindicate his character if he be innocent of the charges brought against him, or, if he be guilty, that we may obtain his removal from the councils of our Sovereign, and also condign punishment on his crimes. "After having said thus much, Sir, I need scarcely answer what has been asserted, that no parliamentary inquiry ought ever to be instituted, unless we are convinced that something has been done amiss. Sir, the very name given to this House of Parliament proves the contrary. We are called The Grand Inquest of the Nation; and, as such, it is our duty to inquire into every step of public management, both abroad and at home, in order to see that nothing has been done amiss. It is not necessary, upon every occasion, to establish a secret committee. This is never necessary but when the affairs to be brought before it, or some of those affairs, are supposed to be of such a nature as to require secrecy. But, as experience has shown that nothing but a superficial inquiry is ever made by a general committee, or a committee of the whole House, I wish that all estimates and accounts, and many other affairs, were respectively referred to select committees. Their inquiries would be more exact, and the receiving of their reports would not occupy so much of our time as is represented; but, if it did, our duty being to make strict inquiries into everything relative to the public, our assembling here being for that purpose, we must perform our duty before we break up; and his present Majesty, I am sure, will never put an end to any session till that duty has been fully performed.

It is said by some gentlemen, that by this inquiry we shall be in danger of discovering the secrets of our government to our enemies. This argument, Sir, by proving too much, proves nothing. If it were admitted, it would always have been, and its admission for ever will be, an argument against our inquiring into any affair in which our government can be supposed to be concerned. Our inquiries would then be confined to the conduct of our little companies, or of inferior custom-house officers and excisemen; for if we should presume to inquire into the conduct of commissioners or of great companies, it would be said the government had a concern in their conduct, and the secrets of government must not be divulged. Every gentleman must see that this would be the consequence of admitting such an argument; but, besides, it is false in fact, and contrary to experience. We have had many parliamentary inquiries into the conduct of Ministers of State, and yet I defy any one to show that any state affair which ought to have been concealed was thereby discovered, or that our affairs, either abroad or at home, ever suffered by any such discovery. There are methods, Sir, of preventing papers of a very secret nature from coming into the hands of the servants attending, or even of all the members of a secret committee. If his Majesty should, by message, inform us, that some of the papers sealed up, and laid before us, required the utmost secrecy, we might refer them to our committee, instructing them to order only two or three of their number to inspect such papers, and to report from them nothing but what they thought might safely be communicated to the whole. By this method, I presume, the danger of discovery would be effectually removed; this danger, therefore, is no good argument against a parliamentary inquiry. The other objection, Sir, is really surprising, because it is founded upon a circumstance which, in all former times, has been admitted as a strong argument in favour of an immediate inquiry. The honourable gentlemen are so ingenuous as to confess that our affairs, both abroad and at home, are at present in the utmost embarrassment; but, say they, you ought to free yourselves from this embarrassment before you inquire into the cause of it. Sir, according to this way of arguing, a minister who has plundered and betrayed his country, and fears being called to an account in Parliament, has nothing to do but to involve his country in a dangerous war, or some other great distress, in order to prevent an inquiry into his conduct; because he may be dead before that war is at an end, or that distress is surmounted. Thus, like the most detestable of all thieves, after plundering the house, he has but to set it on fire, that he may escape in the confusion. It is really astonishing to hear such an argument seriously urged in this House; but, say these gentlemen, if you found yourself upon a precipice, would you stand to inquire how you were led there, before you considered how to get off? No, Sir; but if a guide had led me there, I should very probably be provoked to throw him over, before I thought of anything else; at least I am sure I should not trust to the same guide for bringing me off; and this, Sir, is the strongest argument that can be used for an inquiry.

66