ought to inquire into it, because, if it appears to be such information as ought to have been believed, that minister ought to be punished who advised his late Majesty to give credit to it, and who, in consequence, has precipitated the nation into the most pernicious measures.

"At the time this treaty was entered into, we wanted nothing from the Emperor upon our own account. The abolition of the Ostend Company was a demand we had no right to make, nor was it essentially our interest to insist upon it, because that Company would have been more hostile to the interests both of the French and Dutch East India trades than to our own; and if it had been a point that concerned us much, we might probably have gained it, by acceding to the Vienna treaty between the Emperor and Spain, or by guaranteeing the Pragmatic Sanction,* which we afterwards did in the most absolute manner, and without any conditions. We wanted nothing from Spain but a relinquishment of the pretence she had just begun, or, I believe, hardly begun, to set up, in an express manner, with regard to searching and seizing our ships in the American seas; and this we did not obtain, perhaps did not desire to obtain, by the Treaty of Seville. By that treaty we obtained nothing; but we advanced another step towards that danger in which Europe is now involved, by uniting the courts of France and Spain, and by laying a foundation for a new breach between the courts of Spain and Vienna.

On the 2nd of August, 1718, Charles VI. promulgated a new law of succession for the inheritance of the house of Austria, under the name of the Pragmatic Sanction. By the family compact, framed by the Emperor Leopold, and confirmed by the Emperors Joseph and Charles, the succession was entailed on the daughters of Joseph in preference to the daughters of Charles, in case both of them should die without issue male. When, however, Charles succeeded to the throne, he published a decree, reversing the order of succession indicated by the family compact, and ordaining that, in the event of his having no male issue, his own daughters should succeed to the Austrian throne, in preference to the daughters of his elder brother; and that such succession should be regulated according to the order of primogeniture, so that the elder should be preferred to the younger, and that she should inherit his entire dominions.

+ By the second Treaty of Vienna, concluded on the 16th of March, 1731, England guaranteed the Pragmatic Sanction, on the condition of the suppression of the Ostend Company, and that the arch-duchess who succeeded to the Austrian dominions should not be married to a prince of the house of Bourbon, or to a prince so powerful as to endanger the balance of Europe.-Coxe's House of Austria, chap. lxxxviii.

By the Treaty of Seville, concluded between Great Britain, France, and Spain, on the 9th of September, 1729, and shortly after acceded to by Holland, all former treaties were confirmed, and the several contracting powers agreed to assist each other in case of attack. The King of Spain revoked the privileges of trade which he had granted to the subjects of Austria by the Treaty of Vienna, and commissioners were to be appointed for the final adjustment of all commercial difficulties between Spain and Great Britain. In order to secure the succession of Parma and Tuscany to the Infant Don Carlos, it was agreed that 6,000 Spanish troops should be allowed to garrison Leghorn, Porto Ferrajo, Parma, and Placentia. This treaty passed over in total silence the claim of Spain to Gibraltar.

“I grant, Sir, that our Ministers appear to have been forward and diligent enough in negotiating, and writing letters and memorials to the court of Spain; but, from all my inquiries, it appears that they never rightly understood (perhaps they would not understand), the point, respecting which they were negotiating. They suffered themselves to be amused with fair promises, for ten long years; and our merchants plundered, our trade interrupted, now call aloud for inquiry. If it should appear that Ministers allowed themselves to be amused with answers which no man of honour, no man of common sense in such circumstances, would take, surely, Sir, they must have had some secret motive for being thus grossly imposed on. This secret motive we may perhaps discover by an inquiry; and as it must be a wicked one, if it can be discovered, the parties ought to be severely punished.

66

But, in excuse for their conduct, it is said that our Ministers had a laudable repugnance in involving their country in a war. Sir, this repugnance could not proceed from any regard to their country. It was involved in a war; Spain was carrying on a war against our trade, and that in the most insulting manner, during the whole time of their negotiations. It was this very repugnance, at least it was the knowledge of it which Spain possessed, that at length made it absolutely necessary for us to commence the war. If Ministers had at first insisted properly and peremptorily upon an explicit answer, Spain would have expressly abandoned her new and insolent claims and pretensions. But by the long experience we allowed her, she found the fruits of those pretensions so plentiful and so gratifying, that she thought them worth the hazard of a war. Sir, the damage we had sustained became so considerable, that it really was worth that hazard. Besides, the court of Spain was convinced, whilst we were under such an administration, that either nothing could provoke us to commence the war; or, that if we did, it would be conducted in a weak and miserable manner. Have we not, Sir, since found that their opinion was correct? Nothing, Sir, ever more demanded a parliamentary inquiry than our conduct in the war. The only branch into which we have inquired, we have already censured and condemned. Is not this a good reason for inquiring into every other branch? Disappointment and ill success have always, till now, occasioned a parliamentary inquiry. Inactivity, of itself, is a sufficient cause for inquiry. We have now all these reasons combined. Our admirals abroad desire nothing more; because they are conscious that our inactivity and ill success will appear to proceed, not from their own misconduct, but from the misconduct of those by whom they were employed. "I cannot conclude, Sir, without taking notice of the two other foreign measures mentioned by the honourable gentleman. Our conduct in the year 1734, with regard to the war between the Emperor and France, may be easily accounted for, though not easily excused.* Ever since the last accession fo our

* Augustus the Second, King of Poland and Elector of Saxony, having died in February 1733, the kingdom of Poland was immediately exposed to the usual evils of an elective monarchy. One faction called to the throne Stanislaus, who had once

late Minister to power, we seem to have had an enmity to the house of Austria. Our guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction was an effect of that enmity, because we entered into it when, as hath since appeared, we had no intention to perform our engagement; and by that false guarantee we induced the Emperor to admit the introduction of the Spanish troops into Italy, which he would not otherwise have done. The preparations we made in that year, the armies we raised, and the fleet we fitted out, were not to guard against the event of the war abroad, but against the event of the ensuing elections at home. The new commissions, the promotions, and the money laid out in these preparations, were of admirable use at the time of a general election, and in some measure atone for the loss of the excise scheme; but France and her allies were well convinced that we would in no event declare against them, otherwise they would not then have dared to attack the Emperor; for Muscovy, Poland, Germany, and Britain, would have been by much an over-match for them. It was not our preparations that set bounds to the ambition of France, but her getting all she wanted at that time for herself, and all she desired for her allies. Her own prudence suggested that it was not then a proper time to push her views further; because she did not know but that the spirit of this nation might overcome (as it since has with regard to Spain), the spirit of our administration; and should this have happened, the House of Austria was then in such a condition, that our assistance, even though late, would have been of effectual service.

66

"I am surprised, Sir, to hear the honourable gentleman now say, that we gave up nothing, or that we acquired anything, by the infamous Convention with Spain. Did we not give up the freedom of our trade and navigation, by submitting it to be regulated by plenipotentiaries? Can freedom be regulated without being confined, and consequently in some part destroyed? Did we not give up Georgia, or some part of it, by submitting to have new limits settled by plenipotentiaries? Did we not give up all the reparation of the damage we had suffered, amounting to five or six hundred thousand pounds, for the paltry sum of twenty-seven thousand pounds? This was all that Spain promised to pay, after deducting the sixty-eight thousand pounds which we, by the declaration annexed to that treaty, allowed her to insist on having from our South Sea Company, under the penalty of stripping them of the Asiento Contract, and all the privileges to which they were thereby entitled. Even this sum of twenty-seven thousand pounds, or more, they had

reigned in Poland, while another proclaimed Augustus, son of the late king. The former was supported by his son-in-law, Louis XV. of France, the latter by Charles VI. Emperor of Austria, and Anne, Empress of Russia. A large Russian army having marched into Poland, Stanislaus was obliged to make his escape, and the Elector of Saxony was crowned King of Poland on the 25th of December, 1733. Although England remained neutral during the progress of these hostilities, she augmented her naval and military forces, "in order," said Mr. Pelham, in the course of the above debate, "to be ready to put a stop to the arms of the victorious side, in case their ambition should lead them to push their conquests further than was consonant with the balance of power in Europe."-Parl. Hist. vol. xii, p. 479.

before acknowledged to be due on account of ships they allowed to have been unjustly taken, and for the restriction of which they had actually sent orders so that by this infamous treaty we acquired nothing whilst we gave up everything; therefore, in my opinion, the honour of this nation can never be retrieved, unless the advisers and authors of it be censured and punished. This, Sir, cannot regularly be done without a parliamentary inquiry.

"By these, and similar weak, pusillanimous, and wicked measures, we are become the ridicule of every court in Europe, and have lost the confidence of all our ancient allies. By these measures we have encouraged France to extend her ambitious views, and now at last to attempt carrying them into execution. By bad economy, by extravagance in our domestic measures, we have involved ourselves in such distress at home, that we are almost wholly incapable of entering into a war; whilst by weakness or wickedness in our foreign measures, we have brought the affairs of Europe into such distress, that it is almost impossible for us to avoid it. Sir, we have been brought upon a dangerous precipice. Here we now find ourselves; and shall we trust to be led safely off by the same guide who has led us on? Sir, it is impossible for him to lead us off. Sir, it is impossible for us to get off, without first recovering that confidence with our ancient allies which formerly we possessed. This we cannot do, so long as they suppose that our councils are influenced by our late Minister; and this they will suppose so long as he has access to the King's closet; so long as his conduct remains uninquired into, and uncensured. It is not, therefore, in revenge for our past disasters, but from a desire to prevent them in future, that I am now so zealous for this inquiry. The punishment of the Minister, be it ever so severe, will be but a small atonement for the past. But his impunity will be the source of many future miseries to Europe, as well as to his country. Let us be as merciful as we will, as merciful as any man can reasonably desire, when we come to pronounce sentence; but sentence we must pronounce. For this purpose, unless we are resolved to sacrifice our own liberties, and the liberties of Europe, to the preservation of one guilty man, we must make the inquiry."

The motion was rejected by a majority of only two. The numbers being : for the motion, 242; against it, 244.

LORD LIMERICK'S MOTION FOR AN INQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT OF THE EARL OF ORFORD DURING THE LAST TEN YEARS OF HIS AD

MINISTRATION.

March 23. The loss of Lord Limerick's motion on the 9th of March was principally owing to the absence of Mr. Pulteney, occasioned by the dangerous

illness of his daughter, and to his reported disapproval of the motion.* With a view to contradict this report, and to evince Mr. Pulteney's desire for inquiry, Lord Limerick, at his request, moved, on the 23rd of March, the appointment of a secret committee to inquire into the conduct of the Earl of Orford during the last ten years of his administration.†

Mr. Pitt's speech on this occasion was in answer to Mr. George Cook, of Harefield, a member who had very recently taken his seat in the House. It was to the following effect :

:

"As the honourable gentleman who spoke last against the motion has not been long in the House, it is but charitable to believe him sincere in professing that he is ready to agree to a parliamentary inquiry when he thinks the occasion requires it. But if he knew how often such professions are made by those who upon all occasions oppose inquiry, he would now avoid them, because they are generally believed to be insincere. He may, it is true, have nothing to dread, on his own account, from inquiry; but when a gentleman has contracted, or any of his near relations have contracted, a friendship with one who may be brought into danger, it is very natural to suppose that such a gentleman's opposition to an inquiry does not entirely proceed from public motives; and if that gentleman follows the advice of some of his friends, I very much question whether he will ever think that the occasion requires an inquiry into the conduct of our public affairs.

"As a parliamentary inquiry must always be founded upon suspicions, as well as upon facts or manifest crimes, reasons may always be found for alleging those suspicions to be without foundation; and upon the principle that a parliamentary inquiry must necessarily lay open the secrets of Government, no time can ever be proper or convenient for such inquiry, because it is impossible to suppose a time when the Government has no secrets to disclose.

66

This, Sir, would be a most convenient doctrine for Ministers, because it would put an end to all parliamentary inquiries into the conduct of our public affairs; and, therefore, when I hear it urged, and so much insisted on, by a certain set of gentlemen in this House, I must suppose their hopes to be very extensive. I must suppose them to expect that they and their posterity will for ever continue in office. Sir, this doctrine has been so often contradicted by experience, that I am surprised to hear it advanced by gentlemen now. This very session has afforded us a convincing proof that very little foundation exists for asserting that a parliamentary inquiry must necessarily reveal the secrets of the Government. Surely, in a war with

* Upon the resignation of Sir Robert Walpole, an administration was formed under Mr. Pulteney, who refused to hold any office, but appropriated to himself a seat in the Cabinet. On the 14th of July, 1742, Mr. Pulteney was raised to the peerage by the title of Earl of Bath.

† A motion once rejected cannot be brought forward again in the same session. The term through which the proposed inquiry should extend, was therefore altered from twenty years to the last ten.