Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

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 fulfilment; 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 counsels 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 Elector of Hanover; or that he would not have sent his proportion of troops to the Austrian army, had not the temptation of greater profit been laid industriously before him. But this is not all that 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 reestablished in its former splendour 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 exert 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 no 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 Hanover.

"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. Α treaty by which we disunited ourselves from Austria; destroyed that building which we now endeavour, 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 dishonour and injuries of their country. I shall not dwell further on this unpleasing subject than to express my hope that we shall no longer suffer ourselves to be deceived and oppressed that we shall at length perform our duty as representatives of the people: and, by refusing to ratify this contract, show, that however the interests of Hanover have been preferred by the Ministers, the Parliament pays no regard but to the interests of Great Britain." Sir William Yonge's motion was carried by a majority of 260 to 193.

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS OF THANKS.

The battle of Dettingen was fought on the 19th of June, 1743. His Majesty King George the Second was present at this battle; and during its progress displayed great personal bravery, and several times led his cavalry and infantry to the charge. Although the allies were victorious, they may be considered to have had an unexpected and fortunate.escape rather than to have gained an important and decisive victory. It was, however, triumphantly celebrated, and the exploits of the King were compared with those of

Marlborough and Eugene. It was said that the partiality of his Majesty to his Electoral subjects was so evident that he had worn the Hanoverian scarf during the engagement; that the advice of the English General had been despised; that the inactivity of the allies subsequent to the battle was owing to the councils of Lord Carteret; and that, through the cowardice of the Hanoverian troops, they had well nigh sustained a defeat. These assertions were for the most part unfounded, but they served the purposes of those who uttered them, and inflamed the minds of the people to the highest pitch of indignation.

1743. December 1. This day his Majesty opened the session of Parliament in person. The address of the Commons in answer to the speech from the Throne was moved by Mr. Coxe, and seconded by Mr. Philip Yorke. The following is an extract from the address :-" We beg leave to congratulate your Majesty on your safe and happy return into this kingdom; and with hearts full of gratitude, we acknowledge the goodness of Divine Providence to this nation, in protecting your Majesty's sacred person amidst the imminent dangers to which your invaluable life has been exposed, in defence of the common cause, and of the liberties of Europe. Your Majesty's regard and attention to the advice of your Parliament in exerting your endeavours for the preservation of the House of Austria, require our warmest acknowledgments; and it is with the highest satisfaction we reflect on the success of your Majesty's arms in the prosecution of this great and necessary work, with so much glory to yourself, and honour to the nation."

After Mr. P. Yorke had addressed the House, Mr. Pitt rose and said :

"From the proposition before the House, Sir, we may perceive, that whatever alteration has been, or may be, produced with respect to foreign measures, by the late change in administration, we can expect none with regard to our domestic affairs. In foreign measures, indeed, a most extraordinary change has taken place. From one extreme our administration have run to the very verge of another. Our former Minister betrayed the interests of his country by his pusillanimity; our present Minister would sacrifice them by his Quixotism. Our former Minister was for negotiating with all the world; our present Minister is for fighting against all the world. Our former Minister was for agreeing to every treaty, though never so dishonourable; our present Minister will give ear to none, though never so reasonable. Thus, whilst both appear to be extravagant, this difference results from their opposite conduct; that the wild system of the one must subject the nation to a much heavier expenditure than was ever incurred by the pusillanimity of the other. The honourable gentleman who spoke last was correct in saying, that in the beginning of the session we could know nothing, in a parliamentary way, of the measures that had been pursued. I believe, Sir, we shall know as little, in that way, at the end of the session; for our new Minister, in this, as in every other step of his domestic conduct, will follow the example of his predecessor, and put a negative upon every motion which

may tend towards our requiring any parliamentary knowledge of our late proceedings. But if we possess no knowledge of these proceedings, it is, surely, as strong an argument for our not approving, as it can be for our not condemning them. Sir, were nothing relating to our late measures proposed to be inserted in our address upon this occasion, those measures would not have been noticed by me ; but when an approbation is proposed, I am compelled to employ the knowledge I possess, whether parliamentary or otherwise, in order that I may join or not in the vote of approbation. What though my knowledge of our late measures were derived from foreign and domestic newspapers alone, even of that knowledge I must avail myself, when obliged to express my opinion; and when from that knowledge I apprehend them to be wrong, it is my duty, surely, to withhold my approbation. I am bound to persist in thus withholding it till the Minister be pleased to furnish me with such parliamentary knowledge as may convince me that I have been misinformed. This would be my proper line of conduct when, from the knowledge I possess, instead of approving any late measures, I think it more reasonable to condemn them. But supposing, Sir, from the knowledge within my reach, that I consider those measures to be sound, even then I ought not to approve, unless such knowledge can warrant approval. Now, as no sort of knowledge but a parliamentary knowledge can authorize a parliamentary approbation, for this reason alone I ought to refuse it. If, therefore, that which is now proposed contain any sort of approbation, my refusing to agree to it conveys no censure, but is a simple declaration that we possess not such knowledge of past measures as affords sufficient grounds for a parliamentary approbation. A parliamentary approbation, Sir, extends not only to all that our Ministers have advised, but to the acknowledgment of the truth of several facts which inquiry may show to be false, of facts which, at least, have been asserted without authority and proof. Suppose, Sir, it should appear that his Majesty was exposed to few or no dangers abroad, but those to which he is daily liable at home, such as the overturning of his coach, or the stumbling of his horse, would not the address proposed, instead of being a compliment, be an affront and an insult to the Sovereign? Suppose it should appear that our Ministers have shown no regard to the advice of Parliament; that they have exerted their endeavours, not for the preservation of the House of Austria, but to involve that House in dangers which otherwise it might have avoided, and which it is scarcely possible for us now to avert; suppose it should appear that a body of Dutch troops, although they marched to the Rhine, have never joined our army; suppose it should appear that the treaty with Sardinia is not yet ratified by all the parties concerned, or that it is one with whose terms it is impossible they should comply: if these things should appear on inquiry, would not the address proposed be most ridiculously absurd? Now, what assurance have we that all these facts will not turn out as I have imagined. Upon the death of the late Emperor of Germany, it was the interest of this nation, I grant, that the Queen of Hungary should be established in her

66

father's dominions, and that her husband, the Duke of Lorraine, should be chosen Emperor. This was our interest, because it would have been the best security for the preservation of the balance of power; but we had no other interest, and it was one which we had in common with all the powers of Europe, excepting France. We were not, therefore, to take upon us the sole support of this interest; and, therefore, when the King of Prussia attacked Silesia, when the King of Spain, the King of Poland, and the Duke of Bavaria laid claim to the late Emperor's succession, we might have seen that the establishment of the Queen of Hungary in all her father's dominions was impracticable, especially as the Dutch refused to interfere, excepting by good offices. What then ought we to have done? Since we could not preserve the whole, is it not evident that, in order to bring over some of the claimants to our side, we ought to have advised her to yield up part? Upon this we ought to have insisted, and the claimant whom first we should have considered was the King of Prussia, both because he was one of the most neutral, and one of the most powerful allies with whom we could treat. For this reason it was certainly incumbent upon us to advise the Queen of Hungary to accept the terms offered by the King of Prussia when he first invaded Silesia. Nay, not only should we have advised, we should have insisted upon this as the condition upon which we would assist her against the claims of others. To this the Court of Vienna must have assented; and, in this case, whatever protestations the other claimants might have made, I am persuaded that the Queen of Hungary would to this day have remained the undisturbed possessor of the rest of her father's dominions, and that her husband, the Duke of Lorraine, would have been now seated on the imperial throne.

"This salutary measure was not pursued. This appears, Sir, not only from the Gazettes, but from our parliamentary knowledge for from the papers which have been either accidentally or necessarily laid before Parliament, it appears, that instead of insisting that the Court of Vienna should agree to the terms offered by Prussia, we rather encouraged the obstinacy of that Court in rejecting them. We did this, Sir, not by our memorials alone, but by his Majesty's speech to his Parliament, by the consequent addresses of both Houses, and by speeches directed by our courtiers against the King of Prussia. I allude, Sir, to his Majesty's speech on the 8th April, 1741, to the celebrated addresses on that occasion for guaranteeing the dominions of Hanover, and for granting £300,000 to enable his Majesty to support the Queen of Hungary. The speeches made on that occasion by several of our favourites at Court, and their reflections on the King of Prussia, must be fresh in the memory of all. All must remember, too, that the Queen of Hungary was not then, nor for some months after, attacked by any one prince in Europe excepting the King of Prussia: she must, therefore, have supposed that both the Court and nation of Great Britain were resolved to support her, not only against the King of Prussia, but against all the world. We cannot, therefore, be surprised that the Court of Vienna

« AnteriorContinuar »