avoid it; but she knows that England does not dare to make it. 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 further 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 harbours 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, dishonourable 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 cannot pretend to add anything to the conviction and indignation which it has raised.

66

Sir, as to the great national objection, the searching your ships, that favourite word, as 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, an 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 honour 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 honour and advantage.

66

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 honourable gentleman near me; it is vain to negotiate and to make treaties if there is not dignity and vigour 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 confiscated, I think that argument is very inconclusive. The right claimed by Spain to search our ships is one thing, and the excesses admitted to have been committed in consequence of this pretended right, is another. But surely, Sir, to reason from inference and implication only, is below the dignity of your proceedings upon a right of this vast importance. What this reparation is, what sort of composition for your losses, forced upon you by Spain, in an instance that has come to light, where your own commissaries could not in conscience decide against your claim, has fully appeared upon examination; and as for the payment of the sum stipulated, (all but seven and twenty 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 Asiento 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 absolute, imperious manner, and most tamely and abjectly received by the Ministers of England. Can any verbal distinctions, any evasions whatever, possibly explain away this public infamy? To whom would we disguise it? To ourselves and

to the nation. I wish we could hide it from the eyes of every court in Europe. They see that Spain has talked to you like your master; they see this arbitrary fundamental condition, standing forth with a pre-eminence of shame, as a part of this very Convention.

"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-defence; 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 for the address was carried by a majority of only 28; the numbers being 260 against 232.*

SIR CHARLES WAGER'S BILL FOR THE INCREASE OF THE NAVY. 1741. Upon the 27th of January, Sir Charles Wager † introduced a bill for the encouragement and increase of seamen, and for the better and speedier manning of the navy. It was originally proposed by this measure to empower justices of the peace, upon application being made to them by any person authorized by his Majesty, under the Royal sign-manual, or by the Lord High Admiral, or the Commissioners executing that office, to issue warrants to all constables within their jurisdiction, to search either by day or night for seamen; and, for that purpose, to enter, and, if need were, to force open the door of any house, or other place, in which any seamen might be suspected of being concealed.

On the 2nd of March, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House upon the above bill, and, at the close of the adjourned debate, which took place on the 6th of that month, upon the clauses relating to search-warrants, Mr. Pitt spoke as follows::

"Sir, the two honourable and learned gentlemen ‡ who spoke in favour

In spite of the efforts of Sir Robert Walpole, he was unable to preserve peace. Spain failed to fulfil the terms of the Convention, and insisted on the claim which it asserted, of searching British ships in the American seas, being admitted as the basis of future negotiations. A declaration of war against Spain was therefore issued in London, on the 19th of October, 1739.

First Lord of the Admiralty.

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.

of this clause, were pleased to show that our seamen are half slaves already, and now they modestly desire you should 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 expect 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 cannot 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 pirate. For 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.

"The learned gentlemen were next pleased to show us, that the Government was 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 amongst 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 is 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 honour, I do not think it an exaggeration to suppose it may.

"The honourable 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 cannot 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 already taken, and