without enacting a limitation of placemen allowed to sit in the House of Commons, and a new election of every person who, whilst he was a member of that House, should accept of any employment under the Crown; as likewise a total (we wish we could say an effectual) exclusion of all persons holding employments erected since the passing of that Act. And there is no reason to doubt, but that the same spirit of precaution would, upon the same constitutional principles, have been carried much farther at that time, could it then have been foreseen or imagined, that the exclusion of some civil officers would have been rendered useless, by the introduction of so many military ones; and so many persons in employments, infinitely inferior, both in rank and profit, to those excluded by these several Acts, could ever have been by any means elected into Parliament. And, indeed, it seems to us highly incongruous, that inferior clerks, and attendants of offices, who have not seats in the presence of their masters, should be admitted to have seats in the legislature, and therefore become the check and control of their masters themselves. 4thly, Because we do not apprehend, that the freedom of Parliament is now in the least secured by the obligation laid upon all members of the House of Commons, who accept any employment under the Crown, of being re-elected, experience having shewn us, that this seeming security is for the most part become ineffectual, there being very few instances of persons failing in such re-elections, though utter strangers to their electors; and it is natural to suppose that, when the means of corrupting are greater, the success of the candidate recommending himself by corruption only will not be less. 5thly, Because we observe with concern, that a Bill of this nature has been already thrice rejected by this very House of Commons, and not been allowed to be committed, so as to have it known how far it was proposed to extend; which, in our opinion, implied a firm resolution not to admit of any further exclusion of employments whatsoever; whereas, in this last Session of this Parliament, this Bill was sent up to us, after having passed through all the forms of the other House without the least opposition. This, we conceive, can only proceed either from their conviction at last of the necessity of such a Bill, of which they are surely the properest judges, or in compliance with the almost universal instructions of their constituents, whose voice, we think, ought to have some weight even here; or, lastly, to delude their constituents themselves, by tacitly consenting to what they were either told, or hoped, this House will refuse. And in this case we apprehend, that a confidence so injurious and dishonourable, ought to have been disappointed from a just sense of the contempt thereby shewn of the credit, weight, and dignity of this House. 6thly, Because we think it particularly seasonable, so near the end of this Parliament, to provide for the freedom and independency of the next. And as we consider this opportunity as the only one we are likely to have, for some years at least, to do it, it is with the greater concern that we see this Bill laid aside, rather by a division than a debate, and by numbers rather than arguments. But however unsuccessful our endeavours have been for the future security of this Constitution; however unavailing our desire of enquiring into past and present transactions; however fruitless our attempts to prevent future mismanagements, by a censure of the past, and the removal of the author of them: we have at least this comfort of transmitting our names to posterity, as dissenting from those measures of which the present age sufficiently testifies its dislike, and of which the next may too probably feel the fatal consequences. George Parker, Earl of Macclesfield. Montague Bertie, Earl of Abingdon. John Ward, Lord Ward. Scroop Egerton, Duke of Bridgwater. Samuel Masham, Lord Masham. George Booth, Earl of Warrington. John Campbell, Duke of Greenwich (Duke of Argyll). Thomas Mansel, Lord Mansel. William Talbot, Lord Talbot. Charles Bruce, Lord Bruce of Whorlton. George Montagu, Earl of Halifax. Price Devereux, Viscount Hereford. Richard Temple, Viscount Cobham. John Leveson Gower, Lord Gower. Maurice Thompson, Lord Haversham. Richard Smallbrooke, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. William Feilding, Earl of Denbigh. Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield. Heneage Finch, Earl of Aylesford. For all the above reasons, except the last. Thomas Foley, Lord Foley. CCCXXII. MARCH 9, 1741. The following protest is inserted on the third reading of the Mutiny Bill. Because it does not appear to us, that the forces which are now kept up within this realm, are to be employed to annoy our enemies abroad; and we are satisfied, the affections of the people to his Majesty and the Protestant succession are such, that there can be no occasion for them to keep this nation in awe. Montague Bertie, Earl of Abingdon. CCCXXIII. DECEMBER 22, 1741. An address was moved for, asking the King to supply the House with papers bearing upon the relations of the Court with that of the Queen of Hungary (Maria Theresa), under the circumstances of the invasion of Silesia by Frederick the Great. For the circumstances connecting these events with Walpole's Administration, see Stanhope's History, chap. xxiii. It was proposed in this address, to insert words requiring letters written by the Administration to the British resident at Vienna, and his despatches. The proposal was negatived by 59 to 32, and the following protest inserted. Because the leaving out those words in the motion invalidates the address to the greatest degree, by denying the necessary lights to see into affairs of the utmost concern to the nation, and transactions most probably in agitation between Great Britain and the Queen of Hungary, insomuch as there is neither matter nor means sufficient left to give his Majesty our best advice upon, although so graciously asked from the Throne at this critical conjuncture. Besides which, it is apparently putting such a check and restraint upon the privilege of the House of Peers in wording addresses to the King, as may prove of the utmost prejudice and loss to both, which the nation in general would in consequence be sufferers by, should this be made use of by ministerial artifice or power, at any time to come, as a precedent to defeat or annul addresses of this kind, whereon the freedom and safety of his Majesty's person, and the Protestant succession and Government so eminently depend. Maurice Thompson, Lord Haversham. The same Peer objected to the omission of words requiring similar letters to and from the Court of France, and for the same reasons. CCCXXIV. JANUARY 28, 1742. On the 27th of January, Lord Sandwich brought a motion before the House to the effect that many of the officers belonging to the garrison of Minorca were absent from their posts, and that while such an absence in the time of peace would be detrimental to military discipline, that the suffering them to be absent in time of war, at a juncture when the island of Minorca has been threatened by an invasion from the Spaniards, renders the possession of that important place precarious, and is highly injurious to the honour and interest of these Kingdoms.' Major General Anstruther, Lieutenant Governor of Minorca, was examined by order of the House on the 28th of January, and substantiated the facts. The motion, however, was negatived by 69 to 57, though an address was carried requesting the King to enforce the return of the officers to their post. The following protest was entered on the rejection of Lord Sandwich's motion. 1st, Because we conceive, that as the fact stated in the former part of the question, appeared plainly from the paper laid before this House by the proper officer, and neither was nor could be controverted by any one Lord, the censure contained in the latter part of the question was not only just, but as gentle as so evident a neglect of so important a place, at so critical a time, could possibly allow. The principal, if not the only argument made use of by those Lords who opposed the motion was, 'That the censure was general, and pointed at no particular persons,' which we rather apprehend to be a proof of the justice and moderation of that censure, as it could then only light upon the guilty whoever they were; and we are inclined to believe, that had the censure been applied to any particular persons, the contrary argument would have been urged, and the injustice of a particular censure, without proofs, sounded high, though possibly, at the same time, the necessary means of getting at those proofs might have been rendered difficult. That out of nineteen officers paid upon the establishment of Minorca, fourteen were absent, among whom were the governor, the deputy governor, and the governor of Fort St. Philip, was a fact disputed by none, though the slightest censure of it was opposed by the majority of the House. We therefore hope, that posterity, to whom we thus appeal, will not only approve of our conduct in this motion, but will likewise, from the ill success of it, find reasons to excuse our not attempting many others of the like nature. 2ndly, Because, when we consider the tender apprehensions of the Administration for the Island of Minorca, in the year 1740, when, upon information received, that a few troops were marching to the coasts of Catalonia, and a few Tartanes assembled in the Port of Barcelona, orders (possibly obscure from that precipitation which the emergency required) were sent to our admirals in the Mediterranean, to provide immediately for the defence of that island, even by going there with their whole force, if necessary;' by the execution or mistake of which orders, the Spanish squadron was suffered to sail from Cadiz to the West Indies, to the imminent danger of our fleets and possessions there; we cannot well account for that profound security in which the Administration seemed to be the last year, with regard to that valuable possession, when an embarkation of fourteen or fifteen thousand men, and above two hundred transport ships was publicly preparing at Barcelona, and consequently within eight-and-forty hours sail of Minorca, which embarkation soon after went undisturbed to Italy. But we fear this inconsistent conduct may give too much credit to insinuations lately scattered in the Public, that the British ministers were as secure that Minorca would not be attacked by the Spaniards, as the Spanish ministers were that their embarkation would sail to Italy undisturbed by our squadrons in the Mediterranean. 3rdly, Because it appears, that about the same time that Major General Anstruther left that island, by leave from the Secretary of War, which was on the 15th of February last, Admiral Haddock informs the Secretary of State, in a letter of the 10th of the same. month, that by the latest letters from Mr. Consul Birtles, he mentions, That a Spanish embarkation is actually intended; and |