This, sir, is my opinion; this must be the opinion of every man, who has a true notion of our constitution, and therefore I can no longer delay making you the motion, with which I shall conclude what I have to say upon this occasion. I believe, there is not a gentleman of this house, who is not sensible, that both the foreign and domestick measures of our government, for several years past, have been dissatisfactory to a great majority of the nation, I may say to almost every man in the nation, who has not been concerned in advising or carrying them on. I believe, there is not a gentleman in this house, if he will freely declare his sentiments, who is not sensible, that one single person in the administration has not only been thought to be, but has actually been the chief, if not the sole adviser and promoter of all those measures. This is known without doors, as well as it is within, and therefore the discontents, the reproaches, and even the curses of the people, are all directed against that single person. They complain of our present measures; they have suffered by past measures; they expect no redress; they expect no alteration or amendment, whilst he has a share in advising or directing our future. These, sir, are the sentiments of the people with regard to that minister. These sentiments we are in honour and duty bound to represent to his majesty; and the proper method for doing this, as established by our constitution, is to address his majesty to remove him from his councils.

Sir, if the general discontent, which hath arisen against this minister, were but of yesterday, or without any just and solid foundation, I should expect it would soon blow over, and therefore should not think it worthy of the notice of parliament; but it has lasted for so many years, was at first so well founded, and has every year since been gathering, from his conduct, so much additional strength, that I have for several sessions expected such a motion, as I am now to make, from some other gentleman, more capable than I am to enforce what he proposes; but as no

gentleman has hitherto attempted it, and as this is the last session of this parliament, I was unwilling it should expire without answering the people's expectations, which, in this respect, are so just, so well founded, and so agreeable to our constitution; therefore, I hope I shall be excused for attempting what I think my duty, as a member of this house, and as a friend to our present happy establishment.

After what I have said, sir, I believe no gentleman can mistake the person I mean. I am convinced every one supposes I mean the honourable gentleman, who sits upon the floor, over-against me; and the whole house may see, he takes it to himself. Against him, there is, I believe, as general a popular discontent, as ever was against any minister in this kingdom; and this discontent has lasted so long, that I must say, his having withstood it for so many years, is no great sign of the freedom of our government; for a free people neither will nor can be governed by a minister they hate or despise. As I am only to propose an address to remove him from his majesty's councils, I have no occasion to accuse him of any crime. The people's being generally dissatisfied with him, and suspicious of his conduct, is a sufficient foundation for such an address, and a sufficient cause for his majesty's removing him from his councils; because, no sovereign of these kingdoms ought to employ a minister, who is become disagreeable to the generality of the people. And when any minister happens to become so, it is our duty to inform his majesty of it, that he may give satisfaction to his people, by the removal of such a minister.

However, sir, though I shall not at present charge this minister with any particular crime, I must beg leave to examine a little into his conduct, in order to show, that the discontents of the people are not without foundation; and if it be true, what was and is still generally supposed, it must be allowed, that the methods, by which he first advanced himself to the high offices he has ever since enjoyed, were such as could not but be offensive to every honest man in the

nation. The making and unmaking the famous bank contract; the screening from condign punishment those who, by their wicked and avaricious execution of the trust reposed in them by the South Sea scheme, had ruined many thousands. The lumping of publick justice, and subjecting the less guilty to a punishment too severe, in order that the most heinous offenders might escape the punishment they deserved; and the giving up to the South Sea company the sum of seven millions sterling, which they had obliged themselves to pay to the publick, a great part of which sum was given to old stockholders, and consequently to those who had never suffered by the scheme; were the steps by which he was supposed to have risen to power, and such steps could not but raise a general distaste at his advancement, and a dread of his administration.

Thus, sir, he entered into the administration with the general disapprobation of the people; and, I am sure, his measures since have been far from restoring him to their love or esteem. As he began, so he has gone on, oppressing the innocent, imposing upon the credulous, screening the guilty, wasting the publick treasure, and endangering the liberties of the people. All this I could evince from every step of his administration, from the beginning to this very day; but I shall confine myself to some general observations, and some of the most remarkable instances. In general I shall observe, that by his advice and influence a much greater army has all along been kept up than was necessary for the support of our government, or consistent with our constitution, and even that army often augmented without any real cause That many squadrons have been fitted out, to the great expense of the nation, and general disturbance of our trade, without any just cause, and, I believe, without so much as a design to employ them effectually, either against our enemies, or for the assistance of our allies: That every method proposed of late years for securing our constitution against its most dangerous enemy, corruption, has been by his

means rejected, or rendered ineffectual; whilst on the other hand, many penal laws have been passed, which have reduced a great number of his majesty's subjects under the arbitrary power of a minister and his creatures: That almost every article of publick expense has been increased by the addition of new and useless officers; and all inquiries into the management of any publick money, either prevented or defeated: That votes of credit at the end of a session of parliament, which have always been thought of dangerous consequence to our constitution, have by him been made so frequent, that few sessions have passed without one. That the expense of the civil list has been vastly increased since the beginning of his administration, though it was then much greater than it had ever amounted to in former times. To these, sir, which are all of a domestick nature, I shall add, with regard to our foreign affairs, that ever since his advice began to be prevalent in our foreign affairs, the trade and particular interest of this nation have in all treaties and negotiations been neglected, the confidence of our most natural allies disregarded, and the favour of our most dangerous enemies courted ; and that to this most unaccountable conduct, the present melancholy situation of the affairs of Europe is principally to be ascribed.

I know, sir, it will be objected, that as every ma terial step in the late conduct of our publick affairs, either at home or abroad, has been authorized or ap proved of by parliament, what I have said, must be looked on as a general charge against his majesty's councils and our parliaments, rather than as a person. al charge against any one minister. But this upon a due consideration becomes the most heavy, and the most evident charge against the minister I aim at. According to our constitution, we can have no sole and prime minister. We ought always to have several prime ministers or officers of state. Every such of fficer has his own proper department; and no officer ought to meddle in the affairs belonging to the department of another. But it is publickly known, that

this minister having obtained a sole influence over all our publick councils, has not only assumed the sole direction of all publick affairs, but has got every offficer of state removed that would not follow his direction, even in the affairs belonging to his own proper department. By this means he has monopolized all the favours of the crown, and engrossed the sole disposal of all places, pensions, titles, and ribbons, as well as of all preferments, civil, military or ecclesiastical.

This, sir, is of itself a most heinous offence against our constitution; but he has greatly aggravated the heinousness of this crime; for having thus monopolized all the favours of the crown, he has made a blind submission to his direction at elections and in parliament, the only ground to hope for any honours or preferments, and the only tenure by which any gentleman could preserve what he had. This is so notoriously known, that it can stand in need of no proof. Have not many deserving gentlemen been disappointed in the preferment they had a just title to, upon the bare suspicion of not being blindly devoted to his personal interest? Have not some persons of the highest rank and most illustrious characters been displaced for no other reason than because they disdained to sacrifice their honour and conscience to his direction in parliament? As no crime, no neglect, no misbehaviour could ever be objected to them, as no other reason could ever be assigned for depriving the crown of their service, this only could be the reason. Nay, has not this minister himself not only confessed it, but boasted of it? Has he not said, and in this house too, that he would be a pitiful fellow of a minister who did not displace any officer that opposed his measures in parliament ?

Can any gentleman who heard this declaration desire a proof of the minister's misconduct, or of his crimes? Was not this openly avowing one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed by a minister in this kingdom? Was it not avowing that he