CCCXIX. FEBRUARY 13, 1741. The Opposition now proceeded to attack Walpole directly. Lord Carteret moved in the Lords, "That an address be presented to the King, praying him to dismiss Walpole from his presence and councils for ever,' and a similar motion was made by Sandys in the Commons on the same day. The motion was lost in the Lords by 81 to 54, and in the Commons by 290 to 106. The debate is preserved in the Parliamentary History, vol. xi, p. 1047, two accounts being given of it, and a summary of the Lords' debate is in the Secker MSS. The rejection of Lord Carteret's motion led to the following protest. 1st, Because we are persuaded that a sole, or even a first minister, is an officer unknown to the law of Britain, inconsistent with the Constitution of this country, and destructive of liberty in any Government whatsoever; and it plainly appearing to us, that Sir Robert Walpole has, for many years, acted as such, by taking upon himself the chief, if not the sole direction of affairs, in the different branches of the Administration, we could not but esteem it to be our indispensable duty, to offer our most humble advice to his Majesty, for the removal of a minister so dangerous to the King and the Kingdom. 2ndly, Because we think it appeared in the debate, that in many instances of infinite consequence to the interest of the public, he has grossly abused the exorbitant power which he illegally possessed himself of, particularly in the management of the public treasure. And this, we conceive, must plainly appear to every impartial person who recollects, that for these twenty years past this Kingdom has paid the largest taxes that ever were imposed upon it in the time of peace; and yet that the public debts remain much as they stood at the time when this gentleman first entered upon the management of the treasury; and that the Civil List, also, the largest that was ever granted to the Crown, is, as we have the strongest reasons to believe, considerably in debt at this time. 3rdly, Because we conceive it was plainly proved in former debates, that the army, so greatly expensive to this Kingdom, and which only was granted by Parliament for the defence of it, had been managed, both as to rewards and punishments, in such manner as to make it of no military use, but on the contrary, to render it subservient, as we apprehend, to the very worst of purposes, the influencing elections without doors, and votes within. 4thly, Because we are persuaded, that the vast sums of money, granted on different heads for sea service, cannot possibly have been faithfully applied; there having been as much money granted by Parliament in the last six or seven years, upon the several heads applicable to the repairing and rebuilding our ships, as would have been sufficient to rebuild the whole fleet of Britain from the keels of the ships, and have put them thoroughly equipped to sea. And yet it is most notoriously true, that since this war began, a very great number of ships have appeared to be in the worst condition for sea service that ever they were known to be in the memory of man, and many of them scarcely fit for Spithead expeditions; ships having sailed out of the river destined, as was pretended, for foreign service, that have with difficulty been able to swim into the docks of Portsmouth and Plymouth for further repairs. 5thly, Because we apprehend, that by the conduct of Sir Robert Walpole, in relation to foreign affairs during the course of his Administration, the balance of power in Europe has been destroyed; the House of Bourbon has been aggrandised in many instances, particularly by the addition of Lorrain; the House of Austria has been depressed by the loss of part of the Duchy of Milan, and the whole Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily. And if such a change in the system of Europe, occasioned by the misconduct of any minister whatsoever, would be criminal, we cannot think it the less so in one who joined in the prosecution of the authors of the Treaty of Utrecht, upon the particular charge of having reduced the House of Austria too low, and left the House of Bourbon too powerful. 6thly, Because it is a fact not to be contradicted, that the Spaniards were permitted quickly to possess themselves of the land belonging to our most important fortress of Gibraltar, which this Kingdom was in possession of, by virtue of the Treaty of Utrecht, till the last siege of that place; by which permission fortifications were erected, and batteries raised upon the said ground by the Spaniards, whereby the use of the advantageous Bay of Gibraltar is lost to England, and our ships ever since forced to anchor both inconveniently and dangerously under the walls of the town; and what naturally raises the strongest suspicions in us of this unwar rantable proceeding, is, that a British admiral, soon after, was at Cadiz with a powerful squadron of ships of the line, at the time the Spaniards thus unjustly broke their treaty, and that admiral quietly and undisturbed left them in possession of that ground, and convoyed their troops to take possession of the dominions of Tuscany. 7thly, Because the papers upon the table, delivered to this House from the commissioners of the customs do plainly prove, that Sir Robert Walpole, by publicly conniving for many years at the trade carried on with this nation from the Port of Dunkirk, has given up the 9th Article of the Treaty of Utrecht, which we cannot but look upon as a high misdemeanour, and the greater crime in him, that no man whatsoever declared himself with more passionate zeal than he did, against the authors of the Treaty of Utrecht, for having favoured France in most of the Articles in it, which were incontestably stipulated for the interest of this Crown and nation. John St. John, Lord St. John of Bletsoe. Henry Bowes Howard, Earl of Berkshire. Brownlow Cecil, Earl of Exeter. George Henry Lee, Earl of Lichfield. John Ward, Lord Ward. Richard Smallbrooke, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. George Parker, Earl of Macclesfield. Maurice Thompson, Lord Haversham. John Campbell, Duke of Greenwich (Duke of Argyll). Hugh Fortescue, Lord Clinton. George Montagu, Earl of Halifax. Hugh Boscawen, Viscount Falmouth. John Leveson Gower, Lord Gower. John Russell, Duke of Bedford. Charles Bruce, Lord Bruce of Whorlton. Henry Somerset, Duke of Beaufort. Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield. John Hervey, Earl of Bristol. CCCXX. FEBRUARY 13, 1741. Immediately on the rejection of the motion for the address to remove Walpole, the Duke of Marlborough moved, 'That any attempt to inflict any kind of punishment on any person without allowing him an opportunity to make his defence, or without any proof of any crime or misdemeanour committed by him, is contrary to natural justice, the fundamental laws of this realm, and the ancient established usage of Parliament, and is a high infringement of the liberties of the subject.' The motion was supported by the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Lovel, and the Earl of Cholmondeley, and was resisted as inopportune, and with much warmth, by Lords Gower and Talbot, and by the Earl of Halifax. It was carried against the previous question by 81 to 54. The following protest is entered. Because we think this question ought not to have been put at this time; for though the proposition contained in it is undoubtedly true in itself, yet we apprehend it to be no wise applicable to the point which had been so long debated the same day. For, we conceive, that public utility may render it necessary that a person should be removed from an office, and yet that removal cannot be deemed a punishment; for instance, in the case of incapacity. Surely then, wilful neglects, breach of duty, and evident malversation in an office, may justly require this great Council of State to present an humble address to his Majesty for the removal of any person guilty of such crimes, in order to prevent public detriment. And we cannot apprehend that the motion which occasioned the former debate, was by any means void of proofs, since the treaties and papers referred to (being as records in the possession of the House), and the notoriety of many facts alleged, were, in our opinion, equal to a cloud of witnesses. For these reasons, although we agree to the matter contained in the question, and, acting in our judicial capacity, would never err from the rules laid down in it, yet we cannot but wish the question had been laid aside, lest a wicked minister hereafter should think himself secure in his office, if he cannot be brought personally to answer at the Bar of this House, and witnesses, viva voce, cannot be produced against him. Francis Scott, Duke of Buccleuch. Thomas Mansel, Lord Mansel. Brownlow Cecil, Earl of Exeter. Henry Bowes Howard, Earl of Berkshire. Henry Howard, Earl of Carlisle. Richard Reynolds, Bishop of Lincoln. Richard Smallbrooke, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. Scroop Egerton, Duke of Bridgwater. Hugh Fortescue, Lord Clinton. John Campbell, Duke of Greenwich (Duke of Argyll). John St. John, Lord St. John of Bletsoe. John Leveson Gower, Lord Gower. Henry Somerset, Duke of Beaufort. Charles Bruce, Lord Bruce of Whorlton. John Russell, Duke of Bedford. Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield. John Hervey, Earl of Bristol. CCCXXI. FEBRUARY 26, 1741. A fresh attempt was made to revive the question as to the presence of officers in the Lower House, analogous to the Bill which was passed so many times in the Commons, under the title of An Act to secure free and impartial proceedings in Parliament.' It was thrown out on a motion to commit it, by 63 to 44. There is no record of the debate, except a very meagre summary in the Secker MSS. It is probable that it was brought forward mainly to give publicity to the division and the protest following, which is headed by the Earls of Northampton, Shaftesbury, and Stanhope, and Lord Clinton. |