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.

Ist, 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

though the first design was on a sudden dropped, the last intelligence declares the same to be renewed again;' which information, we conceive, was sufficient to have excited greater apprehensions for the danger of that island, than seem to have been entertained, since no one step appears to have been taken thereupon for its defence, or any leave of absence re-called; but the whole Government was suffered to devolve to a lieutenant-colonel of one of the regiments there.

4thly, Because it appeared by the examination of Major General Anstruther at the Bar, that when he left Minorca about the 15th of February last, above 700 men were wanting to complete the regiments there, and near the same proportion of officers absent; that the private soldiers were so uneasy at having been there so long, that many destroyed themselves from despair, and many maimed themselves to get discharged; that should the island be attacked, the inhabitants would, in his opinion, certainly join the Spaniards; that in his opinion too, that island was always in danger when our enemies were superior in the Mediterranean, which has been for some time, and is still the case. All which circumstances concur to prove the danger, the neglect, and the justice of censuring such a neglect at such a time.

5thly, Because it was said in the debate by those whose high stations best enable them to know, 'That a general relaxation of Government, and abuses of this nature, were the vices of the present age.' A melancholy truth! which we conceive is so far from being an argument for impunity, that it evinces the necessity, at least, of censuring such as we can attain to the knowledge and proofs of. And indeed we have but too much reason to believe, that the several abuses committed in the several branches of the Government, unpunished at least, if not connived at, have already produced effects too sensibly felt by this nation; which abuses, from the nature of things, necessarily multiply themselves, and if not speedily checked, must soon forge a chain of reciprocal and criminal dependency, too strong for even the authority of this House to break, too heavy for the Constitution to bear.

6thly, Because the motion for an address, offered in lieu of this question, in which the same fact is stated in its full extent, but without the least censure annexed to it, is, in our opinion, not only unprecedented, but inconsistent with the honour and dignity of

this House, as it may seem calculated to screen the guilt it avows; and as it may be thought to intimate future impunity for public crimes, if balanced by private ministerial merit; artifice may elude inquiries, or prevent detection; lenity may censure a crime, yet spare the criminal. But mankind, we fear, may be at a loss to account from what motives so criminal a neglect, fully stated, proved and admitted, could escape without censure; or may ascribe it to such as would affect the reputation, and consequently lessen the authority of this House.

John Montagu, Earl of Sandwich.
John Fane, Earl of Westmorland.

George Montagu Dunk, Earl of Halifax.

John Campbell, Duke of Greenwich (Duke of Argyll).
Richard Temple, Viscount Cobham.

John Ward, Lord Ward.

Scroop Egerton, Duke of Bridgwater.

Sackville Tufton, Earl of Thanet.

Thomas Mansel, Lord Mansel.
Henry Howard, Earl of Carlisle.

Thomas Foley, Lord Foley.

Hugh Fortescue, Lord Clinton.

John St. John, Lord St. John of Bletsoe.

Allen Bathurst, Lord Bathurst.

Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield.

Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury.
William Feilding, Earl of Denbigh.

Price Devereux, Viscount Hereford.

Edward Harley, Earl of Oxford and Mortimer.

Thomas Leigh, Lord Leigh.

James Compton, Earl of Northampton.

Brownlow Cecil, Earl of Exeter.

George Henry Lee, Earl of Lichfield.

Richard Reynolds, Bishop of Lincoln.

Henry Howard, Earl of Suffolk.

John Leveson Gower, Lord Gower.
Fulwar Craven, Lord Craven.

George Parker, Earl of Macclesfield.
Charles Bruce, Earl of Ailesbury.

William Talbot, Lord Talbot.

Henry Bowes Howard, Earl of Berkshire.

Maurice Thompson, Lord Haversham.

Heneage Finch, Earl of Aylesford.

John Russell, Duke of Bedford.
Henry Somerset, Duke of Beaufort.
William Graham, Earl Graham.
Hugh Boscawen, Viscount Falmouth.

John Berkeley, Lord Berkeley of Stratton.

Richard Smallbrooke, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry.
Montague Bertie, Earl of Abingdon.

Edward Bligh, Lord Clifton (Earl of Darnley).

CCCXXV.

MAY 25, 1742.

Walpole was created Earl of Orford on the 6th of February. His writ of summons is dated the 12th of February, and he took his seat in the Lords on the 18th of February. On the 9th of March, Lord Limerick moved in the House of Commons for a secret Committee to inquire into the conduct of affairs at home and abroad for the last twenty years. This was lost by 244 to 242. But on the 23rd of March, a motion for a Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Earl of Orford for the last ten years, was carried by 252 to 245. The members (21) were balloted for on the 29th of March, and were with two exceptions opponents of Walpole. The report (delayed by the obstinacy of Nicholas Paxton, Solicitor of the Treasury, who refused to answer questions put to him, and was thereupon committed to the Tower) was presented on the 13th of May. See Parliamentary History, vol. xii, p. 628. The reason which induced Paxton and others to refuse evidence was the fear that they might criminate themselves. Hence Walpole's enemies pressed a Bill, for indemnifying such witnesses as might give evidence, through the House of Commons. The Bill which may be found in Parliamentary History, vol. xii, p. 638, was introduced on the 13th of May, and passed on the 19th of May by 214 to 186, closer divisions having been taken on every previous stage. The Bill was read a first time in the Lords on the 20th of May, but on the 25th was rejected on the motion for going into Committee on it, by 109 to 57, many of Walpole's most determined opponents speaking and voting against it. It appears from Tindal that the public were satisfied with the action of the Lords, notwithstanding the unpopularity of Walpole at the time. The Commons were indignant, and Lord Strange brought forward a motion on the 27th of May to the effect, that the conduct of the Lords was an obstruction to justice. The motion was lost by 245 to 193. A second report on the conduct of Walpole was presented on the 30th of June. It contained nothing of consequence, perhaps because Walpole was effectually shielded by Paxton and Scrope, the former Solicitor, the latter Secretary of the Treasury.

The rejection of the Bill elicited the following protest.

Ist, Because the rejecting of this Bill, founded, as we conceive, upon reason and justice, warranted by precedents, authorised by necessity, and called for by the general voice of the nation, may appear a manifest obstruction to public justice, in the present great and important case, and a most certain defeat of it for the future, in all cases of the like nature.

2ndly, Because it is an uncontroverted maxim of the law of