England, that the public has a right to every man's evidence, and yet, by the same law, no man is obliged to accuse himself. And as the accomplices of guilt are frequently the only witnesses of it, we conceive, that both prudence and justice point out this method of impunity to some, as absolutely necessary towards discovering the guilt of others; and thereby dissolving those confederacies, which, formed by common guilt, can only subsist whilst they are cemented by common danger. From these undeniable principles we apprehend this Bill ought to have passed, in order to preserve the rights of the public, and the rights of individuals.

3rdly, Because this Bill is justified by many Bills of a much stronger nature, in cases of much less consequence to the public, such as the cases of Sir Thomas Cooke, the Masters in Chancery, Sir Robert Sutton, Thomson, and others; in some of which, the persons indemnified, in order to give their evidence, were, at the same time, compelled, under severe penalties, to give it. And as there is a power not only of indemnifying, but rewarding, necessarily lodged in the Crown, in order to bring criminals to justice, by evidence known to, and within the reach of the laws; so we apprehend, that in an inquiry after crimes, that may affect the being of the whole, the people have a right to the exertion of that power with which the legislature is undoubtedly vested, to come at such evidence as may make that inquiry effectual to their future. security.

4thly, Because the legislature has exercised this power in many instances, relating to particular branches of the revenue, in order to prevent frauds, the persons concerned in such frauds being not only indemnified, but rewarded also; and for the private utility of one Company, the Legislature, by the 9th of King George I, after forbidding any person to be concerned in promoting an East India Company in the Austrian Netherlands, gives to our East India Company a power to prosecute, by Bill in Chancery, or Court of Exchequer, any person whom they shall suspect, obliging such person to make discovery upon oath, though such discovery subjects him to a forfeiture. As also for the better discovery of felonies the legislature has thought fit by an Act, of the 5th of Queen Anne, to pardon any person not only of the felony discovered, but of all other felonies he has ever been guilty of, upon his making a discovery of two persons who shall thereupon be convicted of any

burglary or felony, and that discoverer is also entitled to a re

ward.

5thly, Because the rejecting this Bill may prove a dangerous precedent of fatal consequence to this Constitution, since, whenever this nation shall be visited by a wicked minister, those who shall have served him in defrauding and oppressing the public, and in corrupting individuals, will be furnished with an excuse for refusing their evidence, their danger will produce his security, and he may enjoy with safety the plunder of his country. Nay, we even apprehend, that the rejecting of this Bill may be misunderstood by those who can make any discovery, as if this House designed to discourage any evidence whatsoever, that could affect the person whose conduct the Secret Committee was appointed, by the House of Commons, to inquire into. A minister may be removed from his place, and not from his power; he may be removed from both, and not from the favour of his Prince; nay, he may be deprived of all three, and yet his successor may think his interest and future safety, and his Prince may imagine his authority, concerned in protecting him from either punishment or inquiry. In any of which cases all written evidence, all office proofs, will be secreted or refused and if verbal evidence be rendered impracticable too (which the rejecting of this Bill will furnish a precedent for) we conceive we might as well have passed an Act of Indemnity to all future ministers.

6thly, Because we can by no means agree to the argument principally urged against this Bill, that there were not proofs of guilt against this person sufficient to justify the passing it;' whereas, in our humble opinions, the voice of the nation, the sense of the other House, and the lamentable situation of this Kingdom, both at home and abroad, create suspicions which not only justify, but even call aloud for inquiry; which inquiry must necessarily prove ineffectual, unless the proper methods are taken to support it, of which we apprehend this Bill to be one, and a proceeding so just, that no innocent man would desire to avoid it, and no guilty one ought to escape it. Moreover the reasons assigned by the persons whose behaviour gave rise to this Bill, for refusing their evidence, is a sufficient implication that it would affect the Earl of Orford, since they admit it would affect themselves.

7thly, Because we conceive that the rejecting this Bill may

create great disaffection in the nation, to the diminution of the credit, and consequently of the authority of this House, when the people find themselves disappointed in their just expectations of having a strict inquiry made into the conduct of the Earl of Orford, which they have so long called for in vain, and hoped they had at last obtained. Groaning under the undiminished load of national debts and taxes, notwithstanding a long peace; trembling under the terrors of multiplied penal laws; deploring their sacrificed honour, and their neglected interest; the balance of Europe overturned abroad, and the Constitution endangered at home; they call for inquiry; they seek for justice; they hope for redress. The other House has taken the proper steps to answer these expectations; the inquiry begun there could only have been rendered effectual in one material point by this Bill; which being rejected by this House, from whence they expect justice and redress, we fear their blasted hopes, which, for a time, may seem sunk into a slavish despondency, may at last break out into disorders, more easy, possibly, to foresee than to remedy.

Edward Harley, Earl of Oxford and Mortimer.
William Feilding, Earl of Denbigh.

Heneage Finch, Earl of Aylesford.
Montague Bertie, Earl of Abingdon.
William Coventry, Earl of Coventry.

John Russell, Duke of Bedford.

John Campbell, Duke of Greenwich (Duke of Argyll).
Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield.

Henry Howard, Earl of Carlisle.

John Fane, Earl of Westmorland.

Allen Bathurst, Lord Bathurst.

Lewis Watson, Earl of Rockingham.

Henry Bowes Howard, Earl of Berkshire.

Richard Temple, Viscount Cobham.

Richard Reynolds, Bishop of Lincoln.

Charles Bruce, Earl of Ailesbury and Elgin.

Thomas Foley, Lord Foley.

John Ward, Lord Ward.

John Boyle, Lord Boyle (Earl of Orrery).

John Leveson Gower, Lord Gower.

George Montagu Dunk, Earl of Halifax.
Hugh Boscawen, Viscount Falmouth.
John Montagu, Earl of Sandwich.
Henry Somerset, Duke of Beaufort.
John St. John, Lord St. John of Bletsoe.
James Compton, Earl of Northampton.

Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury.

Fulwar Craven, Lord Craven.

George Henry Lee, Earl of Lichfield.

Thomas Leigh, Lord Leigh.

Price Devereux, Viscount Hereford.

Maurice Thompson, Lord Haversham.

CCCXXVI.

FEBRUARY 1, 1743.

The Speech from the Throne on the 16th of November, contained a statement that troops had been sent into Flanders in order to support the House of Austria, and to restore and secure the balance of power; that moreover the King had raised a force of 16,000 Hanoverians in addition to Hessians in the British pay, and that he hoped he should have the assistance of Parliament in these measures. The expedition to Holland under the command of Lord Stair was a failure, and the raising of the Hanoverian troops (hints being given that the British Parliament should find them pay and supplies) was exceedingly unpopular. This pay, £657,000, was moved for on the 10th of December, by Sir William Yonge, and carried by 260 to 193. In the Lords, Lord Bath (Pulteney) defended the grant. Walpole was absent. The motion deprecating the levy and use of these troops, introduced by Earl Stanhope, was rejected by 90 to 35.

It produced the following protest, the protest being headed by Lord Gower, Privy Seal, and Viscount Cobham.

1st, Because we apprehend, that the assembling an army in Flanders last year, without the concurrence of the States General, was a measure not only unwarranted by any advice or consent of Parliament, but directly repugnant to the declared sense of the House of Commons in their resolution of the 23rd of March last; it not appearing to us, that any one power, engaged by treaty, or bound by interest to support the Queen of Hungary, except England alone, had come in to give her any assistance, or to co-operate with us in any plan to which an army in Flanders could be supposed to conduce; and therefore the support then promised by that House to his Majesty, upon an express conditional supposition of being joined by such other Powers, is so far from authorising a measure entered upon in circumstances totally different, that it plainly points out the opinion of Parliament against such an undertaking.

2ndly, Because the taking 16,000 Hanoverians into the service of Great Britain, to act in conjunction with the English forces

assembled in Flanders, without consulting the Parliament upon an affair of such an important and delicate nature (although it was foreseen and pointed out by the King to both Houses of Parliament at the close of the last Session, and is expressly referred to in his Majesty's Speech at the opening of this) seems to us highly derogatory to the rights, honour, and dignity of the great Council of the nation, and a very dangerous precedent to future times.

3rdly, Because the restoring the balance of power in Europe, by raising the House of Austria to its former condition of influence, dominion, and strength, is an object quite unattainable by the arms of Great Britain alone. And for the attaining of which, no other Power has joined, or is likely to join with us in any offensive engagements, either against the Emperor, or against France.

4thly, Because such assistance to the Queen of Hungary, as the situation of her affairs, and that of Europe, as well as the particular interest and policy of this island require, would have been more properly given in money, with much less expense and danger to us, with much more effect and advantage to our ally. The 38,000 men, now said to be paid for her service, costs this nation £1,400,000, one-half of which sum would have enabled her to maintain a greater number of men, capable of acting wherever her affairs might require; so that above £700,000 seems to be wantonly lavished away upon this occasion, besides the lives of many of the subjects of Great Britain.

5thly, Because we apprehend, that the troops of the Elector of Hanover cannot be employed to act in Germany against the head of the Empire, whose title and cause have been avowed by the whole body, in granting him an aid of fifty Roman months for his support in this very war, without incurring the risk of such consequences upon any ill success, as neither consist with the safety of Hanover, nor with the prudence of England; in which apprehension we are strongly confirmed by those troops not having acted in opposition to Marshal Maillebois, at a juncture of time when such an assistance, given to the Queen of Hungary, might have been decisive; and for losing which opportunity, no other natural or probable reason appears.

6thly, Because the assembling an army in Flanders, not then attacked by the French, nor, as it appears to us, in any danger of being attacked, could be of no use to the power we designed to