regulation. Sir, as to treaties, I will take part of the words of Sir William Temple, quoted by the honourable gentleman near me; it is vain to negotiate and to make treaties if there is not dignity and vigour sufficient to enforce their observance. Under the misconstruction and misrepresentation of these very treaties subsisting, this intolerable grievance has arisen; it has been growing upon you, treaty after treaty, through twenty years of negotiation, and even under the discussion of commissaries, to whom it was referred. You have heard from Captain Vaughan, at your bar, at what time these injuries and indignities were continued. As a kind of explanatory comment upon this Convention which Spain has thought fit to grant you, as another insolent protest, under the validity and force of which she has suffered this Convention to be proceeded upon, she seems to say, we will treat with you, but we will search and take your ships; we will sign a Convention, but we will keep your subjects prisoners in Old Spain; the West Indies are remote ; Europe shall witness in what manner we use you.

66

Sir, as to the inference of an admission of our right not to be searched, drawn from a reparation made for ships unduly seized and confiscated, I think that argument is very inconclusive. The right claimed by Spain to search our ships is one thing, and the excesses admitted to have been committed in consequence of this pretended right, is another. But surely, Sir, to reason from inference and implication only, is below the dignity of your proceedings upon a right of this vast importance. What this reparation is, what sort of composition for your losses, forced upon you by Spain, in an instance that has come to light, where your own commissaries could not in conscience decide against your claim, has fully appeared upon examination; and as for the payment of the sum stipulated, (all but seven and twenty thousand pounds, and that too subject to a drawback,) it is evidently a fallacious nominal payment only. I will not attempt to enter into the detail of a dark, confused, and scarcely intelligible account; I will only beg leave to conclude with one word upon it, in the light of a submission, as well as of an adequate reparation. Spain stipulates to pay to the Crown of England ninety-five thousand pounds; by a preliminary protest of the King of Spain, the South Sea Company is at once to pay sixty-eight thousand of it: if they refuse, Spain, I admit, is still to pay the ninety-five thousand pounds: but how does it stand then? The Asiento Contract is to be suspended. You are to purchase this sum at the price of an exclusive trade, pursuant to a national treaty, and of an immense debt, of God knows how many hundred thousand pounds, due from Spain to the South Sea Company. Here, Sir, is the submission of Spain by the payment of a stipulated sum; a tax laid upon subjects of England, under the severest penalties, with the reciprocal accord of an English Minister as a preliminary that the Convention may be signed; a condition imposed by Spain in the most absolute, imperious manner, and most tamely and abjectly received by the Ministers of England. Can any verbal distinctions, any evasions whatever, possibly explain away this public infamy? To whom would we disguise it? To ourselves and

to the nation. I wish we could hide it from the eyes of every court in Europe. They see that Spain has talked to you like your master; they see this arbitrary fundamental condition, standing forth with a pre-eminence of shame, as a part of this very Convention.

"This Convention, Sir, I think from my soul, is nothing but a stipulation for national ignominy; an illusory expedient to baffle the resentment of the nation; a truce, without a suspension of hostilities, on the part of Spain; on the part of England, a suspension, as to Georgia, of the first law of nature, self-preservation and self-defence; a surrender of the rights and trade of England to the mercy of plenipotentiaries; and, in this infinitely highest and most sacred point-future security, not only inadequate, but directly repugnant to the resolutions of Parliament, and the gracious promise from the Throne. The complaints of your despairing merchants, and the voice of England, have condemned it. Be the guilt of it upon the head of the adviser: God forbid that this committee should share the guilt by approving it!"

The motion for the address was carried by a majority of only 28; the numbers being 260 against 232.*

SIR CHARLES WAGER'S BILL FOR THE INCREASE OF THE NAVY.

1741. Upon the 27th of January, Sir Charles Wager † introduced a bill for the encouragement and increase of seamen, and for the better and speedier manning of the navy. It was originally proposed by this measure to empower justices of the peace, upon application being made to them by any person authorized by his Majesty, under the Royal sign-manual, or by the Lord High Admiral, or the Commissioners executing that office, to issue warrants to all constables within their jurisdiction, to search either by day or night for seamen; and, for that purpose, to enter, and, if need were, to force open the door of any house, or other place, in which any seamen might be suspected of being concealed.

On the 2nd of March, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House upon the above bill, and, at the close of the adjourned debate, which took place on the 6th of that month, upon the clauses relating to search-warrants, Mr. Pitt spoke as follows:

66

Sir, the two honourable and learned gentlemen who spoke in favour

In spite of the efforts of Sir Robert Walpole, he was unable to preserve peace. Spain failed to fulfil the terms of the Convention, and insisted, on the claim which it asserted, of searching British ships in the American seas, being admitted as the basis of future negotiations. A declaration of war against Spain was therefore issued in London, on the 19th of October, 1739.

+ First Lord of the Admiralty.

The Attorney and Solicitor-General, Sir Dudley Ryder and Sir John Strange. The former was subsequently Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench; and the latter, Master of the Rolls.

of this clause, were pleased to show that our seamen are half slaves already, and now they modestly desire you should make them wholly so. Will this increase your number of seamen? or will it make those you have more willing to serve you? Can you expect that any man will make himself a slave if he can avoid it? Can you expect that any man will breed his child up to be a slave? Can you expect that seamen will venture their lives or their limbs for a country that has made them slaves? or can you expect that any seaman will stay in the country, if he can by any means make his escape? Sir, if you pass this law, you must, in my opinion, do with your seamen as they do with their galley-slaves in France-you must chain them to their ships, or chain them in couples when they are ashore. But suppose this should both increase the number of your seamen, and render them more willing to serve you, it will render them incapable. It is a common observation, that when a man becomes a slave, he loses half his virtue. What will it signify to have your ships all manned to their full complement? Your men will have neither the courage nor the temptation to fight; they will strike to the first enemy that attacks them, because their condition cannot be made worse by a surrender. Our seamen have always been famous for a matchless alacrity and intrepidity in time of danger; this has saved many a British ship, when other seamen would have run below deck, and left the ship to the mercy of the waves, or, perhaps, of a more cruel enemy, a pirate. For God's sake, Sir, let us not, by our new projects, put our seamen into such a condition as must soon make them worse than the cowardly slaves of France or Spain.

"The learned gentlemen were next pleased to show us, that the Government was already possessed of such a power as is now desired; and how did they show it?. Why, Sir, by showing that this was the practice in the case of felony, and in the case of those who are as bad as felons, I mean those who rob the public, or dissipate the public money. Shall we, Sir, put our brave sailors upon the same footing with felons and public robbers? Shall a brave, honest sailor be treated as a felon, for no other reason, but because after a long voyage he has a mind to solace himself amongst his friends in the country, and for that purpose absconds for a few weeks, in order to prevent his being pressed upon a Spithead, or some such pacific expedition? For I dare answer for it, there is not a sailor in Britain, but would immediately offer his services, if he thought his country in any real danger, or expected to be sent upon an expedition, where he might have a chance of gaining riches to himself, and glory to his country. I am really ashamed, Sir, to hear such arguments made use of in any case, where our seamen are concerned. Can we expect that brave men will not resent such treatment? Could we expect they would stay with us, if we should make a law for treating them in such a contemptible manner?

"But suppose, Sir, we had no regard for our seamen, I hope we shall have some regard for the rest of the people, and for ourselves in particular; for I think I do not in the least exaggerate, when I say, we are laying a trap for the lives of all the men of spirit in the nation. Whether the law, when made,

is to be carried into execution, I do not know; but if it is, we are laying a . snare for our own lives. Every gentleman of this House must be supposed, I hope justly, to be a man of spirit. Would any of you, gentlemen, allow this law to be executed in its full extent? If, at midnight, a petty constable with a press-gang, should come thundering at the gates of your house in the country, and should tell you he had a search warrant, and must search your house for seamen, would you at that time of night allow your gates to be opened? I protest I would not. What, then, would be the consequence? He has by this law a power to break them open. Would any of you patiently submit to such an indignity? Would not you fire upon him, if he attempted to break open your gates? I declare I would, let the consequence be never so fatal; and if you happened to be in the bad graces of a Minister, the consequence would be, your being either killed in the fray, or hanged for killing the constable or some of his gang. This, Sir, may be the case of even some of us here; and, upon my honour, I do not think it an exaggeration to suppose it may.

"The honourable gentlemen say, no other remedy has been proposed. Sir, there have been several other remedies proposed. Let us go into a committee to consider of what has been, or may be, proposed. Suppose no other remedy should be offered: to tell us we must take this, because no other remedy can be thought of, is the same with a physician's telling his patient, Sir, there is no known remedy for your distemper, therefore you shall take poison-I'll cram it down your throat.' I do not know how the nation may treat its physicians; but, I am sure, if my physician told me so, I should order my servants to turn him out of doors.

"Such desperate remedies, Sir, are never to be applied but in cases of the utmost extremity; and how we come at present to be in such extremity I cannot comprehend. In the time of Queen Elizabeth we were not thought to be in any such extremity, though we were then threatened with the most formidable invasion that was ever prepared against this nation. In our wars with the Dutch, a more formidable maritime power than France and Spain now would be, if they were united against us, we were not supposed to be in any such extremity, either in the time of the Commonwealth, or of King Charles the Second. In King William's war against France, when her naval power was vastly superior to what it is at present, and when we had more reason to be afraid of an invasion than we can have at present, we were thought to be in no such extremity. In Queen Anne's time, when we were engaged in a war both against France and Spain, and were obliged to make great levies yearly for the land service, no such remedy was ever thought of, except for one year only, and then it was found to be far from being effectual.

This, Sir, I am convinced would be the case now, as well as it was then. It was at that time computed, that by means of such a law as this, there were not above fourteen hundred seamen brought into the service of the Government; and considering the methods that have been already taken, and

the reward proposed by this bill to be offered to volunteers, I am convinced that the most strict and general search would not bring in half the number. Shall we, then, for the sake of adding six or seven hundred, or even fourteen hundred seamen to his Majesty's navy, expose our constitution to so much danger, and every housekeeper in the kingdom to the danger of being disturbed at all hours in the night?

"But suppose this law were to have a great effect, it can be called nothing but a temporary expedient; because it can no way contribute towards increasing the number of our seamen, or towards rendering them more willing to enter into his Majesty's service. It is an observation made by Bacon upon the laws passed in Henry the Seventh's reign, that all of them were calculated for futurity as well as the present time. This showed the wisdom of his councils: I wish I could say so of our present. We have for some years thought of nothing but expedients for getting rid of some present inconvenience by running ourselves into a greater. The ease or convenience of posterity was never less thought of, I believe, than it has been of late years. I wish I could see an end of these temporary expedients; for we have been pursuing them so long, that we have almost undone our country, and overturned our constitution. Therefore, Sir, I shall be for leaving this clause out of the bill, and every other clause relating to it. The bill will be of some service without them; and when we have passed it, we may then go into a committee to consider of some lasting methods for increasing our stock of seamen, and for encouraging them upon all occasions. to enter into his Majesty's service."

All the clauses relative to the granting of search warrants were rejected.f

LORD LIMERICK'S MOTION FOR AN INQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS DURING THE LAST TWENTY YEARS.

On the assembling of a new Parliament in December, 1742, Sir Robert Walpole found himself in repeated minorities, and was forced, reluctantly, to retire from office. On the 9th February, 1741, he was created Earl of Orford, and on the 11th he resigned.

1742. March 9. A motion was this day made in the House of Commons, by Lord Limerick, for a committee to inquire into the conduct of affairs at home and abroad, during the last twenty years. This motion was opposed

"Certainly his (Henry the Seventh's) times for good commonwealth's laws did excel, so as he may justly be celebrated for the best lawgiver to this nation, after King Edward the First; for his laws, whoso marks them well, are deep, and not vulgar; not made upon the spur of a particular occasion for the present, but out of providence for the future, to make the estate of his people still more and more happy; after the manner of the legislators in ancient and heroical times."-Bacon's Works, vol. iii. p. 233, Edition 1834.

A measure somewhat similar, but more exceptionable, had been rejected in the previous year.