1

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 material step in the late conduct of our publick affairs, either at home or abroad, has been authorized or approved 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 personal 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 offficer 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 had made use of the favours of the crown for obtaining a corrupt majority in both houses of parliament, and keeping that majority in a slavish dependance upon himself alone? Do not we all know, that even the king himself is not, by our constitution, to take notice of any man's behaviour in parliament; far less to make that behaviour a means by which he is to obtain, or a tenure by which he is to hold, the favour of the crown? And shall we allow a minister not only to do, but openly to avow, what he ought to be hanged for, should he advise his sovereign to do? It is by means of this crime, sir, that the minister I am speaking of has obtained the authority or approbation of parliament in every step of his con duct, and therefore that authority or approbation is so far from being an alleviation, that it is a most heavy aggravation of every wrong step which he has thus got authorized or approved of by parliament. For this reason, in considering any particular step of his conduct, its being authorized or approved by parliament, can have no weight in his favour, whatever it may have against him. If the step was in itself weak or wicked, or if it now appears from its consequences to have been so, its having been approved of, or authorized by parliament, must be supposed to have proceeded either from his having misled the parliament by false glosses and asseverations, or from his having overawed a majority by means of that crime which he has since openly avowed.

Having thus obviated an objection that may be made against any particular accusation, as well as against the general accusations I have already mentioned, I shall just hint at some of the particular branches of misconduct he has been guilty of in the long course of his administration; and among these the small progress we have made in the discharge of our publick debt most justly deserves the first place. It is really surprising, that the national debt should now be as much, if not more than it was in the year 1725, when our minister first took it into his head to pull down the overgrown power of the house of Austria. In the year 1716, the publick debt was computed to amount to no more than 47,894,9501. but by some articles then omitted, and by many extraordinary allowances afterwards made, especially those relating to army debentures, in which this gentleman had a very remarkable share, the pub. lick debt as it then stood was made to amount to 51,000,0001. Of this sum there was, in or before the year 1725, paid off about 5,000,000l. which reduced it to 46,000,000l. and as the sinking fund was to receive a great addition in the year 1727, by the reduction of interest, we had a prospect of having a great part of our publick debts paid off in a few years, especially as the tranquillity of Europe, or at least of this nation, seemed to be established by the treaty concluded that year at Vienna, between the emperour and the king of Spain. But our minister was, it seems, sensible of the power and influence he acquired by means of this load of debt, and by the many taxes imposed for the payment of it. He knew that these taxes, while they continue, must always make a great number of officers and placemen necessary, and as he had the placing, preferring, and displacing of all these officers at his arbitrary will and pleasure, he knew what weight this gave to his influence, both at elections and in parliament. For this reason, he has employed all his art to prevent our being able to pay off any part of our old debt, or if we paid off with one hand, he has taken care to make us contract as much with the other; so that the national debt is now much about the same, or rather more than it was in the year 1725, though the nation has never, in all that time, been involved in any extraordinary expense, but what has been unnecessarily brought upon it by his art or misconduct.

I say, sir, his art or misconduct, either of which is certainly a most sufficient cause to remove him from his majesty's councils; but I am apt to believe, there was something of art or design, as well as misconduct in it; for he really seems to have been afraid of having our debts diminished, for fear of the consequence, which must have been that of abolishing some of our most burthensome and pernicious taxes; otherwise it was impossible he could have taken so much pains as he did, to defeat a scheme offered a few years since by a worthy member of this house,* for reducing the interest payable upon the national debt, and for putting the whole upon a certain footing of being discharged in a course of years, without its being in the power of any such minister as he to prevent it. To find fault with the defeating of this scheme, may likewise be said to be an accusation brought against this very parliament; but it is well known by whom, and by whose influence it was defeated. I am pretty sure, it is the general opinion without doors, that it was not by the influence of argument; but if the defeat was owing to that influence, as I hope it was, I am convinced, that most of those who were swayed by that influence, are now sensible of their errour, and heartily wish they had considered better of it: for I am afraid, we shall never again meet with so favourable an opportunity.

But, sir, the next step of misconduct I shall take notice of is of a different nature; it is a step that happened not to meet with the approbation of parliament, though I do not question its having been supported and enforced by all the methods usual, of late years, in such cases. I make no doubt but that every one, who possessed or hoped for any place or office under the crown, were threatened with a disappointment to their hopes, or the loss of the places they possessed, if they voted against it; and my reason for not doubting of this is, because several noblemen and gentlemen were the very next year turned out of every place the crown could take from them, for no other apparent reason, but because they or their friends voted against that ministerial project; and so far as I can recollect, I do not remember, that any one who voted against it, has ever since ob