real punishment upon him; and that is, by an humble Address to our Sovereign, that he would be graciously pleased to remove fuch a one from his Councils. I therefore move your Lordfhips, "Whether an humble Addrefs fhould be prefented to his Majefty, that he would be graciously pleased to remove the Right Honourable Sir Robert Walpole, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, First Commiffioner for executing the office of Treasurer of the Exchequer, Chancellor and Under-Treafurer of the Exchequer, and one of his Majefty's Moft Honourable Privy Council, from his Majefty's prefence and councils for ever?"

way

I believe, my Lords, it will not be queftioned, that either House of Parliament may offer fuch advice to the Crown, by of humble Addrefs; I believe it will not be faid, that it is unusual, or unprecedented; and therefore I fhall not trouble your Lordships with calling to your remembrance, any of the precedents that may be found in the Journals of Parliament. I fhall only take notice of the difference between the methods of proceeding by Impeachment, by Bill of Attainder, or Bill of Pains and Penalties; and this method of proceeding, by way of humble Addrefs to the Crown. When we proceed by way of Impeachment, by Bill of Attainder, or by Bill of Pains and Penalties, fome particular criminal tests must be alledged, and there must be fome fort of proofs of these facts. But when we proceed by way of Address to the King, that he would be gracioufly pleased to remove fuch a Minifter from his Councils, a general view of that Minister's conduct, a general view of public affairs, may afford just cause for such an Address, and common fame is a sufficient proof; for when no particular fact is infifted on, it is impoffible to bring any particular proof. This, my Lords, is the difference; and the reafon of this difference is very plain. When a man is to be punished, either in his perfon, his freedom, or eftate, fome crime or criminal neglect, ought to be not only alledged, but proved by a legal proof, or by strong prefumptions: but as his not being employed in the King's

Councils

Councils neither affects his perfon, his freedom, nor his eftate, therefore weaknefs alone, or a general bad character, may be a good caufe for removing him. A weak man is certainly, in any country, very unfit for being in the King's Councils; and, in a popular government, a man who has incurred the general odium of the people, ought not to be continued in the King's Councils; because the unpopularity of the Minifter may, at leaft, affect the Throne itfelf, and render the people difaffected to their Sovereign.

. I muft, therefore, defire your Lordships to take particular care to distinguish between the method of proceeding against a Minifter by Impeachment, by Bill of Attainder, a Bill of Pains and Penalties, and the method of proceeding against a Minister by Addrefs only; becaufe, if you do not take care to fix this distinction in your minds, you may expect from me what I do not intend to give, and what the nature of the motion I have made, renders it not only unneceffary, but unfit for me to give. I am to move only for an humble Addrefs to his Majefty, that he would be graciously pleased to remove a Minister, I may say, the Minifter, from his Councils; and therefore, it is both unneccffary and unfit for me, to charge that Minister with any particular crime, or to acquaint your Lordships that I have, or I am ready to produce particular proofs against him: if this were my intention, I fhould think it below my dignity, as a Member of this House, to content myself with moving for an humble Addrefs; I fhould think it incumbent upon me directly to impeach, let the confequence be what it would. Therefore your Lordships are not to expect, that I am to accufe any Minifter of a particular crime, or that I am to tell you, that I am ready to bring proofs of what I alledge against him. If I can fhew, that the affairs of Europe have been brought into the unlucky fituation in which they are at prefent, by the conduct of this nation; or if I can fhew, that the diftreffed condition in which our people now are, is wholly owing to our own conduct; either of thefe will be an argument that muft, that ought at

leaft,

leaft, to prevail with every Lord who is convinced, that this Minifter has been the principal, if not the fole adviser of that conduct. If the people be generally diffatisfied with the conduct of our public affairs, and if that general diffatisfaction be wholly directed against any one man now in administration, as our government is ftill, I hope, a popular government, it is a fufficient caufe for this Houfe to let his Majefty know the character of his Minifter, by an Address to remove him from his Councils. If there be any one of his Majefty's Ministers that has ufurped, or that even is generally thought to have ufurped the fole power of directing all public affairs, and recommending to all public pofts, honours, and employments, it is our duty, at least, to addrefs his Majefty to remove such a Minister, because such a one is inconfiftent with the conftitution of our government.

Upon this queftion, my Lords, it fignifies nothing whether the general character the Minister has gained, or the misconduct he has been guilty of, has been owing to his weakness or his wickedness; for either is a fufficient caufe for having him removed. But I muft obferve, that till he is removed, it cannot be made manifeft by proper proofs, whether his mifconduct, or his general bad character, be owing to his weaknefs or wickednefs; for artful Minifters always act by tools, and under agents, who, whilft their patron is in power, will never reveal the flagitious fecrets committed by him to their charge: but as fuch men are seldom faithful any longer than it is their interest to be fo, remove the Minifter once from the King's Councils, put it out of his power to reward the wicked fidelity of his affociates and tools, and the fecret hiftory of his dirty jobs will then begin to unfold itself, and may be made manifest by a legal proof. Suppofe the King should be advised, by a favourite Minister, to keep up a conftant friendship and alliance with the greatest rivals and moft inveterate enemies of his country; and that he should, for this purpose, facrifice the intereft, and forfeit the friendship of the moft natural allies; whilft the Minifter is in power, this may feem to proceed from his weakness, or from the ignorance he

has

has of the true intereft of his country: but remove him from the perfon and councils of his Sovereign, and then it may appear to have proceeded from his wickednefs: it may appear that he was corrupted by the enemies of his country, or that he knowingly and wickedly facrificed the intereft of his country to fome private view of his own. If he employed any one in tranfacting or receiving the bribe, if he was ever so free in converfation with his friends as to unfold the motives of his misconduct, or the reasons why he gave fuch wicked advice to his Sovereign, fome of them, either from confcience or intereft, may be induced to discover the fecret, when it is fafe for them to do fo; but whilst he continues folely to enjoy the ear of the Sovereign, it can never be any man's intereft to accuse him, it will always be unsafe for a private man to do fo; because the power of the Crown will be employed in blasting the credit, or preventing the effect of his evidence; and probably in making the punishment fall, not upon the guilty Minister, but upon the brave and honeft accufer.

Earl of Carteret, Feb. 13, 1740.`

I CAN by no means think that the complicated question now before us, is the proper, is the direct manner of taking the fenfe of the Committee. We have here the foft name of an humble Address to the Crown propofed, and for no other end but to lead Gentlemen into an approbation of the convention. But is this that full deliberate examination, which we were with defiances called upon to give? Is this curfory blended difquifition of matters of fuch variety and extent, all we owe to ourselves and our country? When trade is at ftake, it is your laft intrenchment; you must defend it or perish: and whatever is to decide, that deferves the most diftinct confideration, and the most direct and undisguised fenfe of Parliament. But how are we now proceeding? Upon an artificial minifterial queftion? Here is all the confidence, here is the confcious fense of the greatest service that ever was done to this country; to be complicating

complicating queftions, to be lumping fanction and approbation, like a Commiffary's account, to be covering and taking fanctuary in the royal Name, instead of meeting openly, and ftanding fairly the direct judgment and fentence of Parliament upon the several articles of this Convention.

Sir, you have been moved to vote an humble Addrefs of Thanks to his Majesty for a measure, which (I will appeal to Gentlemen's conversation in the world) is odious throughout the kingdom: Such Thanks are only due to the fatal influence that framed it, as are due for that low, unallied condition abroad, which is now made a plea for this Convention. To what are Gentlemen reduced in support of it? First try a little to defend it upon its own merits; if that is not tenable, throw out general terrors; the House of Bourbon is united, who knows the confequence of a war? Sir, Spain knows the confequence of a war in America; whoever gains, it must prove fatal to her: She knows it, and must therefore avoid it; but she knows England does not dare to make it. And what is a delay, which is all this magnified Convention is fometimes called to produce? Can it produce fuch conjunctures as those you loft, while you were giving kingdoms to Spain, and all to bring her back again to that great branch of the House of Bourbon, which is now thrown out to you with fo much terror? If this union be formidable, are we to delay only till it becomes more formidable, by being carried farther into execusion, and more strongly cemented? But be it what it will, is this any longer a nation, or what is an English Parliament, if with more fhips in your harbours than in all the navies of Europe, with above two millions of people in your American colonies, you will bear to hear of the expediency of receiving from Spain, an infecure, unfatisfactory, difhonorable Convention? Sir, I call it no more than it has been proved in this Debate; it carries fallacy or downright fubjection in almost every line: It has been laid open and exposed in so many strong VOL. I.

and