for. The Duke of York had a great fettlement made upon him by Parliament, foon after the Restoration, though he was but Prefumptive Heir to the Crown, his brother King Charles being then in a capacity of having children, who would have given him a more effectual exclufion than could ever be attained by Parliament, till his own ridiculous measures put it in their power and the late Queen Anne, when Princess of Denmark, had also a great fettlement made upon her by authority of Parliament, tho' King William and Queen Mary were both then alive, and in a capacity of having children; fo that the Princess Anne, when that fettlement was made, was but the Prefumptive Heir to the Crown.

From these precedents it appears, that the maxim of having an independent provision fettled upon the Presumptive or Apparent Heir of the Crown, is a maxim that has ever been observed in this nation.

Mr. Pulteney, Feb. 23, 1737.

Julius Cæfar had as great reason as any man can ever have, to difcourage virtue, and reward the vicious: Julius Cæfar did fometimes threaten men for doing their duty; but Julius Cæfar was always extremely fhy of putting fuch threats in execution. We are told, that when he went to feize upon the facred treafure of Rome, and was oppofed by Metellus, the Tribune, he threatened to kill Metellus; and at the fame time told him, Ilud nonne fcis adolefcentule, longe mihi difficilius dicere, quam facere. This was threatening a man for doing his duty; but Julius Cæfar took care not to put his threat in execution.

Mr. Lyttelton, Jan. 28, 1738.

I REMEMBER a ftory that was told of a great favourite of Charles the IId. This Gentleman, who was a true cavalier, fought for the father, and was banished with the fon, whom he attended all the time of his exile. Upon the restoration of the Royal Family he continued ftill to follow his master's fortune,

but

but never minded his own; till his continual attendance at Court, his giving into all the fashionable expences of the times, and the figure which his intimacy with his Majesty obliged him to fupport, at laft exhaufted every fhilling of his eftate. But fuch was this Gentleman's modefty, (a virtue you'll fay very rarely to be met with in the favourite of a Monarch) that he never made one folicitation in his own behalf, though he had many opportunities of doing it. At last the King, being informed of his circumftances, took occafion one day, as the Gentleman was foliciting a poft for one of his friends, to tell him, "Sir, you have been a very faithful and a very "constant servant to me; I have had very great fatisfaction in your company, without your being a fhilling the better for me, though I am perfuaded your eftate has fuffered confider"ably in my service. As you are a man of sense, and fit for *bufiness, why do you not ask for fomething for yourself?" The Gentleman made no other return to his Majefty at that time, but a profound acknowledgment of the honour he had received, by his Majesty's being so mindful of him; but some time after, being all alone with the King, "Pray, Sir," says he to his Majesty, "be fo good as to lend me half a crown.” “Half a crown!" answers the King, "what do you mean? "if you have occafion for a larger fum you may have it." "No, no," replies the Gentleman, "this fmall piece does very "well to begin with; for I have often obferved, that once put ແ you in the way of giving, it is eafy to keep you in it, and "then you do not care how much you give."

There is fomething in this pretty applicable to our granting money for the public fervice. The fum, Sir, originally asked for, and granted, is but small, and makes no great figure, perhaps, in the public accounts; but an accumulation of that fum from time to time, obtained when we were in a giving humour, makes at length, a moft enormous article.

Sir Thomas Afton, Jan. 28, 1738.

Ir was a maxim with Julius Cæfar, never to venture even a battle, if the difadvantages that might enfue from a defeat appeared to be greater than any advantages he could expect from a victory; and in Africa, we are told, that he bore with many infults and indignities, from the adverse army, only becaufe by a little patience, he had reafon to expect being able to obtain a victory with lefs blood-fhed; and in refolving upon peace, or war, the fame maxim ought to be observed.

Horace Walpole, Efq; Jan. 28, 1738.

BOTH the circumftances of Europe, and the circumstances of Spain, are now, my Lords, very different from what they were in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, or in the time of Oliver Cromwell. In Queen Elizabeth's reign, Spain was the only formidable power in Europe, and we had as much reafon as any other of her neighbours to endeavour to reduce her power. For this prurpofe, Queen Elizabeth took the wifeft course that could be taken, by encouraging and supporting the Civil War in the Netherlands; by which means, fhe at laft enabled the Seven United Provinces to throw off the yoke of Spain; and the whole power of Spain being applied towards fupporting their dominion over the Netherlands, they could neither spare money for fortifying their fettlements, in America, nor could they send any regular troops thither for defending them; so that even our private adventurers had great fuccefs, and often got rich booties by privateering, and by incurfions upon those fettlements; for, as there was no good correfpondence between France and Spain, and an open war between Spain and Holland, the Spaniards could not make ufe of either French or Dutch veffels, for carrying on their trade with their fettlements in America; and befides, as the French were then involved in civil wars, they durft not venture to difoblige England, by affifting Spain, either openly or by underhand dealings.

In Oliver Cromwell's time, my Lords, we know that the Spaniards were engaged in a heavy war with France, which

rendered

rendered them unable to provide for the security of their trade and poffeffions in America; and though, by our taking part with France in that. war, we got the island of Jamaica, which was a valuable acquifition, yet I must think, it would have been lucky for this nation, if Oliver had joined with France against Spain; for it was his fatal union with France, that laid the foundation of the exceffive power of that kingdom, which has fince coft this nation fo much blood, and fo many millions of money. And now, my Lords, with regard to both thefe wars, I must obferve, that notwithstanding our great fucceffes against Spain, in Oliver's time, that nation was not eafily, or foon reduced to comply with fuch terms as we thought reasonable, for both Queen Elizabeth and Oliver Cromwell left the war to be put an end to by their fucceffors.

Lord Hervey, Feb. 22, 1738

EVERY nation in Europe is proud of feeing the younger children of their Royal Family make a figure in the world. The provision which his Majefty has been pleased to make, is but very moderate. Twenty-four thousand pounds a year, can never be thought too much to the four Princeffes; and 15,000 1. per annum is lefs, I believe, than any fecond fon of the Royal Family ever had before: the younger brother of Charles the IId had 10,000l. fettled upon him; and the small allowance to the Duke, mentioned in this Bill, is a proof of his Majesty's moderation, and that he has the good of his kingdom, and the ease of his fubjects, always first in his thoughts.

Lord Delawar, Feb. 22, 1739.

At the time of the Revolution, the Dutch provided a squadron of fifty men of war, and transports for 14,000 men, of which a great number was cavalry, in three months time, for accompanying the Prince of Orange to England. I fay, my Lords, in three months time; for it was in July that the first Refolution was taken to affift the Prince of Orange, and

the

!

the States-General prepared fuch an expédition, that foon after the beginning of October, a fleet of 50 men of war, 25 frigates, 25 fire-fhips, and near 400 transports, with an army of 10,000 foot, and 4000 horse, were ready to fail, and actually did fail upon the 19th of that month.

Lord Carteret, Nov. 18, 1740.

Ir then we should return to the country, my Lords, and tell the people, that our government durft not fend forces out to invade the enemy, for fear of their invading us, will not every man of common sense laugh us to fcorn? Does not every one know, that the beft way to prevent an invafion is to invade? Did not the Romans fend Scipio to invade the Carthaginians, at the very time that Hannibal was in Italy, and almost at their gates? But the cafe with us is ftill ftronger; we could eafily have invaded the enemy when and where we pleased; whereas it was difficult and dangerous, if not impoffible for them to invade us at any time, or in any place. To pretend that we must always keep a mercenary army of 30,000 men in Britain and Ireland, for fupporting our government against an invafion with 4 or 5000, must be ridiculous; or it must be a very bad compliment upon the illuftrious family now upon the Throne; because, it is supposing that they have few or no friends in the nation, but those they keep in daily pay. And to fay that a common foldier, who has no property, who has neither ara nor focus, will fight against a foreign invader with more courage and refolution than those that fight pro aris & focis, is, I am fure, a very unjust reflection upon all the Gentlemen and all the men of substance in the kingdom.

Lord Carteret, Nov. 18, 1740.

I KNOW, my Lords, I do not speak properly, when in talking of what happened in King Charles the Ift's time, I make ufe of the term Cabinet Council, because it is a term of much later date; for in those days, befides this House, the King had no

other