by Horace Walpole, in an elaborate speech of above two hours, beginning at half past eleven in the morning.* His statement, however clear and convincing, was immediately met by a burst of angry eloquence. First, Sir Thomas Saunderson complained that no revenge had been taken on the Spanish Captain who cut off Jenkins's ear. "Even this fellow," said he, "is suffered to live to enjoy the fruits of "his rapine, and remain a living testimony of the cowardly "tameness and mean submission of Great Britain!" Lord Gage inveighed against the insufficiency of the payments; Lyttleton against the Right of Search. But by far the ablest speech was that of Pitt, who on this occasion seems first to have acquired the ascendency which he ever afterwards retained in the House of Commons. "Is this," he cried, "any "longer a nation, or what is an English Parliament if, with more ships in your harbours than in all the navies of Europe, "with above two millions of people in your American colo"nies, you will bear to hear of the expediency of receiving "from Spain an insecure, unsatisfactory, and dishonourable "Convention? Sir, I call it no more than it has been proved "in this debate. It carries fallacy or downright subjection "in almost every line; it has been laid open or exposed in so "many strong and glaring lights, that I cannot pretend to "add any thing to the conviction and indignation it has "raised."

66

He thus concluded, "I will not attempt to enter into the “detail of a dark, confused, and scarcely intelligible ac"count. But Spain stipulates to pay to the Crown of Eng"land 95,000l. By a preliminary protest of the King of "Spain, the South Sea Company is at once to pay 68,0007. "of it; if they refuse, Spain, I admit, is still to pay the "95,000l.: 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 an immense debt of God knows how many thousand "pounds, due from Spain to the South Sea Company. Here,

* Mr. Selwyn to Mr. T. Townshend, March 10, 1739. Mahon, History. 11.

19

"Sir, is the submission of Spain by the payment of a stipu"lated 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 received by the Ministers of Eng"land in the most tame and abject. Can any verbal distinc"tions, any evasions whatever, possibly explain away this "public infamy? To whom would we disguise it? To our"selves and to the nation; I wish we could hide it from the "eyes of every Court in Europe. They see Spain has talked

to you like your master, they see this arbitrary fundamen

"tal condition, and it must stand with distinction, with a "pre-eminence of shame, as a part even of this 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 plenipoten"tiaries; and in this infinitely highest and sacred point, "future security, not only inadequate, but directly re"pugnant to the resolutions of Parliament and the gracious "promise of the Throne. The complaints of your despairing "merchants, the voice of England has 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 debate was closed by a speech from the Minister, with his usual skill, but not with his usual success, for he found his majority dwindled to only 28; the numbers being 260 against 232. This appeared to the Opposition leaders a

* Parl. Hist. vol. x. p. 1280-83. Mr. Selwyn, a strong Ministerialist, writes the next day to Mr. Townshend. "Mr. Pitt spoke very well, but "very abusively." See Coxe's Walpole, vol. iii. p. 519. Mr. Orlebar, another placeman, likewise alludes to some "young gentlemen, who took "great personal liberties." March 10. 1739.

favourable opportunity to execute a project which they had for some time brooded over, and which was recommended to them by no less an authority than Bolingbroke: to withdraw or secede in a body from the House of Commons. By this means they hoped to heighten the national ferment, to represent the cause of corruption as all-powerful, and yet, at the same time, to withhold the Minister, by popular odium, from pursuing his measures in their absence. Accordingly, on the day after the Resolution of Horace Walpole was carried in Committee, and on the Report of it being brought up to the House, Pulteney, who had reserved himself for this occasion, opened another attack on the Convention, in which he was ably followed by Wyndham. A second division which ensued having only confirmed the last, Wyndham immediately rose, and with much solemnity, speaking both for himself and for his friends, took leave of that House, as he declared, for ever. "In a future Parlia"ment," he said, "he might perhaps still be at liberty to serve his country as before, but now being unable to discern the least appearance of reason in any one argument "offered on the Ministerial side, he must conclude either "that the majority was swayed by other or secret arguments, For that he himself wanted common sense to comprehend "the force of those which he had heard. In the first case," he continued, "he could not with honour sit in an Assembly "determined by such influences; in the latter case, he looked "upon himself as a very unfit person to act as a senator: and "in either case, therefore, he thought it his duty for the fu"ture to retire, and content himself with offering up his "prayers for the preservation of his country."

66

66

66

So strong and unmeasured were some of the expressions of this speech, that, as the Ministers believed, it was the wish of the speaker to be sent to the Tower, and thus to stir the minds of the people as a martyr in their cause. At the moment Mr. Pelham fell into the snare, and was actually rising to move his commitment, when Walpole with more sagacity prevented him, by rising himself and thanking his

opponents, as he said, for throwing off the mask.* We can be on our guard, added he, against open rebels, but not against secret traitors. He reminded Wyndham how twentyfive years before he had been seized by the vigilance of Government, and pardoned by its clemency; he upbraided him for the ill use of that clemency, and only feared that the seceders would not be as good as their word, and would come back. "For I remember," said he, "that in the case "of their favourite Bishop (of Rochester), who was im"peached of High Treason, the same gentleman and his "faction made the same resolution. They then went off as "traitors as they were, but their retreat had not the de"testable effect they expected and wished, and therefore "they returned."**

A Secession is a measure that has been several times attempted in the House of Commons, but always with such signal failure that the experiment will probably never be repeated. An individual may sometimes be justified for withdrawing; a party never. In such cases the public have uniformly asked whether spleen and disappointment might not have some share in the decision - whether the country is best served by inactivity and silence whether, if the Constitution really be in danger from a corrupt majority, there is no surer remedy than to leave that majority unresisted and increased. This it soon appeared was the general and prevailing sentiment. Even at the outset three eminent members of the Opposition, Sir John Barnard, Lord Polwarth, and Mr. Plumer, of Hertfordshire, with a more farsighted policy than their friends, refused to join them in their retreat, and continued to attend their duty as before.***

* Mr. Selwyn to T. Townshend, March 10. 1739, and Tindal's Hist. vol. viii. p. 405.

** Parl. Hist. vol. x. p. 1323. I cannot find, however, this secession of 1723 recorded in any of the publications of that time.

Opinions of the Duchess of Marlborough, p. 76. The Duchess predicts, amongst the ill consequences of the Secession, that "Sir Robert "Walpole may now keep all the money raised from the public for himself "and his brother!" Was this the very best topic for her Grace to

choose?

As to the others (about sixty in number), scarcely had they embarked upon their new course before they perceived its ill effects, and regretted their decision. They hoped to avail themselves of a call of the House, fixed for the next Monday, either as a pretext for returning to their posts, or as an occasion for being taken into custody, and becoming objects of popular compassion. But Walpole perceiving their drift, baffled them altogether, and eluded the call by moving an adjournment of the House till the Tuesday. So far from his career being checked by the Secession, as his enemies expected, he declared that no event in his whole administration had freed him from more embarrassment. The Government measures now passed smoothly and easily, with seldom a speech, and never a division to arrest them. Bills were introduced and carried in behalf of the woollen manufacture and of the sugar colonies; and though the repeal of the Test Act was again proposed by a section of Walpole's friends, the others rallied round him so effectually that the motion was rejected by a larger majority than on the last occasion.

But the question on which the Secession was most advantageous to the Minister was undoubtedly the Danish Subsidy, by which we stipulated to pay annually 250,000 dollars for three years, in return for a promise of the King of Denmark to hold ready 6000 men for our service, if required. It is alleged that the French Government had endeavoured to draw Denmark into a separate alliance with itself and Sweden against England, and had made other and more considerable offers, which it was our interest and duty to forestall.* But as it appears to me, there is no proof nor probability of such endeavours, beyond the assertion of a Danish Minister who wished to enhance his terms, and the belief of an English Envoy who wanted an excuse for his employers. The secret motive of this treaty, as of too many others, was not English but Hanoverian, and regarded the

* See Coxe's Walpole, vol. i. p. 609., and his MS. Collections, Brit. Museum.