either with vigour or common discretion; but in the prosecution of the war he has acted, if possible, more weakly or more wickedly, than he did in time of peace. In time of peace he made us become the scoff of the nations around us, by the tediousness and the perplexity of his negotiations. In time of war, he has made us an object of scorn to our enemies, and an object of pity to our friends, by the vastness of his preparations and the pusillanimity of his actions. Our trade has been both oppressed and neglected for the sake of fitting out mighty squadrons, and our squadrons have been sent out, either with orders to do nothing, or without materials proper for doing any thing. By this conduct, sir, our enemies have been enriched with our spoils, and our own people oppressed with armies, which either should not have been raised, or should have been sent out to vindicate the honour of their country. Shall we in this house sit still, and see the councils of our sovereign directed by a minister, who has thus, both in peace and war, exposed our country to scorn and derision?

I beg pardon, sir, for taking up so much of your time: but the subject is so copious, that it is difficult to pick out those facts that are most proper to be mentioned; and every part of his long administration is full of such oppressive and dangerous schemes, or such unaccountable blunders, that it is not easy for one who has a true regard for his king and country, to pass any of them over in silence. I have mentioned but a few. What I have mentioned will show that the discontents of the people are far from being groundless; but suppose they were, they would nevertheless be a sufficient foundation for the address I am to propose; for no man who has been so unfortunate, as to incur the publick hatred, ought to have any share in his majesty's confidence or councils. If his majesty were sensible of it, I am sure, he has such a regard for the affections of his people, that he would not allow such a man to approach his person or palace; and as it is our duty to inform his majesty, how de

testable this minister is to the majority of his people, we ought to take the proper way for giving our sove. reign this information, which is by addressing him to remove such a minister from his councils.

But further, sir, suppose this minister had never been guilty of any crime, errour, or oversight in his publick conduct; suppose the people had all along been perfectly pleased with his administration, yet the very length of it is, in a free country, sufficient cause for removing him. It is a most dangerous thing in a free government, to allow any man to continue too long in the possession of great power. Most commonwealths have been overturned by this very oversight; and in this country, we know how difficult it has often proved, for our parliament to draw an old favourite from behind the throne, even when he has been guilty of the most heinous crimes. I wish this may not be our case at present; for though I shall not say, nor have I at present any occasion for showing that the favourite I am now complaining of has been guilty of heinous crimes, yet I will say, that there is a very general suspicion against him, that this suspicion is justified by the present situation of our affairs both at home and abroad, and that it is ridiculous to expect, that any proper discovery should be made, as long as he is in possession of all the proofs, and has the distribution of all the penalties the crown can inflict, as well as of all the favours the crown can bestow. Remove him from the king's councils and presence; remove him from those high offices and power he is now possessed of, if he has been guilty of any crimes, the proofs may then be come at, and the witnesses against him will not be afraid to appear. Till you do this, it is impossible to determine, whether he is guilty or innocent; and, considering the universal clamour against him, it is high time to reduce him to such a condition, as that he may be brought to a fair, an impartial, and a strict account. If he were conscious of his being entirely innocent, and had a due regard to the security and glory of his master and sovereign, he would have chosen to have

put himself into this condition long before this time: Since he has not thought fit to do so, it is our duty to endeavour to do it for him; and therefore I shall conclude with moving, that an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to remove the right honourable Sir Robert Walpole, Knight of the most noble order of the garter, first commissioner for executing the office of treasurer of the exchequer, chancellor and under-treasurer of the exchequer, and one of his majesty's most honourable privy council, from his majesty's presence and councils for ever."

SIR ROBERT WALPOLE'S SPEECH IN REPLY.

MR. SPEAKER,

IT has been observed by several gentlemen, in vindication of this motion, that if it should be carried, neither my life, liberty, or estate will be affected. But do the honourable gentlemen consider my character and reputation as of no moment? Is it no imputation to be arraigned before this house, in which I have sat forty years, and to have my name transmitted to posterity with disgrace and infamy? I will not conceal my sentiments, that to be named in parliament as a subject of inquiry, is to me a matter of great concern; but I have the satisfaction at the same time to reflect, that the impression to be made depends upon the consistency of the charge and the motives of the prosecutors. Had the charge been reduced to specifick allegations, I should have felt myself called upon for a specifick defence. Had I served a weak or wicked master, and implicitly obeyed his dictates, obedience to his commands must have been my only justifica

tion. But as it has been my good fortune to serve a master, who wants no bad ministers, and would have hearkened to none, my defence must rest on my own conduct. The consciousness of innocence is also sufficient support against my present prosecutors. A further justification is also derived from a consideration of the views and abilities of the prosecutors. Had I been guilty of great enormities, they want neither zeal and inclination to bring them forward, nor abili ty to place them in the most prominent point of view. But as I am conscious of no crime, my own experience convinces me, that none can be justly imputed. I must therefore ask the gentlemen, from whence does this attack proceed? From the passions and prejudices of the parties combined against me, who may be divided into three classes, the Boys, the riper Patriots, and the Tories. The Tories I can easily forgive, they have unwillingly come into the measure, and they do me honour in thinking it necessary to remove me, as their only obstacle. What is the inference to be drawn from these premises? that demerit with them ought to be considered as merit with others. But my great and principal crime is my long continuance in office, or, in other words, the long exclusion of those who now complain against me. This is the heinous offence which exceeds all others. I keep from them the possession of that power, those honours and those emoluments, to which they so ardently and pertinaciously aspire. I will not attempt to deny the reasonableness and necessity of a party war; but in carrying on that war, all principles and rules of justice should not be departed from. The tories must confess, that the most obnoxious persons have felt few instances of extrajudicial power. Wherever they have been arraigned, a plain charge has been exhibited against them. They have had an impartial trial, and have been permitted to make their defence; and will they, who have experienced this fair and equitable mode of proceeding, act in direct opposition to every principle of justice, and establish this fatal precedent of parliamentary inquisition? and

whom would they conciliate by a conduct so contrary to principle and precedent?

Can it be fitting in them, who have divided the publick opinion of the nation, to share it with those who now appear as their competitors? With the men of yesterday, the boys in politicks, who would be absolutely contemptible did not their audacity render them detestable? With the mock patriots, whose practice and professions prove their selfishness and malignity, who threatened to pursue me to destruction, and who have never for a moment lost sight of their object? These men, under the name of Separatists, presume to call themselves, exclusively, the nation and the people, and under that character, assume all power. In their estimation, the king, lords, and commons are a faction, and they are the government. Upon these principles they threaten the destruction of all authority, and think they have a right to judge, direct, and resist, all legal magistrates. They withdraw from parliament because they succeed in nothing, and then attribute their want of success not to its true cause, their own want of integrity and importance, but to the effect of places, pensions, and corruption. May it not be asked, Are the people on the court side more united than on the other? Are not the Tories, Jacobites, and Patriots equally determined? What makes this strict union? What cements this heterogeneous mass? Party engagements and personal attachments. However different their views and principles, they all agree in opposition. The Jacobites distress the government they would subvert; the tories contend for party prevalance and power. The patriots, for discontent and disappointment, would change the ministry, that themselves might exclusively succeed. They have laboured this point twenty years unsuccessfully, they are impatient of longer delay. They clamour for change of measures, but mean only change of ministers.

In party contests, why should not both sides be equally steady? Does not a whig administration as well deserve the support of the whigs as the contrary?