PLAGUE AT MARSEILLES.
In the course of this year pope Clement XI. died; and the princess of Wales was delivered of a prince, baptized by the name of William-Augustus, the late duke of Cumberland. A dreadful plague raging at Marseilles, a proclamation was published, forbidding any person to come into England, from any part of France between the Bay of Biscay and Dunkirk, without certificates of health. Other precautions were taken to guard against contagion. An act of parliament had passed in the preceding session, for the prevention of infection, by building pest-houses, to which all infected persons, and all persons of an infected family, should be conveyed; and by drawing trenches and lines round any city, town, or place infected. The king, in his speech at opening the session of parliament on the nineteenth day of October, intimated the pacification of the north, by the conclusion of the treaty between Muscovy and Sweden. He desired the house of commons to consider of means for easing the duties upon the imported commodities used in the manufactures of the kingdom. He observed, that the nation might be supplied with naval stores from our own colonies in North America; and that their being employed in this useful and advantageous branch of commerce, would divert them from setting up manufactures which directly interfered with those of Great Britain. He expressed a desire that, with respect to the supplies, his people might reap some immediate benefit from the present circumstances of affairs abroad; and he earnestly recommended to their consideration, means for preventing the plague, particularly by providing against the practice of smuggling.
DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS ABOUT MR. LAW.
One of the first objects that attracted the attention of the upper house was the case of John Law, the famous projector. The resentment of the people on account of his Mississippi scheme had obliged him to leave France. He retired to Italy; and was said to have visited the pretender at Rome. From thence he repaired to Hanover; and returned to England from the Baltic, in the fleet commanded by sir John Norris. The king favoured him with a private audience; he kept open house, and was visited by great numbers of persons of the first quality. Earl Coningsby represented in the house of lords that he could not but entertain some jealousy of a person who had done so much mischief in a neighbouring kingdom; who, being immensely rich, might do a great deal more hurt here, by tampering with those who were grown desperate, in consequence of being involved in the calamity occasioned by the fatal imitation of his pernicious projects. He observed, that this person was the more dangerous, as he had renounced his natural affection to his country, his allegiance to his lawful sovereign, and his religion, by turning Roman catholic. Lord Carteret replied, that Mr. Law had, many years ago, the misfortune to kill a gentleman in a duel; but, having at last received the benefit of the king’s clemency, and the appeal lodged by the relations of the deceased being taken off, he was come over to plead his majesty’s pardon. He said there was no law to keep an Englishman out of his country; and, as Mr. Law was a subject of Great Britain, it was not even in the king’s power to hinder him from coming over. After some dispute, the subject was dropped, and this great projector pleaded his pardon in the king’s bench according to the usual form.
SENTIMENTS OF SOME LORDS TOUCHING THE WAR.
The ministry had by this time secured such a majority in both houses, as enabled them to carry any point without the least difficulty. Some chiefs of the opposition they had brought over to their measures, and among the rest lord Harcourt, who was created a viscount, and gratified with a pension of four thousand pounds. Nevertheless they could not shut the mouths of the minority, who still preserved the privilege of complaining. Great debates were occasioned by the navy debt, which was increased to one million seven hundred thousand pounds. Some members in both houses affirmed, that such extraordinary expense could not be for the immediate service of Great Britain; but, in all probability, for the preservation of foreign acquisitions. The ministers answered, that near two-thirds of the navy debts were contracted in the late reign; and the parliament acquiesced in this declaration; but in reality the navy debt had been unnecessarily increased, by keeping seamen in pay during the winter, and sending fleets to the Mediterranean and Baltic in order to support the interests of Germany. The duke of Wharton moved that the treaty with Spain might be laid before the house. The earl of Sunderland said it contained a secret article which the king of Spain desired might not be made public until after the treaty of Cambray should be discussed. The question was put, and the duke’s motion rejected. The earl of Strafford asserted, that as the war with Spain had been undertaken without necessity or just provocation, so the peace was concluded without any benefit or advantage; that, contrary to the law of nations, the Spanish fleet had been attacked without any declaration of war; even while a British minister and a secretary of state were treating amicably at Madrid; that the war was neither just nor politic, since it interrupted one of the most valuable branches of the English commerce, at a time when the nation groaned under the pressure of heavy debts, incurred by the former long expensive war. He therefore moved for an address to his majesty, desiring that the instructions given to sir George Byng, now lord Torrington, should be laid before the house. This motion being likewise, upon the question, rejected, a protest was entered. They voted an address, however, to know in what manner the king had disposed of the ships taken from the Spaniards. Disputes arose from the bill to prevent infection. Earl Cowper represented, that the removal of persons to a lazaret, or pest-house, by order of the government, and the drawing lines and trenches round places infected, were powers unknown to the British constitution; inconsistent with the lenity of a free government, such as could never be wisely or usefully put in practice; the more odious, because copied from the arbitrary government of France; and impracticable, except by military compulsion. Those obnoxious clauses were accordingly repealed, though not without great opposition. Indeed, nothing can be more absurd than a constitution that will not admit of just and necessary laws and regulations to prevent the dire consequences of the worst of all calamities. Such restrictions, instead of favouring the lenity of a free government, would be the most cruel imposition that could be laid on a free people, as it would act in diametrical opposition to the great principles of society, which is the preservation of the individual.