The lords in the opposition excepted to the article by which the merchants of Great Britain were obliged to make proof of their losses at the court of Spain. They said this stipulation was a hardship upon British subjects, and dishonourable to the nation: that few would care to undertake such a troublesome and expensive journey, especially as they had reason to apprehend their claims would be counterbalanced by the Spaniards; and after all they would have no more than the slender comfort of hoping to obtain that redress by commissaries which they had not been able to procure by plenipotentiaries. They thought it very extraordinary that Great Britain should be bound to ratify and guarantee whatever agreement should be made between the king of Spain and the duke of Parma and Tuscany, concerning the garrisons once established in their countries; that the English should be obliged to assist in effectuating the introduction of six thousand Spanish troops into the towns of Tuscany and Parma, without any specification of the methods to be taken, or the charge to be incurred, in giving that assistance: that they should guarantee for ever, not only to Don Carlos, but even to all his successors, the possession of the estates of Tuscany and Parma; a stipulation which in all probability would involve Great Britain in endless quarrels and disputes about a country with which they had no concern. They affirmed that the treaty of Seville, instead of confirming other treaties, was contradictory to the quadruple alliance, particularly in the article of introducing Spanish troops into Tuscany and Parma in the room of neutral forces stipulated by the former alliance; and agreeing that they should there remain until Don Carlos and his successors should be secure and exempt from all events. They complained that these alterations from the tenor of the quadruple alliance, were made without the concurrence of the emperor, and even without inviting him to accede; an affront which might alienate his friendship from England, and hazard the loss of such an ancient, powerful, and faithful ally; they declared that throughout the whole treaty there seemed to be an artful omission of any express stipulation to secure Great Britain in her right to Gibraltar and Minorca. Such was the substance of the objections made to the peace: then lord Bathurst moved for a resolution that the agreement on the treaty of Seville, to secure the succession of Don Carlos to the duchies of Tuscany, Parma, and Placentia, with Spanish troops, was a manifest violation of the fifth article of the quadruple alliance, tending to involve the nation in a dangerous and expensive war, and to destroy the balance of power in Europe. The question was put, and the motion rejected. Such too was the fate of two other motions, to resolve that Great Britain’s right of sovereignty, dominion, possession, and claim to Gibraltar and Minorca, were not ascertained by the treaty of Seville: and that the stipulations in that treaty for repairing the losses of the British merchants were insufficient and precarious. The majority, far from stigmatizing this transaction, resolved, that the treaty did contain all necessary stipulations for maintaining and securing the honour, dignity, rights, and possessions of the crown: that all due care was taken therein for the support of the trade of the king dom, and for repairing the losses sustained by the British merchants. On these resolutions an address of approbation was founded: but when a motion was made for an address to his majesty, that he would order to be laid before the house a list of all pensions payable to the crown, it was immediately resolved in the negative. Divers contests of the same kind arose upon the mutiny-bill, the pension-bill, and the maintenance of twelve thousand Hessians; but the ministry bore down all opposition, though their triumphs were clogged with vigorous protests, which did not fail to make impression upon the body of the people.
OPPOSITION TO A STANDING ARMY.
Nor was the success of the court interest in the house of commons altogether pure, and free from exception and dispute. When the charge of the land forces fell under the consideration of the commons, and Mr. Henry Pelham, secretary at war, moved that the number of effective men for the land service of the ensuing year should be fixed at seventeen thousand seven hundred and nine, Mr. Pulteney insisted upon its being reduced to twelve thousand. Mr. Shippen affirmed that Mr. Pelham’s motion was a flat negative to the address for which he voted on the first day of the session, as it plainly implied a distrust of the validity of the late treaty, which he then assured the house would immediately produce all the blessings of an absolute peace, and deliver the kingdom from the apprehensions and inconveniences of a war. He said the motion tended directly towards the establishment of an army in Great Britain, which he hoped would never be so far germanized as tamely to submit to a military government. He observed, that the nation could have no occasion for all the troops that were demanded, considering the glorious scene of affairs which was now opened to all Europe. “They are not necessary,” said he, “to awe Spain into a firm adherence to its own treaty; they are not necessary to force the emperor into an immediate accession, nor are they in any sort necessary for the safety of his majesty’s person and government. Force and violence are the resort of usurpers and tyrants only; because they are, with good reason, distrustful of the people whom they oppress; and because they have no other security for the continuance of their unlawful and unnatural dominion, than what depends entirely on the strength of their armies.” The motion, however, was carried in the affirmative.
BILL PROHIBITING LOANS.
Another warm debate was excited by a bill which the courtiers brought in, to prevent any subjects of Great Britain from advancing sums of money to foreign princes or states, without having obtained license from his majesty, under his privy-seal or some great authority. The minister pretended that this law was proposed to disable the emperor, who wanted to borrow a great sum of the English merchants, from raising and maintaining troops to disturb the tranquillity of Europe. The bill contained a clause empowering the king to prohibit by proclamation all such loans of money, jewels, or bullion: the attorney-general was empowered to compel, by English bill, in the court of exchequer, the effectual discovery, on oath, of any such loans; and it was enacted, that in default of an answer to any such bill, the court should decree a limited sum against the person refusing to answer. Mr. Daniel Pulteney, a gentleman of uncommon talents and ability, and particularly acquainted with every branch of commerce, argued strenuously against this bill, as a restraint upon trade that would render Holland the market of Europe, and the mart of money to the nations of the continent. He said that by this general prohibition, extending to all princes, states, or potentates, the English were totally disabled from assisting their best allies: that, among others, the king of Portugal frequently borrowed money of the English merchants residing within his dominions; that while the licensing power remained in the crown, the licenses would be issued through the hands of the minister, who by this new trade might gain twenty, thirty, or forty thousand a-year: that the bill would render the exchequer a court of inquisition: and that whilst it restrained our merchants from assisting the princes and powers of Europe, it permitted our stockjobbers to trade in their funds without interruption. Other arguments of equal weight were enforced by Mr. Barnard, a merchant of London, who perfectly understood trade in all its branches, spoke with judgment and precision, and upon all occasions steadily adhered to the interest and liberties of his country. After having explained his reasons, he declared he should never consent to a bill which he deemed a violation of our fundamental laws, a breach of our dearest liberties, and a very terrible hardship on mankind. Sir William Wyndham distinguished himself on the same side of the question: the bill was vindicated by sir Robert Walpole, Mr. Pelham, and sir Philip Yorke, attorney-general; and being supported by the whole weight of ministerial influence, not only passed through the house, but was afterwards enacted into a law.
GEORGE II. 1727-1760