During these transactions, the French king concluded a treaty with Spain and Sardinia, by which those powers agreed to declare war against the emperor. Manifestoes were published reciprocally by all the contracting powers. The duke of Berwick passed the Rhine in October, and undertook the seige of fort Kehl, which in a few days was surrendered on capitulation: then he repassed the river and returned to Versailles. The king of Sardinia having declared war against the emperor, joined a body of French forces commanded by mareschal de Villars, and drove the Imperialists out of the Milanese. His Imperial majesty, dreading the effects of such a powerful confederacy against him, offered to compromise all differences with the crown of Spain, under the mediation of the king of Great Britain; and Mr. Keene, the British minister at Madrid, proposed an accommodation. Philip expressed his acknowledgments to the king of England, declaring, however, that the emperor’s advances were too late, and that his own resolutions were already taken. Nevertheless, he sent orders to the count de Montijo, his ambassador at London, to communicate to his Britannic majesty the motives which had induced him to take these resolutions. In the meantime he detached a powerful armament to Italy, where they invested the Imperial fortress of Aula, the garrison of which was obliged to surrender themselves prisoners of war. The republic of Venice declared she would take no share in the disputes of Italy; the states-general signed a neutrality with the French king for the Austrian Netherlands, without consulting the emperor or the king of Great Britain; and the English councils seemed to be altogether pacific.
ARRIVAL OF THE PRINCE OF ORANGE.
In November the prince of Orange arrived at Greenwich, in order to espouse the princess royal; but the marriage was postponed on account of his being taken ill: and he repaired to Bath, in Somersetshire, to drink the water for the recovery of his strength. Henrietta, the young duchess of Marlborough, dying about this time, the title devolved to her sister’s son, the earl of Sunderland. Lord King resigning his office of chancellor, it was conferred upon Mr. Talbot, solicitor-general, together with the title of baron; a promotion that reflected honour upon those by whom it was advised. He possessed the spirit of a Roman senator, the elegance of an Atticus, and the integrity of a Cato. At the meeting of the parliament in January, the king told them, in his speech, that though he was no way engaged in the war which had begun to rage in Europe, except by the good offices he had employed among the contending powers, he could not sit regardless of the present events, or be unconcerned for the consequences of a war undertaken and supported by such a powerful alliance. He said, he had thought proper to take time to examine the facts alleged on both sides, and to wait the result of the councils of those powers that were more immediately interested in the consequences of the rupture. He declared he would concert with his allies, more particularly with the states-general of the United Provinces, such measures as should be thought most advisable for their common safety, and for restoring the peace of Europe. In the meantime, he expressed his hope that they would make such provision as should secure his kingdom, rights, and possessions from all dangers and insults, and maintain the respect due to the British nation. He said, that whatever part it might in the end be most reasonable for him to act, it would in all views be necessary, when all Europe was preparing for arms, to put his kingdom in a posture of defence. The motion for an address of thanks produced as usual a debate in both houses, which, it must be owned, appears to have proceeded from a spirit of cavilling, rather than from any reasonable cause of objection.
ALTERCATION IN THE COMMONS.
The house of commons resolved to address his majesty for a copy of the treaty of Vienna. Sir John Rushout moved for another, desiring that the letters and instructions relating to the execution of the treaty of Seville, should be submitted to the inspection of the commons; but, after a hard struggle, it was over-ruled. The next motion was made by Mr. Sandys, a gentleman who had for some time appeared strenuous in the opposition, and wrangled with great perseverance. He proposed that the house should examine the instructions which had been given to the British minister in Poland, some years before the death of king Augustus, that they might be the better able to judge of the causes which produced this new rupture among the powers of Europe. The motion being opposed by all the court members, a contest ensued, in the course of which Mr. Pulteney compared the ministry to an empyric, and the constitution of England to his patient. This pretender in physic, said he, being consulted, tells the distempered person there were but two or three ways of treating his disease; and he was afraid that none of them would succeed. A vomit might throw him into convulsions that would occasion immediate death; a purge might bring on a diarrhoea that would carry him off in a short time; and he had been already bled so much, and so often, that he could bear it no longer. The unfortunate patient, shocked at this declaration, replies, “Sir, you have always pretended to be a regular doctor; but now I find you are an arrant quack. I had an excellent constitution when I first fell into your hands, but you have quite destroyed it; and now I find I have no other chance for saving my life, but by calling for the help of some regular physician.” In the debate, the members on both sides seemed to wander from the question, and indulge themselves in ludicrous personalities. Mr. H. Walpole took occasion to say, that the opposition treated the ministry as he himself was treated by some of his acquaintances with respect to his dress. “If I am in plain clothes,” said he, “then they call me a slovenly dirty fellow; and if by chance I wear a laced suit, they cry, What, shall such an awkward fellow wear fine clothes?” He continued to sport in this kind of idle buffoonery. He compared the present administration to a ship at sea. As long as the wind was fair, and proper for carrying us to our designed port, the word was, “Steady! steady!” but when the wind began to shift and change, the word was necessarily altered to “Thus, thus, and no nearer.” The motion was overpowered by the majority; and this was the fate of several other proposals made by the members in the opposition. Sir John Barnard presented a petition from the druggists, and other dealers in tea, complaining of the insults and oppression to which they were subjected by the excise laws, and imploring relief. Sir John and Mr. Perry, another of the city members, explained the grievous hardships which those traders sustained, and moved that the petition might be referred to the consideration of the whole house. They were opposed by Mr. Winnington, sir W. Yonge, and other partisans of the ministry; and these skirmishes brought on a general engagement of the two parties, in which every weapon of satire, argument, reason, and truth, was wielded against that odious, arbitrary, and oppressive method of collecting the public revenue. Nevertheless, the motion in favour of the sufferers was rejected. When the commons deliberated upon the supply, Mr. Andrews, deputy-paymaster of the army, moved for an addition of eighteen hundred men to the number of land forces which had been continued since the preceding year. The members in the opposition disputed this small augmentation with too much heat and eagerness. It must be acknowledged, they were by this time irritated into such personal animosity against the minister, that they resolved to oppose all his measures, whether they might or might not be necessary for the safety and advantage of the kingdom. Nor indeed were they altogether blameable for acting on this maxim, if their sole aim was to remove from the confidence and councils of their sovereign, a man whose conduct they thought prejudicial to the interests and liberties of their country. They could not, however, prevent the augmentation proposed; but they resolved, if they could not wholly stop the career of the ministry, to throw in such a number of rubs as should at least retard their progress. The duke of Bolton and lord Cobham had been deprived of the regiments they commanded, because they refused to concur in every project of the administration. It was in consequence of their dismission, that lord Morpeth moved for a bill to prevent any commissioned officer, not above the rank of a colonel, from being removed, unless by a court-martial, or by address of either house of parliament. Such an attack on the prerogative might have succeeded in the latter part of the reign of the first Charles; but at this juncture could not fail to miscarry; yet it was sustained with great vigour and address. When the proposal was set aside by the majority, Mr. Sandys moved for an address to the king, desiring to know who advised his majesty to remove the duke of Bolton and lord Cob-ham from their respective regiments. He was seconded by Mr. Pulteney and sir William Wyndham; but the ministry foreseeing another tedious dispute, called for the question, and the motion was carried in the negative. The next source of contention was a bill for securing the freedom of parliament, by limiting the number of officers in the house of commons. It was read a first and second time; but when a motion was made for its being committed, it met with a powerful opposition, and produced a warm debate that issued in a question which, like the former, passed in the negative. A clergyman having insinuated in conversation that sir William Milner, baronet, member for York, received a pension from the ministry, the house took cognizance of this report; the clergyman acknowledged at the bar that he might have dropped such a hint from hearsay. The accused member protested, upon his honour, that he never did nor ever would receive place, pension, gratuity, or reward from the court, either directly or indirectly, for voting in parliament, or upon any other account whatever. The accusation was voted false and scandalous, and the accuser taken into custody; but in a few days he was discharged upon his humble petition, and his begging pardon of the member whom he had calumniated. The duty upon salt was prolonged for eight years; and a bill passed against stock-jobbing.
MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE SEPTENNIAL ACT.
But the subject which of all others employed the eloquence and abilities on both sides to the most vigorous exertion, was a motion made by Mr. Bromley, who proposed that a bill should be brought in for repealing the septenntal act, and for the more frequent meeting and calling of parliaments. The arguments for and against septennial parliaments have already been stated. The ministry now insisted upon the increase of papists and Jacobites, which rendered it dangerous to weaken the hands of the government; they challenged the opposition to produce one instance in which the least encroachment had been made on the liberties of the people since the septennial act took place; and they defied the most ingenious malice to prove that his present majesty had ever endeavoured to extend any branch of the prerogative beyond its legal bounds. Sir John Hinde Cotton affirmed, that in many parts of England the papists had already begun to use all their influence in favour of those candidates who were recommended by the ministers as members in the ensuing parliament. With respect to his majesty’s conduct, he said he would not answer one word; but as to the grievances introduced since the law was enacted for septennial parliaments, he thought himself more at liberty to declare his sentiments. He asserted, that the septennial law itself was an encroachment on the rights of the people; a law passed by a parliament that made itself septennial. He observed, that the laws of treason with regard to trials were altered since that period; that in former times a man was tried by a jury of his neighbours, within the county where the crimes alleged against him were said to be committed; but by an act of a septennial parliament he might be removed and tried in any place where the crown, or rather the ministry, could find a jury proper for their purpose; where the prisoner could not bring any witnesses in his justification, without an expense which perhaps his circumstances would not bear. He asked, if the riot act was not an encroachment on the rights of the people? An act by which a little dirty justice of the peace, the meanest and vilest tool a minister can use, who, perhaps subsists by his being in the commission, and may be deprived of that subsistence at the pleasure of his patron, had it in his power to put twenty or thirty of the best subjects in England to immediate death, without any trial or form but that of reading a proclamation. “Was not the fatal South-Sea scheme,” said he, “established by the act of a septennial parliament? And can any man ask, whether that law was attended with any inconvenience; to the glorious catalogue I might have added the late excise bill, if it had passed into a law; but, thank heaven, the septennial parliament was near expiring before that famous measure was introduced.”