MOTIVES FOR AVOIDING A WAR.
The merchants of England loudly complained of these outrages; the nation was fired with resentment, and cried for vengeance; but the minister appeared cold, phlegmatic, and timorous. He knew that a war would involve him in such difficulties as must of necessity endanger his administration. The treasure which he now employed for domestic purposes, must in that case be expended in military armaments; the wheels of that machine on which he had raised his influence would no longer move; the opposition would of consequence gain ground, and the imposition of fresh taxes, necessary for the maintenance of the war, would fill up the measure of popular resentment against his person and ministry. Moved by these considerations, he industriously endeavoured to avoid a rupture, and to obtain some sort of satisfaction by dint of memorials and negotiations, in which he betrayed his own fears to such a degree, as animated the Spaniards to persist in their depredations, and encouraged the court of Madrid to disregard the remonstrances of the British ambassador. But this apprehension of war did not proceed from Spain only; the two branches of the house of Bourbon were now united by politics, as well as by consanguinity; and he did not doubt that in case of a rupture with Spain, they would join their forces against Great Britain. Petitions were delivered to the house by merchants from different parts of the kingdom, explaining the repeated violences to which they had been exposed, and imploring relief of the parliament. These were referred to a committee of the whole house; and an order was made to admit the petitioners, if they should think fit, to be heard by themselves or by counsel. Sir John Barnard moved for an address to the king, that all the memorials and papers relating to the Spanish depredations should be laid before the house; and this, with some alteration proposed by sir Robert Walpole, was actually presented. In compliance with the request, an enormous multitude of letters and memorials was produced.
The house, in a grand committee, proceeded to hear counsel for the merchants, and examine evidence; by which it appeared that amazing acts of wanton cruelty and injustice had been perpetrated by Spaniards on the subjects of Great Britain. Mr. Pulteney expatiated upon these circumstances of barbarity. He demonstrated, from treaties, the right of the British traders to the logwood of Campeachy, and to the salt of Tortugas; he exposed the pusillanimity of the minister, and the futility of his negotiations; he moved for such resolutions as would evince the resentment of an injured nation, and the vigour of a British parliament. These were warmly combated by sir Robert Walpole, who affirmed, that they would cramp the ministers in their endeavours to compromise these differences; that they would frustrate their negotiations, intrench upon the king’s prerogative, and precipitate the nation into an unnecessary and expensive war. Answers produced replies, and a general debate ensued. A resolution was reported; but the question being put for recommitting it, was carried in the negative. The house, however, agreed to an address, beseeching his majesty to use his endeavours to obtain effectual relief for his injured subjects, to convince the court of Spain that his majesty could no longer suffer such constant and repeated insults and injuries to be carried on, to the dishonour of his crown, and to the ruin of his trading subjects; and assuring him, that in case his royal and friendly instances with the catholic king should miscarry, the house would effectually support his majesty in taking such measures as honour and justice should make it necessary for him to pursue. To this address the king made a favourable answer.
1738
BILL FOR SECURING THE TRADE IN AMERICA.
The next important subject on which both sides exercised their talents, was a bill prepared and brought in by Mr. Pulteney, for the more effectual securing the trade of his majesty’s subjects in America. This was no other than the revival of part of two acts passed in the reign of queen Anne, by which the property of all prizes taken from the enemy was vested in the captors; while the sovereign was empowered to grant commissions or charters to any persons or societies, for taking any ships, goods, harbours, lands, or fortifications of the nation’s enemies in America, and for holding and enjoying the same as their own property and estate for ever. The ministry endeavoured to evade the discussion of this bill, by amusing the house with other business, until an end should be put to the session. A mean artifice was practised with this view; and some severe altercation passed between sir Robert Walpole and Mr. Pulteney. At length the bill was read, and gave rise to a very long and warm contest, in which the greatest orators of both sides found opportunities to display their eloquence and satire. Mr. Pulteney defended the bill with all the ardour of paternal affection; but, notwithstanding his warmest endeavours, it was rejected upon a division.
When the mutiny bill was sent up to the house of lords, a long debate arose upon the number of troops voted for the ensuing year. Lord Carteret explained the situation of affairs, in almost every nation of Europe, with great conciseness and precision. He demonstrated the improbability of a rupture between Great Britain and any power against which a land army could be of any service. He examined the domestic circumstances of the nation; and proved that whatever discontents there might be in the kingdom, there was little or no disaffection, and no seeming design to overturn or disturb the government. In answer to an argument, that such a number of regular forces were necessary for preventing or quelling tumults, and for enabling the civil magistrate to execute the laws of his country, he expressed his hope that he should never see the nation reduced to such unfortunate circumstances: he said, a law which the civil power was unable to execute, must either be in itself oppressive, or such a one as afforded a handle for oppression. In arguing for a reduction of the forces, he took notice of the great increase of the national expense. He observed, that before the revolution, the people of England did not raise above two millions for the whole of the public charges; but now what was called the current expense, for which the parliament annually provided, exceeded that sum; besides the civil list, the interest due to the public creditors, and the sinking fund, which, added together, composed a burden of six millions yearly. The earl of Chesterfield, on the same subject, affirmed, that slavery and arbitrary power were the certain consequences of keeping up a standing army for any number of years. It is the machine by which the chains of slavery are rivetted upon a free people. They may be secretly prepared by corruption; but, unless a standing army protected those that forged them, the people would break them asunder, and chop off the polluted hands by which they were prepared. By degrees a free people must be accustomed to be governed by an army; by degrees that army must be made strong enough to hold them in subjection. England had for many years been accustomed to a standing army, under the pretence of its being necessary to assist the civil power; and by degrees the number and strength of it have been increasing. At the accession of the late king it did not exceed six thousand; it soon amounted to double that number, which has been since augmented under various pretences. He therefore concluded, that slavery, under the disguise of an army for protecting the liberties of the people, was creeping in upon them by degrees; if no reduction should be made, he declared he should expect in a few years to hear some minister, or favourite of a minister, terrifying the house with imaginary plots and invasions, and making the tour of Europe in search of possible dangers, to show the necessity of keeping up a mercenary standing army, three times as numerous as the present. In spite of those suggestions, the standing army maintained its ground. The same noblemen, assisted by lord Bathurst, distinguished themselves in a debate upon the Spanish depredations, which comprehended the same arguments that were used in the house of commons. They met with the same success in both. Resolutions equivalent to those of the lower house were taken; an address was presented; and his majesty assured them he would repeat, in the most pressing manner, his instances at the court of Spain, in order to obtain satisfaction and security for his subjects trading to America. This assurance was renewed in his speech at the close of the session, on the twentieth of May, when the parliament was prorogued.