THE MINISTRY VIOLENTLY OPPOSED.

The parliament of Great Britain meeting on the thirteenth day of January, the king in his speech declared, that the general tranquillity of Europe was restored and established by the last treaty of Vienna; and Don Carlos was actually possessed of Parma and Placentia; that six thousand Spaniards were quietly admitted and quartered in the duchy of Tuscany, to secure, by the express consent and agreement of the great duke, the reversion of his dominions; and that a family convention was made between the courts of Spain and Tuscany for preserving mutual peace and friendship in the two houses. He told the commons, that the estimates for the service of the current year would be considerably less than those of former years. He recommended unanimity; he observed that his government had no security but what was equally conducive to their happiness, and to the protection of his people: that their prosperity had no foundation but in the defence and support of his government. “Our safety,” said he, “is mutual, and our interests are inseparable.” The opposition to the court measures appears to have been uncommonly spirited during the course of this session. The minister’s motions were attacked with all the artillery of elocution. His principal emissaries were obliged to task their faculties to their full exertion, to puzzle and perplex where they could not demonstrate and convince, to misrepresent what they could not vindicate, and to elude the arguments which they could not refute. In the house of commons, lord Hervey, lately appointed vice-chamberlain of his majesty’s household, made a motion for an address of thanks, in which they should declare their entire approbation of the king’s conduct, acknowledge the blessings they enjoyed tinder his government, express their confidence in the wisdom of his councils, and declare their readiness to grant the necessary supplies. This member, son to the earl of Bristol, was a nobleman of some parts, which, however, were more specious than solid. He condescended to act as a subaltern to the minister, and approved himself extremely active in forwarding all his designs, whether as a secret emissary or public orator; in which last capacity he appears to have been pert, frivolous, and frothy. His motion was seconded by Mr. Clutterbuck, and opposed by sir Wilfred Lawson, Mr. Shippen, Mr. W. Pulteney, sir William Wyndham, and Mr. Oglethorpe. They did not argue against a general address of thanks; but exposed the absurdity and bad tendency of expressions which implied a blind approbation of all the measures of the ministry. Sir Wilfred Lawson observed, that notwithstanding the great things we had done for the crown of Spain, and the favours we had procured for the royal family of that kingdom, little or no satisfaction had as yet been received for the injuries our merchants had sustained from that nation. Mr. Pulteney took notice, that the nation, by becoming guarantee to the pragmatic sanction, laid itself under an obligation to assist the Austrian family when attacked by any potentate whatever, except the grand seignor; that they might be attacked when it would be much against the interest of the kingdom to engage itself in a war upon any foreign account; that it might one day be for the interest of the nation to join against them, in order to preserve the balance of Europe, the establishing of which had already cost England such immense sums of money. He insisted upon the absurdity of concluding such a number of inconsistent treaties; and concluded with saying, that if affairs abroad were now happily established, the ministry which conducted them might be compared to a pilot, who, though there was a clear, safe, and straight channel into port, yet took it in his head to carry the ship a great way about, through sands, rocks, and shallows; who, after having lost a great number of seamen, destroyed a great deal of tackle and rigging, and subjected the owners to an enormous expense, at last by chance hits the port, and triumphs in his good conduct. Sir William Wyndham spoke to the same purpose. Mr. Oglethorpe, a gentlemen of unblemished character, brave, generous, and humane, affirmed that many other things related more nearly to the honour and interest of the nation, than did the guarantee of the pragmatic sanction. He said he wished to have heard that the new works at Dunkirk had been entirely razed and destroyed; that the nation had received full and complete satisfaction for the depredations committed by the natives of Spain; that more care was taken in disciplining the militia, on whose valour the nation must chiefly depend in case of invasion; and that some regard had been shown to the oppressed protestants in Germany. He expressed his satisfaction to find that the English were not so closely united to France as formerly; for he had generally observed that when two dogs were in a leash together, the stronger generally ran away with the weaker; and this he was afraid had been the case between France and Great Britain. The motion was vigorously defended by Mr. Pelham, paymaster of the forces, and brother to the duke of Newcastle, a man whose greatest fault was his being concerned in supporting the measures of a corrupt ministry. In other respects he was liberal, candid, benevolent, and even attached to the interest of his country, though egregiously mistaken in his notions of government. On this occasion, he insisted that it was no way inconsistent with the honour or dignity of that house to thank his majesty in the most particular terms, for every thing he had been pleased to communicate in his speech from the throne; that no expressions of approbation in the address could be any way made use of to prevent an inquiry into the measures which had been pursued, when the treaties should be laid before the house. He said, at the opening of a session the eyes of all Europe were turned towards Great Britain, and from the parliament’s first resolves all the neighbouring powers judged of the unanimity that would ensue between his majesty and the representatives of his people; that their appearing jealous or diffident of his majesty’s conduct, would weaken his influence upon the councils of foreign states and potentates, and perhaps put it out of his power to rectify any false step that might have been made by his ministers. His arguments were reinforced by a long speech from Mr. H. Walpole. The question was put, the motion carried, and the address presented.