IR ROBERT WALPOLE, Earl of Orford, Prime Minister of England, was born at Houghton, in Norfolk, in 1676. He was educated at Eton and

Cambridge. In 1701 he appeared in Parliament, as member for Castle Rising, and in 1702 he represented Lynn. He was appointed Secretary of War in 1708, and Treasurer of the Navy in 1709. When the Whig ministry was dissolved, he was committed to the Tower on a charge of corruption and breach of trust. On the accession of George 1., he was made Paymaster of the Forces, and afterwards Prime Minister. He resigned in 1717, but again accepted office as Paymaster of the Forces in 1720. He was again created Premier on the retirement of Lord Sunderland, and continued in office for about twenty years. He resigned in 1742, and was created Earl of Orford. He died in 1745. Dr. Goodrich has remarked that 'the age of Walpole was an age rather of keen debate than impassioned eloquence. . . . They were emphatically business speakers, eagerly intent upon their object, but destitute of any principles or feelings which could raise them above the level of most selfish minds, engaged for a desperate struggle for office and power.' The following is part of a speech delivered in the House of Commons, February 1741.

ON A MOTION FOR ADDRESSING THE KING FOR HIS REMOVAL.

[Sandys, the leader of the opposition against Walpole, made

a long speech to the effect that Walpole had been at the head of affairs for twenty years, and that the people were tired of him as a minister, and hated him as a man; he concluded by moving 'that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to remove the Right Honourable Sir Robert Walpole, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, First Commissioner for executing the office of Treasurer of the Exchequer, Chancellor and Under Treasurer of the Exchequer, and one of his Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, from his Majesty's presence and councils for ever.'

It has been observed by several gentlemen, in vindication of this motion, that if it should be carried, neither my life, liberty, nor estate will be affected. But do the honourable gentlemen consider my character and reputation as of no moment? Is it no imputation to be arraigned before this House, in which I have sat forty years, and to have my name transmitted to posterity with disgrace and infamy? I will not conceal my sentiments, that to be named in Parliament as a subject of inquiry, is to me a matter of great concern. But I have the satisfaction, at the same time, to reflect that the impression to be made depends upon the consistency of the charge and the motives of the prosecutors.

Had the charge been reduced to specific allegations, I should have felt myself called upon for a specific defence. Had I served a weak or wicked master, and implicitly obeyed his dictates, obedience to his commands must have been my only justification. But as it has been my good fortune to serve a master who wants no bad ministers, and would have hearkened to none, my defence must rest on my own conduct. The consciousness of innocence is also a sufficient support against my present prosecutors. A further justification is derived from a consideration of the views and abilities of the prosecutors. Had I been guilty of great enormities, they want neither zeal and inclination to bring them forward, nor ability to place them in the most prominent point of view.

But as I am conscious of no crime, my own experience convinces me that none can be justly imputed.

I must therefore ask the gentlemen, From whence does this attack proceed? From the passions and prejudices of the parties combined against me, who may be divided into three classes, the Boys, the riper Patriots, and the Tories. The Tories I can easily forgive. They have unwillingly come into the measure; and they do me honour in thinking it necessary to remove me, as their only obstacle. What, then, is the inference to be drawn from these premises? That demerit with my opponents ought to be considered as merit with others. But my great and principal crime is my long continuance in office; or, in other words, the long exclusion of those who now complain against me. This is the heinous offence which exceeds all others. I keep from them the possession of that power, those honours, and those emoluments, to which they so ardently and pertinaciously aspire. I will not attempt to deny the reasonableness and necessity of a party war; but, in carrying on that war, all principles and rules of justice should not be departed from. The Tories must confess that the most obnoxious persons have felt few instances of extra-judicial power. Wherever they have been arraigned, a plain charge has been exhibited against them. They have had an impartial trial, and have been permitted to make their defence. And will they, who have experienced this fair and equitable mode of proceeding, act in direct opposition to every principle of justice, and establish this fatal precedent of parliamentary inquisition? Whom would they conciliate by a conduct so contrary to principle and precedent?

1The colleagues whom, one by one, his jealousy had dismissed, had plunged, with the exception of Townshend, into an opposition more factious and unprincipled than had ever disgraced English politics; and these Patriots were now reinforced by a band of younger Whigs, the 'Boys,” as Walpole called them, whose temper revolted alike against the peace and corruption of his policy, and at whose head stood a young cornet of horse, William Pitt.'-J. R. Green,

66

Can it be fitting in them [the Tories], who have divided the public opinion of the nation, to share it with those who now appear as their competitors? With the men of yesterday, the Boys in politics, who would be absolutely contemptible did not their audacity render them detestable? With the mock Patriots, whose practice and professions prove their selfishness and malignity; who threatened to pursue me to destruction, and who have never for a moment lost sight of their object? These men, under the name of Separatists, presume to call themselves exclusively the nation and the people, and under that character assume all power. In their estimation, the King, Lords, and Commons are a faction, and they are the Government. Upon these principles they threaten the destruction of all authority, and think they have a right to judge, direct, and resist all legal magistrates. They withdraw from Parliament because they succeed in nothing; and then attribute their want of success, not to its true cause, their own want of integrity and importance, but to the effect of places, pensions, and corruption. May it not be asked on this point, Are the people on the Court side more united than on the other? Are not the Tories, Jacobites, and Patriots equally determined? What makes this strict union? What cements this heterogeneous mass? Party engagements and personal attachments. However different their views and principles, they all agree in opposition. The Jacobites distress the Government they would subvert; the Tories contend for party prevalence and power. The Patriots, from discontent and disappointment, would change the ministry, that themselves may exclusively succeed. They have laboured this point twenty years unsuccessfully. They are impatient of longer delay. They clamour for change of measures, but mean only change of ministers.

In party contests, why should not both sides be equally steady? Does not a Whig administration as well deserve the support of the Whigs as the contrary? Why is not principle the cement in one as well as the other, especially when my opponents confess that all is levelled against one man? Why

this one man? Because they think, vainly, nobody else could withstand them. All others are treated as tools and vassals. The one is the corrupter; the numbers corrupted. But whence this cry of corruption, and exclusive claim of honourable distinction? Compare the estates, characters, and fortunes of the Commons on one side with those on the other. Let the matter be fairly investigated. Survey and examine the individuals who usually support the measures of Government, and those who are in opposition. Let us see to whose side the balance preponderates. Look round both Houses, and see to which side the balance of virtue and talents preponderates! Are all these on one side, and not on the other? Or are all these to be counterbalanced by an affected claim to the exclusive title of patriotism. Gentlemen have talked a great deal of patriotism. A venerable word, when duly practised. But I am sorry to say that of late it has been so much hackneyed about, that it is in danger of falling into disgrace. The very idea of true patriotism is lost, and the term has been prostituted to the very worst of purposes. A patriot, sir! Why, patriots spring up like mushrooms! could raise fifty of them within the four-and-twenty hours. I have raised many of them in one night. It is but refusing to gratify an unreasonable or an insolent demand, and up starts a patriot. I have never been afraid of making patriots; but I disdain and despise all their efforts. This pretended virtue proceeds from personal malice and disappointed ambition. There is not a man among them whose particular aim I am not able to ascertain, and from what motive they have entered into the lists of opposition.

I

If my whole administration is to be scrutinized and arraigned, why are the most favourable parts to be omitted? If facts are to be accumulated on one side, why not on the other? And why may not I be permitted to speak in my own favour? Was I not called by the voice of the King and the nation to remedy the fatal effects of the South Sea project, and to support declining credit? Was I not placed at the head of