to the character of his supporters as equal or superior to that of their opponents in the house. But here all would know better. They knew that Walpole had corrupted the house more systematically and deeply than any man who ever went before him. He attacked them on the ground of patriotism, however, with better success: all the world knew, quite as well, the nature of their patriotism. "Gentlemen," he said, "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. I could raise fifty of them in 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 disclaim and despise all their efforts. But this pretended virtue proceeds from personal malice and disappointed ambition. There is not a man amongst them whose particular aim I am not able to ascertain, and from what motive they have entered into the lists of opposition."
He next proceeded to take the charges made against him in succession, and first those regarding his foreign policy. He complained, and justly, that his enemies had travelled back over the whole diplomacy of Europe for thirty years, and made him responsible for the whole. Whatever had been the doings of former ministers, and ministers of totally opposite principles and views, had all been piled upon his shoulders. But why should he be made amenable for the measures of the tories, for the schemes and delinquencies of Oxford and of Bolingbroke? Even when they came down to a time in which he had done his part, they insisted on his having done all and everything. "I am called," he said, "repeatedly and insidiously, prime and sole minister. Admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that I am prime and sole minister in this country, am I, therefore as for my own? Many words are not wanting to show that the particular views of each court occasioned the dangers which affected the public tranquillity. Yet the whole is charged to my account. Nor is this sufficient: whatever was the conduct of England, I am equally arraigned. If we maintained ourselves in peace, and took no share in foreign transactions, we are reproached for tameness and pusillanimity. If, on the contrary, we interfered in the disputes, we are called Don Quixotes and dupes to all the world. If we contracted guarantees, it was asked, why is the nation wantonly burdened? If guarantees were declined, we were reproached with having no allies."
He then ran through the different treaties, from that of Utrecht to the Spanish convention, showing that some of these were entered into before he had any influence in the state, and defending the later ones from the attacks upon them. He declared that he had honestly endeavoured to preserve peace, and that, had Spain as honestly performed her contracts, peace would have been preserved. As to his endeavouring to maintain the alliance with France, he contended, justly, that France was not to be considered the eternal enemy of England, but that in some respects she was the most valuable ally that we could have. "But," he continued, "if England had, at this crisis, to carry on the war single-handed, that was owing to a variety of causes over which the British government had no control; and as to his concern in the matter, he was not the foreign minister, and had had no voice in the cabinet in foreign affairs. Sweden now corrupted by France; Denmark tempted and wavering; the landgrave of Hesse-Cassel almost gained; the king of Prussia, the emperor, and the czarina, with whom alliances were negotiated, all dead; the Austrian dominions claimed by Spain and Bavaria; the elector of Saxony hesitating whether he shall accede to the general confederacy planned by France; the court of Vienna irresolute and indecisive;—in this critical juncture, if France enters into engagements with Prussia, and if the queen of Hungary hesitates and listens to France, are all or any of these events to be imputed to English counsels? And if to English counsels, why are they to be attributed to one man?"
Walpole had much cause of just self-defence in the foreign view of affairs, for he had done all in his power to maintain peace and amicable alliances; the war had been forced on him by the opposition. When he came to domestic affairs, he was on tenderer ground. There, he contended, if guilty, his guilt was shared by the whole cabinet, whilst it was notorious that he had long ruled the cabinet and swayed the king. He was forced, in this part of his defence, hardily to assert what was to all men's knowledge utterly false and untenable. He declared that no expenses had been incurred but such as had been sanctioned by parliament; but, then, what a parliament! One with a permanent, paid majority, doing just what he dictated. He declared that he had practised no bribery, no corruption,—an assertion to make the walls of the house laugh! And he added, that if some members had been deprived of their commissions it was the will of the king to do it, who certainly had the right—a very lame reason, for it did not remove the known fact, that these acts were direct punishments for opposition to government, and especially to the excise scheme.
Walpole contrived to blunt the force of Sandys' charges regarding the invasions of the Sinking Fund, showing that Sandys had exaggerated, and that within the last seventeen years eight millions of the national debt had been paid off by the application of that fund, and that no less than seven millions taken from the fund had been applied to the relief of the agricultural interest, thus keeping down the land-tax. As to the South Sea scheme, he reminded them, truly, that it was no project of his; that he had opposed it and warned the nation against it, and had been called on by the king and the whole public to remedy the fatal consequences of it; that he had been called to the helm when the finances were in the most miserable condition; and he appealed to them, confidently, whether they were not wonderfully improved? whether peace had not been preserved till recently amidst the resistant efforts of a violent opposition? If the conduct of the war on sea or land had not answered expectation, he observed that he was neither admiral nor general, and they were to have great allowance made for them, seeing that the opposition would not permit us to have an efficient army or navy. He concluded by again denying that he had either
