favour of England was therefore 140,000l. which the Court of Madrid proposed to pay by assignments upon the American revenues. But the English Ministers, knowing the tediousness and uncertainty of that fund, preferred to make an allowance for prompt payment at home; and the allowance agreed upon was 45,000l., thus reducing the sum due from Spain to 95,0007.*

The sum being thus determined, a Convention was founded upon it, and finally signed by Keene and La Quadra on the 14th of January, 1739. It stipulated that this money should be paid within four months from the date of the ratification; that this mutual discharge of claims should not, however, extend to any differences between the Crown of Spain and the South Sea Company, as holders of the Asiento contract; that within six weeks two plenipotentiaries from each side should meet at Madrid, to regulate the pretensions of the two Crowns, as to rights of trade, and as to the limits of Carolina and Florida; that their conferences should finish within eight months; and that in the meantime no progress should be made in the fortifications of either province.

Such is the famous Convention. Omitting, as it did, all mention of the Right of Search, and reserving the most intricate matters for subsequent negotiation, it was rather a preliminary to a treaty than a treaty itself; but it had the merit of satisfying the most urgent claims, and of providing for the rest a just and speedy decision. In its progress, however, it became clogged and entangled with another claim. La Quadra had always maintained that 68,0007. was due to his master from the South Sea Company with respect to the Asiento contract, and declared that the Convention should not be ratified unless that money were paid. Mr. Keene, in answer, observed that the Government of England and the South Sea Company were entirely distinct, and that the one had no control upon the other; but he added, that if 68,000l. should be proved as really owing, he would undertake that the debt should be discharged. This La Quadra affected to consider as a positive and unconditional promise; and, on the very point of signing the Convention, delivered to Keene, and sent to Geraldino, a formal protest, declaring that his Catholic Majesty reserved to himself the right of suspending the Asiento, unless the sum of 68,000l. should be speedily paid by the South Sea Company. The British Envoy was much embarrassed; but at length, knowing the anxiety of Walpole to come to some conclusion before the meeting of Parliament, he consented to sign the Convention, notwithstanding the protest, and to receive the latter, not as admitting its demands, but merely as referring them to the future consideration of his Government.

The Convention being transmitted to London, was announced to Parliament, with "great satisfaction," in the King's opening speech. Yet, even before its terms were distinctly understood, a strong spirit

See the statement of Horace Walpole in the House of Commons, March 8, 1739. Parl. Hist. vol. x. 1246-1258.

of opposition appeared against it; and even Sir John Barnard condescended to such wretched cavils as the following:-The King's speech had stated that plenipotentiaries would meet for regulating all the grievances and abuses which interrupted our commerce in the American seas; now, to regulate abuses, said Barnard, implies a continuance of them, but only under another form!-"It requires no great art, no great abilities in a minister," exclaimed Walpole, "to pursue such measures as might make a war unavoidable. That is a very easy matter; but, Sir, how many ministers have you had, who knew the art of avoiding war, by making a safe and honourable peace? . . . . . Suppose that the administration had joined last session in the popular outcry for war, and that a vigorous war was actually entered into, can any gentleman say that this would have stopped the mouths of those who are resolved to find fault at any rate? In such an event, may we not easily imagine to ourselves that we hear a violent opposition man declaiming on the benefits of peace; telling the world that a trading people ought, by all manner of means, to avoid war; that nothing is so destructive to their interests; and that any peace is preferable even to a successful war?"*

When, however, the articles of the Convention were made known, there arose a general ferment, not only in Parliament, but amongst the people. Loud and fierce was the cry. The Right of Search not renounced! The limits of Georgia not defined! The Spanish Captains in the West Indies, after all their cruelties and depredations, to escape without condign punishment! Our victory, in 1718, to be taxed and paid for at the rate of 60,000l.! Such were the complaints of the public, heightened and inflamed by the opposition writers; while those of the Minister defended his Convention so unskilfully, that, as a contemporary assures us, the injury which he suffered from the press was even greater when it was employed in vindicating than in impeaching his conduct. According to Horace Walpole the elder, "ambition, avarice, distress, disappointment, and all the complicated vices that tend to render the minds of men uneasy, are got out of Pandora's box, and fill all places and all hearts in the nation."‡

In Parliament, the friends of the Minister, though diminished in numbers, were not daunted in spirit. Earl Cholmondeley in the Lords moved an Address, drawn up with great skill and judgment, to thank His Majesty for concluding the Convention; to express reliance that, in the further negotiations, effectual care would be taken for securing the British navigation in the American seas; and to promise that, should his Majesty's just expectations not be answered, the House would support him in vindicating the honour of his Crown and the rights of his people. Notwithstanding the two last clauses, this Address provoked a sharp resistance, and called forth several

* Parl. Hist. vol. x. p. 952.

Tindal's Hist. vol. viii. p. 387.

To Mr. Trevor, March 16, 1739. Coxe's Life of Horace Lord Walpole.
VOL. I.

2G

able speeches, amongst which those of Chesterfield and Carteret were especially admired.* The Duke of Argyle not only forsook the ministerial ranks, but appeared amongst the Opposition orators; and the Prince of Wales gave his first vote in Parliament in favour of the latter. On a division, 71 of the Peers present voted for and 58 against the Address—a large increase in the usual strength of the minority.

In the House of Commons the same Address was moved by Horace Walpole, in an elaborate speech of above two hours, beginning at half past eleven in the morning.† His statement, however clear and convincing, was immediately met by a burst of angry eloquence. First, Sir Thomas Saunderson complained that no revenge had been taken on the Spanish Captain who cut off Jenkins's ear. "Even this fellow," said he, "is suffered to live to enjoy the fruits of his rapine, and remain a living testimony of the cowardly tameness and mean submission of Great Britain!" Lord Gage inveighed against the insufficiency of the payments; Lyttleton against the Right of Search. But by far the ablest speech was that of Pitt, who on this occasion seems first to have acquired the ascendency which he ever afterwards retained in the House of Commons. "Is this," he cried, "any longer a nation, or what is an English Parliament if, with more ships in your harbours than in all the navies of Europe, with above two millions of people in your American colonies, you will bear to hear of the expediency of receiving from Spain an insecure, unsatisfactory, and dishonourable Convention? Sir, I call it no more than it has been proved in this debate. It carries fallacy or downright subjection in almost every line; it has been laid open or exposed in so many strong and glaring lights, that I cannot pretend to add any thing to the conviction and indignation it has raised."

He thus concluded, "I will not attempt to enter into the detail of a dark, confused, and scarcely intelligible account. But Spain stipulates to pay to the Crown of England 95,000l. By a preliminary protest of the King of Spain, the South Sea Company is at once to pay 68,000l. of it; if they refuse, Spain, I admit, is still to pay the 95,000l.: but how does it stand then? The Asiento contract is to be suspended; you are to purchase this sum at the price of an exclusive trade, pursuant to a national treaty, and an immense debt of God knows how many thousand pounds, due from Spain to the South Sea Company. Here, sir, is the submission of Spain by the payment of a stipulated sum; a tax laid upon subjects of England, under the severest penalties, with the reciprocal accord of an English Minister, as a preliminary that the Convention may be signed; a condition imposed by Spain in the most absolute, imperious manner, and received by the Ministers of England in the most tame and abject. Can any verbal distinctions, any evasions whatever, possibly explain away this public infamy? To whom would we dis

* Lord Chesterfield's speech is prodigiously applauded as "very fine and very artful." Mr. Orlebar to the Rev. H. Etough, March 3, 1739. See also Maty's Life, p. 168. Mr. Selwyn to Mr. T. Townshend, March 10, 1739.

guise it? To ourselves and to the nation; I wish we could hide it from the eyes of every Court in Europe. They see Spain has talked to you like your master, they see this arbitrary fundamental condition, and it must stand with distinction, with a pre-eminence of shame, as a part even of this Convention. This Convention, Sir, I think from my soul is nothing but a stipulation for national ignominy; an illusory expedient to baffle the resentment of the nation; a truce without a suspension of hostilities on the part of Spain; on the part of England a suspension, as to Georgia, of the first law of nature, self-preservation and self-defence; a surrender of the rights and trade of England to the mercy of plenipotentiaries; and in this infinitely highest and sacred point, future security, not only inadequate, but directly repugnant to the resolutions of Parliament and the gracious promise of the throne. The complaints of your despairing merchants,-the voice of England has condemned it. Be the guilt of it upon the head of the adviser: God forbid that this Committee should share the guilt by approving it!"*

The debate was closed by a speech from the Minister, with his usual skill, but not with his usual success, for he found his majority dwindled to only 28; the numbers being 260 against 232. This appeared to the Opposition leaders a favourable opportunity to execute a project which they had for some time brooded over, and which was recommended to them by no less an authority than Bolingbroke: to withdraw or secede in a body from the House of Commons. By this means they hoped to heighten the national ferment, to represent the cause of corruption as all-powerful, and yet, at the same time, to withhold the Minister, by popular odium, from pursuing his measures in their absence. Accordingly, on the day after the Resolution of Horace Walpole was carried in Committee, and on the Report of it being brought up to the House, Pulteney, who had reserved himself for this occasion, opened another attack on the Convenfion, in which he was ably followed by Wyndham. A second division which ensued having only confirmed the last, Wyndham immediately rose, and with much solemnity, speaking both for himself and for his friends, took leave of that House, as he declared, for ever. "In a future Parliament," he said, "he might perhaps still be at liberty to serve his country as before, but now being unable to discern the least appearance of reason in any one argument offered on the Ministerial side, he must conclude either that the majority was swayed by other or secret arguments, or that he himself wanted common sense to comprehend the force of those which he had heard. In the first case," he continued, "he could not with honour sit in an Assembly determined by such influences; in the latter case, he looked upon himself as a very unfit person to act as a senator: and in either case, therefore, he thought it his duty for the future to

Parl. Hist. vol. x. p. 1280-83. Mr. Selwyn, a strong Ministerialist, writes the next day to Mr. Townshend, "Mr. Pitt spoke very well, but very abusively." See Coxe's Walpole, vol. iii. p. 519. Mr. Orlebar, another placeman, likewise alludes to some young gentlemen, who took great personal liberties." March 10, 1739.

retire, and content himself with offering up his prayers for the preservation of his country.'

So strong and unmeasured were some of the expressions of this speech, that, as the Ministers believed, it was the wish of the speaker to be sent to the Tower, and thus to stir the minds of the people as a martyr in their cause. At the moment Mr. Pelham fell into the snare, and was actually rising to move his commitment, when Walpole with more sagacity prevented him, by rising himself and thanking his opponents, as he said, for throwing off the mask.* We can be on our guard, added he, against open rebels, but not against secret traitors. He reminded Wyndham how twenty-five years before he had been seized by the vigilance of Government, and pardoned by its clemency; he upbraided him for the ill use of that clemency, and only feared that the seceders would not be as good as their word, and would come back. "For I remember," said he, "that in the case of their favourite Bishop (of Rochester), who was impeached of High Treason, the same gentleman and his faction made the same resolution. They then went off as traitors as they were, but their retreat had not the detestable effect they expected and wished, and therefore they returned."†

A Secession is a measure that has been several times attempted in the House of Commons, but always with such signal failure that the experiment will probably never be repeated. An individual may sometimes be justified for withdrawing; a party never. In such cases the public have uniformly asked whether spleen and disappointment might not have some share in the decision; whether the country is best served by inactivity and silence; whether, if the Constitution really be in danger from a corrupt majority, there is no surer remedy than to leave that majority unresisted and increased. This, it soon appeared, was the general and prevailing sentiment. Even at the outset three eminent members of the Opposition, Sir John Barnard, Lord Polwarth, and Mr. Plumer, of Hertfordshire, with a more farsighted policy than their friends, refused to join them in their retreat, and continued to attend their duty as before. As to the others. (about sixty in number), scarcely had they embarked upon their new course before they perceived its ill effects, and regretted their decision. They hoped to avail themselves of a call of the House, fixed for the next Monday, either as a pretext for returning to their posts, or as an occasion for being taken into custody, and becoming objects of popular compassion. But Walpole perceiving their drift, baffled them altogether, and eluded the call by moving an adjournment of the House till the Tuesday. So far from his career being checked by the Secession, as his enemies expected, he declared that no event

* Mr. Selwyn to T. Townshend, March 10, 1739, and Tindal's Hist. vol. viii. p. 405. † Parl. Hist. vol. x. p. 1323. I cannot find, however, this secession of 1723 recorded in any of the publications of that time.

Opinions of the Duchess of Marlborough, p. 76. The Duchess predicts, amongst the ill consequences of the Secession, that "Sir Robert Walpole may now keep all the money raised from the public for himself and his brother!"-Was this the very best topic for her Grace to choose?