and rich can more securely enjoy the fruits of their industry or accumulate a capital by their economy."

This defence was disputed by Sir John Hinde Cotton, a stanch Tory. He maintained that the resolution of Parliament, in the reign of Queen Anne, against leaving any part of the Spanish dominions in the possession of a Bourbon prince was not implied in the original terms of the grand alliance, but was produced by the instances of the Dutch in the hour of their success. When that resolution was carried the Emperor Joseph was alive, and his brother Charles had been declared by England King of Spain, and was in possession of a great part of that monarchy. But in 1711 the Emperor Joseph died, and Charles then became the sole representative of the house of Austria, succeeded him in all his dominions, and was chosen emperor. This accession produced an entire change in the system of affairs, and justified the ministers who negotiated the treaty of Utrecht in departing from the resolution of Parliament; otherwise such a power would have been vested in Charles as must have destroyed the balance of Europe. The ministers, however, who negotiated the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle could plead no such necessity, since the right of search claimed by Spain was a primary cause of the war, and to leave it subject to future discussion was to admit its validity. Sir John also reproached the ministers for omitting to communicate the preliminaries of the peace to Parliament, as had been done by the negotiators of the treaty of Utrecht.

These remarks drew from Mr. Pelham the following reply:-" The hon. gentleman," he said, "had overlooked a circumstance which must annihilate all the material differences he had been labouring to establish between the treaty of Utrecht and that of Aix-la-Chapelle. Admitting our disputes on the right of search to have been the sole cause of our war with Spain, they could not be said to have in any

degree excited the war which subsequently broke out on the Continent, and the termination of which was the chief design of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. Those disputes were doubtless of some consequence to this nation; and had it not been for the death of the Emperor Charles VI. at such a critical time, we should probably have compelled Spain to settle them to our satisfaction in a more summary way than had been proposed in the address, because while Germany remained united under its head France would not have ventured openly to take part with Spain against us. But when the union of the empire was dissolved by the death of Charles VI., and the house of Austria was attacked by France and her allies, to the imminent danger of our own independence, then our disputes with Spain became of secondary importance when compared with the war in which we were engaged upon the Continent, since, if we succeeded in reuniting the empire and securing the balance of power, we might soon find means to settle those disputes, either by negotiation or by force of arms.

"As the protection of the house of Austria against France, so essential to the equilibrium of Europe, was the cause for which we engaged in the war on the Continent, consequently it was our chief concern in the negotiations at Aix-la-Chapelle, in which we had all the success that could be expected after so disastrous a conflict. But to this the resolution of Parliament not to make peace with Spain unless the right of search was abandoned had no manner of relation. And if a change of circumstances furnished the negotiators at Utrecht with a pretext for departing from the declared sense of Parliament respecting the Spanish monarchy, surely the negotiators at Aix-laChapelle were equally authorized, by a change of circumstances, to deviate from the rule laid down by Parliament for treating with Spain. Will any one, indeed, say that the strong confederacy which was formed, and the war which soon afterwards