1750.

NEW FINANCE MEASURE.

289

at such a time, excited the astonishment of Europe, for it could not be comprehended how England, at the close of a long and expensive war, which had so seriously increased the burdens of the country, could find the requisite means of paying off such of the public creditors as should prefer the immediate discharge of the principal to a reduction of the interest. The opposition either shared in this astonishment or affected it. They affirmed that the nation was exhausted; that commerce was paralysed; that public credit was at the last stage of utter ruin, and that all the treaties which had been lately concluded with the powers of Europe were prejudicial to the interests of Great Britain. Pelham refuted these assertions by referring to the tables of imports and exports, which proved that the commerce of England was in a more flourishing condition than ever it had been before, and that public credit was in so firm a state, as to render the time highly favourable for such an experiment. The plan was accordingly communicated to the commons, canvassed in all its details, and finally passed into law. A great proportion of the annuitants subscribed within the time stipulated by the act; but the three great companies, and individual proprietors holding stock to the value of between 8,000,000l. and 9,000,000l., refused to embrace the terms, thereby forfeiting the advantages of the arrangement. minister, unwilling to punish them too rigorously, proposed a second subscription, by which they were still allowed to subscribe, but which limited the duration of the three and a half per cent. to a term of five years. This proposal had the desired effect. The companies and the reluctant annuitants acquiesced without any farther hesitation; and the plan was carried into execution with the unanimous consent of all parties immediately affected, and to the obvious benefit of the nation at large.

The

Two or three very useful measures also distinguished the labours of the session. One of these was an act for encouraging the importation of iron from the British

colonies in North America. Hitherto iron and steel had been imported from Sweden; and as that country purchased necessaries and superfluities from France and other countries, there was a large balance in ready money paid by England on account of the trade in iron. To put an end to this unequal and injurious system, the duties on American pig and bar iron were abolished; and the importation of these articles from the colonies in exchange for British goods and manufactures rendered it no longer necessary to trade on such oppressive terms with Sweden.

A measure was carried about the same time for the encouragement of the British fisheries. By this act a society was incorporated, with power to raise a capital of 500,000l. The project was one of great national importance, designed to give employment to a vast number of persons, and to throw into the hands of native fishermen and labourers that extensive and prosperous trade which had hitherto been monopolised by the persevering industry of the Dutch. But unfortunately the plan was so clumsily contrived, that the sanguine expectations it excited were completely disappointed. The opposition predicted its failure; urging upon the attention of government the danger of intrusting such an undertaking to a joint-stock company, unavoidably clogged with heavy expenses; and pointing out the folly of fitting up in London the vessels destined for the fishery, whereby increased expense, and the hazard of a long voyage to the rendezvous at the sound of Brassa in Shetland, would be incurred. The government partially admitted that these objections were reasonable; but they were too impatient to take advantage of the prevailing enthusiasm on the subject to allow time for alterations. The result was, that the company expended a large sum of money to no purpose, and left the fisheries, if possible, in a more languishing condition than it found them.

At the Westminster election, this year the spirit that had been formerly called so effectively into action against the minister of the day was exerted with increased

1751.

WESTMINSTER ELECTION.

291

vigour against lord Trentham, the ministerial candidate. Lord Trentham had previously been a popular favourite, and one of the leaders of opposition; but, accepting a place at the board of admiralty, and supporting the measures of the government, he lost his influence, and the electors, at their own expense, set up a private gen-tleman, sir George Vandeput, against him. The struggle was fierce on both sides: all possible means of intimidation, bribery, ridicule, and intrigue were resorted to; riotous mobs filled the streets; and while the election lasted, Westminster presented a scene of extraordinary disorder and tumult. At length the poll was closed, and lord Trentham was declared to have the majority; but a scrutiny was demanded on the other side, and the return was delayed for several months by feuds and artifices on the part of the agents of the candidates. The writ had been issued in the previous November; and as no return was made at the end of February, Mr. Fox moved that the officers concerned in the election should be called to the bar and examined. It appearing that the delay was occasioned by the severity of the contest about disputed votes, they were admonished to exercise proper diligence, and assured of protection in the discharge of their duties. In the mean while, the session closed before the scrutiny terminated, and the return was consequently postponed to the ensuing year.

Soon after parliament assembled, the high bailiff re- 1751. turned lord Trentham as duly elected. The opposite party immediately taxed that officer with injustice; asserted that ministerial influence had been most scandalously employed in the affair, and petitioned the house, complaining of the return. The petition was ordered to lie upon the table, and no motion whatever was made to inquire into its merits. But the high bailiff, who was in attendance by previous concert, was called in, and desired to acquaint the house with what had been done in pursuance of the instructions he had formerly received respecting the execution of the writ. In reply, that officer stated that the election had been protracted by

affected delays. Being asked by whom, lord Egmont interposed, objected to the question as improper, and moved the order of the day. The ministerial majority, however, out-voted the objection; and the high bailiff proceeded to state that he had been impeded in the scrutiny, and otherwise maltreated, by Crowle, the counsel for sir George Vandeput, the hon. Alexander Murray, brother to Lord Elibank, and one Gibson, an upholsterer. Upon this statement it was moved that the three accused persons should be brought to the bar of the house. A stormy debate ensued; the arbitrary character of the proceeding was vehemently protested against; the injustice of setting aside the petition of the electors, and proceeding to an investigation when no complaint had been made, instead of entering into the inquiry upon the averments of the petitioning party, was strongly pleaded; but ministers carried their object. Crowle declared that he had merely discharged a professional duty to his client; the argument, however, availed him nothing, and he was reprimanded on his knees and discharged. Gibson was sent to Newgate, but discharged upon a petition of penitence, after receiving a similar reprimand on his knees. Mr. Murray was charged with having uttered some insulting expressions, and it was agreed he should be heard by counsel. In the mean time the tyrannical majority ordered him to be taken into custody. The opposition in vain attempted to rescue the house from this disgraceful proceeding, by an appeal to the uniform practice of English law, which in all such cases requires a form of trial before the person accused should be deprived of his liberty. The expostulation was fruitless. Ministers were resolved to overawe the new spirit that was growing up in the precincts of the court. Murray was kept in custody until the charge was investigated, and then ordered to be sent close prisoner to Newgate; and to aggravate the punishment, they added that he should be called to the bar and receive the sentence on his knees. He appeared accordingly, and was directed to fall upon his knees.

He

1751.

CASE OF MR. MURRAY.

293

indignantly refused to comply. The house was in commotion; ministers were perplexed how to devise a measure sufficiently strong to satisfy their fury. At last, in the midst of tumultuous clamours, it was resolved that he be kept close prisoner in Newgate, without pen, ink, or paper; that no person whatever should have access to him; and that a committee should be appointed to consider what ought to be done in the case. This rigorous confinement affected his health, and he fell dangerously ill, in consequence of which some of his relatives applied for his removal to a more convenient situation. The request was granted with an ill grace, after the examination of his physician as to the nature of his illness, and it was ordered that he should be transferred to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms. But this favour, which had not been solicited with Murray's consent, he refused to accept, and expressed the warmest resentment against his friends for asking it. He accordingly remained in Newgate until the close of the session terminated the authority of parliament, and was then conducted to his own house with a triumphal procession, headed by the sheriffs of London, and followed by a vast number of persons with streamers and flags. The impolicy of such violent persecutions to maintain the dignity of the commons was lamented by all reflecting men. Instead of elevating the influence of the representatives of the people, they had the opposite effect, of producing a universal sentiment of jealousy and distrust.

*

* The sequel of this case was still more remarkable than its origin and progress. In the following session, viscount Coke, a young nobleman whose character entitled him to little attention amongst men of sense and honour, moved that Mr. Murray should be again committed. Such a proceeding had never been attempted before, and was asserted by those who opposed the motion to involve the exercise of a new power. But the impetuosity of the majority was not to be stayed by considerations of that kind, and the motion was carried. Mr. Murray, however, left the kingdom, and thus evaded the sergeant-at-arms. In this dilemma, an address was agreed upon to his majesty, praying that he would issue a proclamation offering a reward for his apprehension, which was accordingly done. About the same time a pamphlet was published containing a history of the whole case, and appealing from the tyranny of the commons to the good sense of the country. This pamphlet was immediately declared by the house to be