of those who blindly followed him, and was hated by
the rest of mankind. He showed him contracting friendships and
alliances with all foreign ministers who were hostile to his own
country, and endeavoring to get at the political secrets of English
administrations in order that he might betray them to foreign and
hostile States. Further, he asked the House to suppose this man
travelling from foreign court to court, making it his trade to betray
the secrets of each court where he had most lately been, void of all
faith and honor, delighting to be treacherous and traitorous to every
master whom he had served and who had shown favor to him. "Sir, I
could carry my suppositions a great deal further; but if we can suppose
such a one as I have pictured, can there be imagined a greater disgrace
to human nature than a wretch like this?"
[Sidenote: 1734--An unstable alliance]
The ministers triumphed by a majority of 247 to 184. Walpole was the
victor in more than the mere parliamentary majority. He had conquered
in the fierce parliamentary duel.
There is a common impression that Walpole's speech hunted Bolingbroke
out of the country; that it drove him into exile and obscurity again,
as Cicero's invective drove Catiline into open rebellion. This,
however, is not the fact. A comparison of dates settles the question.
The debate on the Septennial Bill took place in March, 1734; {17}
Bolingbroke did not leave England until the early part of 1735. The
actual date of his leaving England is not certain, but Pulteney,
writing to Swift on April 29, 1735, adds in a postscript: "Lord
Bolingbroke is going to France with Lord Berkeley, but, I believe, will
return again in a few months." No one could have known better than
Pulteney that Bolingbroke was not likely to return to England in a few
months. Still, although Bolingbroke did not make a hasty retreat,
history is well warranted in saying that Walpole's powerful piece of
invective closed the door once for all against Bolingbroke's career in
English politics. Bolingbroke could not but perceive that Walpole's
accusations against him sank deeply into the heart of the English
people. He could not but see that some of those with whom he had been
most closely allied of late years were impressed with the force of the
invective; not, indeed, by its moral force, but by the thought of the
influence it must have on the country. It may well have occurred to
Pulteney, for example, as h
|