people that don't mind him, that I left him to find it out at his leisure, and shall have him again for all this whenever I want him." Such speeches require so little commenting upon that I never affront my readers so much as to add any reflections or explanations to things which speak their own sense so plainly that I could suggest nothing which would not be anticipated by their own imagination before I could mention them. After this affair of the judges was over, the Queen told Lord Hervey she should be glad to know the truth, but believed she should never come at it,-Whether the Scotch judges had been really to blame or not in the trial of Captain Porteous? "for between you and the Bishop of Salisbury," said she, "who each of you convince me by turns, I am as much in the dark as if I knew nothing at all of the matter: he comes and tells me they are all as black as devils; you, that they are as white as snow, and whoever speaks last I believe. I am like that judge you talk of so often in the play (Gripus, 13 I think you call him), that, after one side had spoke, begged t'other might hold their tongue, for fear of puzzling what was clear to him. I am Queen Gripus ; and, since the more I hear the more I am puzzled, I am resolved I will hear no more about it; but, let them be in the right or the wrong, I own to you I am glad they are gone."

13 Gripus, in Dryden's play, puzzled between the two Amphitryons.

CHAPTER XXXII.

Sir J. Bernard's proposition for the reduction of the interest of the funds to 3 per cent.-Opposition of Walpole and the King and Queen-Their motives-The Porteous Riot Bill-Mitigated in the Commons-Zeal of the Duke of Argyle against it-Carteret retreats from the Scotch question--Bill for licensing Plays and Players-Official changes-The King and Lady Deloraine-The Princess's pregnancy announced-Carteret courts the Queen-He, Chesterfield, and Bolingbroke supposed to be writing Memoirs of their own time.

WHILST these Scotch affairs were going on in the House of Lords, a scheme was proposed by Sir John Bernard (one of the City Members in the Opposition) to reduce the interest of the National Debt [from four] to three per cent.—a proposal evidently so beneficial to the national interest, and that of the landed men, that it was at first received in the House with all the applause and satisfaction imaginable.

Sir Robert Walpole, for private and personal, and perhaps ministerial reasons, tried to stop it, but could not, and a Bill was ordered to be brought in to put the scheme in execution. Sir Robert had, I believe, two reasons for endeavouring to defeat this project: one, the envying Sir John Bernard the honour and popularity of doing what seemed more naturally the business of the First Commissioner of the Treasury, and of him who was at the head of the management of the revenue; the other, the fear of disobliging the moneyed men in the House of Commons by giving in to a scheme that was

at once to lop off a fourth part of their income. The first of these reasons it is easy to imagine he would own to nobody, and the last he could only own in private. He told the King and Queen that this scheme, if it took effect, would have very bad consequences; for, though it was not proposed by him, yet, as everybody would imagine it could not be carried through without his consent and acquiescence, so it would certainly make many of the moneyed men, who now served the Court for nothing, turn against them. Sir Robert Walpole told them, too, that though he confessed a saving of 500,000l. a-year, unappropriated and ready for any exigence or to spare the land for the current service, was a very desirable thing for the Government, yet, as that 500,000l. must come out of many people's pockets, so most of those who paid their quota to it would look upon the Government as the occasion of their being pinched to furnish it; that this would so vastly increase the disaffection in the nation, that he did not know what turn it might take or what consequences it might have; and as things of this nature should always be done gradually to be done safely, so it could never be the interest of any Government to stand the shock of doing them wantonly at a jerk, when the Government was not in immediate want of the money, and when it was at best only for public good, which nobody was ever thanked for, and when it would be evidently to the detriment and loss of so many particulars, of which (let who will be to blame) the Government always incurred all the clamour and the odium. These arguments and suggestions were sufficient to make the King and Queen zealous in desiring

this project should be defeated; and as they were both of them extremely free in publicly declaring themselves against it, most people imagined their Majesties' reason for being so warm was their having a great deal of money in the funds, and their choosing the nation should rather continue to pay four per cent. interest instead of three for a debt of near fifty millions than that they should receive three per cent. instead of four for their private treasure.

The arguments used against this proposal-considering it only in a national light-were so weak and so absurd that I am almost ashamed to mention them; but let anything ever so beneficial be proposed for the benefit of the public, if particulars are to be prejudiced by such a proposal, those particulars will always exclaim against it, yet never confess it is on their own particular account they do so, which might be excused, but pretend it is for the sake of the public, which can never be believed. Those, therefore, who knew their income must be lessened a fourth part by this reduction of the national interest, instead of giving their true and natural reason against this project by saying they had rather the Government should not retrench its expenses than that they should be obliged to retrench theirs, went about saying that this reduction was contrary to national faith, and would ruin the national credit; and when it was answered that the public had, by contract with their creditors, a right to pay its debts whenever it was able, it was answered the public had a right to redeem, but not to reduce. To this the espousers of the reducing scheme replied that there was nothing obligatory in the reduction, and all that was desired was to ask

the creditors of the public whether they would be contented to take three per cent. for their principal, which nobody pretended the public had a right to force them to take; or whether they would have their principal paid them, which everybody knew the public had a right to force them to take whenever the public had it to give. This appearance of an option, it was said by those who argued against the project for reduction, was unjust, because in reality it was no option; the public, in case the creditors chose to have their principal, not having money in their hands to give what was chosen. This proposal, therefore, of a seeming option, it was said, would only be a method the Parliament would take to fright those public creditors into consenting to a reduction whom the Parliament could not compel to submit to one; and, as Sir Robert Walpole rather ingeniously than truly expressed it, would be like a hawk in the air, which, though it did not destroy the birds, made them lie quiet whilst the net was thrown over them, in which, without that terror, they would never have been taken. All these objections of injustice were certainly fully answered by those who were for this project asserting that the Parliament had indisputably not only a right, but were by duty bound, as trustees for the public, not to pay four per cent. for money they could have at three. It was said, too, that, if an option given to the creditors, whether they would have their principal-money or continue creditors at three per cent., was thought a hardship on the creditors, or an iniquity when it was meant as a favour, the giving that option might be omitted; and all that was contended for was this plain