The duke of ARGYLE rose again, and spoke to this effect:—­My lords, if there was now any contest amongst us for superiority of regard to his majesty, of zeal for his honour, or reverence of his person, I should not doubt of proving that no lord in this house can boast of more ardour, fidelity, or respect than myself; and if the chief question now amongst us related to the terms in which he deserves to be addressed by us, I should be unwilling that any man should propose language more submissive and reverend, or more forcible and comprehensive than myself.

But addresses, however they may for present purposes be represented as regarding the personal character of the king, are in reality nothing more than replies to a speech composed by the minister, whose measures, if we should appear to commend, our panegyrick may, in some future proceeding, be cited against us.  Every address, therefore, ought to be considered as a publick record, and to be drawn up, to inform the nation, not to mislead our sovereign.

The address now proposed, is, indeed, equally indefensible to whomsoever it may be supposed to relate.  If it respects the people, it can only drive them to despair; if it be confined to the sovereign, our advice, not our panegyrick, is now required, and Europe is to be preserved from ruin, not by our eloquence, but our sincerity.  Respect to his majesty, my lords, will be best shown by preserving his influence in other nations, and his authority in his own empire.  This can only be done by showing him how the one has been impaired, and how the other may be in time endangered.

By addresses like this which is now proposed, my lords, has his majesty been betrayed into an inadvertent appro bation of measures pernicious to the nation, and dishonourable to himself, and will now be kept ignorant of the despicable conduct of the war, the treacherous connivance at the descent of the Spaniards upon the dominions of the queen of Hungary, and the contempt with which every nation of the continent has heard of the neutrality lately concluded.  By addresses like this, my lords, have the rights of the nation been silently given up, and the invaders of liberty, and violators of our laws, preserved from prosecution; by such addresses have our monarchs been ruined at one time, and our country enslaved at another.

Lord HARRINGTON spoke next, in the following manner:—­My lords, it is necessary to explain that treaty of neutrality which has been mentioned by some lords as an act to the last degree shameful, an act by which the nation has been dishonoured, and the general liberties of Europe have been betrayed; a representation so distant from the truth, that it can only be imputed to want of information.

This treaty of neutrality, my lords, is so far from being reproachful to this nation, that it has no relation to it, being made by his majesty not in the character of emperour of Britain, but elector of Hanover, nor is any thing stipulated by it but security of the dominions of Hanover, from the invasion of the French for a single year.