Mr. Fox enumerated the several contradictions and evasions of the minister since the commencement of the session, and contrasted them with his lordship's former declarations. He observed, on the doctrine of unconditional supremacy, that it went to this: tax America to any amount, or in any manner you please; if she complains, punish her with pains and penalties of the most cruel and unrelenting nature; and if she resists such tyranny and barbarity, then sit down, day after day, in merciful deliberation on the most potent and expeditious way of starving or massacring the devoted victims. tion? This, it is possible, may be a good Bill; it may be the only measure left us to adopt, which may be the means of bring ing that country back to a proper sense of her duty; but is there one gentleman in this House, even one honourable member on the Treasury bench, who will rise and tell me, that his support to the present Bill arises from his information, or will take upon himself to stake his general support of the Bill upon information had, but not proper to be communicated to this House? I am certain, bold and enterprizing as many of them are, there is not one. I cannot sit down without saying a word or two relative to the manifest partiality administration has lately shewn to a neighbouring kingdom (Ireland) which used not to be in very high esteem. No longer tyrannized over and oppressed, she has suddenly become a favourite; she has been lately told by the minister there, that she might have Hessians or Brunswickers, or she might have none; and that they should be paid by this country on the present occasion. This sure is a happy change. Ireland may have foreigners; she may have them for nothing; and she is fairly told, she shall not have one without the consent of parliament, and even if she should consent, she shall not pay a single shilling towards their maintenance or support. Great Britain shall have foreigners, whether she will or not; Ireland may have them if she pleases; but even then Great Britain shall pay them. The Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick complained of the conduct of administration, in keeping every thing secret; it was very probable, if administration could have kept it a secret, that the King's troops were defeated at Lexington in April, or that they suffered worse than a defeat at Bunker's Hill, we should have never heard of those two very mortifying occurrences; nor that an army of 10,000 men, with a most formidable train of artillery, and commanded by four generals of reputation, have been blocked up during the whole summer by a body of people, who have been described in this House, ever since their names have been first mentioned, as a mere cowardly rabble. He could easily discern that the Bill breathed nothing but war, and that not of an ordinary nature; for it was not a war that might be stifled or compromised by a mixture of assertion or concession, but made upon a principle of ruin to one of the parties, if not to both; in short, it was a war of mere revenge, not of justice. The Attorney General insisted that no troops had been offered to Ireland, as asserted by his learned friend, who, he feared, laid too much stress upon newspaper information. Even the fact were so, this was not the proper time to debate it, nor could he perceive what kind of relation there was between the supposed offer made to Ireland and the Bill under consideration. Mr. Burke observed, that the present was a retrospective Bill, for it inflicted punishments for acts thought innocent at the time they were committed, and legalized others which were acts of atrocious plunder and robbery. Our Saviour sent his apostles to teach and proclaim peace to all nations; but the political apostles, to be sent out by this Bill, would be the harbingers of civil war, in all its most horrid and hideous forms, accompanied by fire, sword, and famine. Mr. T. Townshend was severe on the ostensible minister, who was but a mere shadow of authority, all real power being lodged in the person of the hon. gentleman who sat next him (Mr. Jenkinson.) Mr. Jenkinson said, he did not understand what such insinuations led to, if not to mislead the House; that he had always acted conformably to the spirit of the constitution, and defied his accusers to point out a single instance to the contrary. Lord George Cavendish said, the manufactures were daily declining in almost every part of the kingdom, and the consequences of this Bill must be dreadful, as he supposed, before the end of the year, it would throw above 40,000 hands out of em ployment. Lord Stanley could not contradict the noble lord's general information, but he could venture to affirm, it was not the case in Lancashire. Mr. Temple Luttrell. When the noble t and such sentiments as have usually actuated that valuable body of Englishmen. Neither will I despair of seeing this parliament, which has borrowed the name of the memorable Coventry parliament, and copied so many of its misdeeds, take from it the only good precedent it can afford. The Coventry parliament, in the 5th of Henry 4, (about the month of January) having granted to the crown very exorbitant and unjustifiable taxes, a very few weeks after, caused the record, containing that grant, to be committed to the flames, hoping, by such expedient, to prevent their offence from being discovered to future generations.* Let us, Sir, follow that bright example, and have all the American Acts passed since 1763, whether relative to unlimited sovereignty, to famine, or to taxation, selected from your rolls, and put into the fire; and when you send commissioners over to Boston, with the olive branch of peace in one hand, I would have them, instead of the exterminating sword of war, carry in the other a cinerary vase, filled with the ashes of those defunct parchments; to be a sacrifice at the tree of liberty, where they should be buried, and with them our mutual animosities, and every idea that might hereafter grow up to malice, reproach, or mistrust. Such a legation, and such credentials, would be worthy the wisdom and justice of the British legislature, and restore your empire to its former splendor and prosperity: but if the character of herald be to predominate in this commission, there is not one leaf of the olive branch will be accepted of in America, till you have rivetted fetters on the last hand that has nerves able to resist you. I know, Sir, that, for a subject to resist the executive power of the government over that society of which he is a member, must be deemed an act of rebellion, unless such executive power shall have committed a prior act of rebellion against its creatorsthe people; for then it virtually lays itself under an interdict, and resistance is not only pardonable, but praiseworthy; it becomes the duty of every good citizen; therefore the glorious founders of the Revolution in 1688 were patriots, not rebels; and the foreign princes they brought over, and seated on the throne of England, in preference to all hereditary claims of succession, were legal sovereigns, and not lord, at the head of the Treasury, first gave | parliament with sentiments of contrition, notice of this Bill, he told us, it was his intention to repeal the three Acts restrictive on the trade of New England and certain other colonies, as insufficient to the purpose he had in view. Now, if I have comprehended the noble lord aright, he has at different times professed to have in view two very distinct and contradictory purposes; the one to accelerate a peace, the other to continue the war with energy, and a profuse effusion of blood. If the noble lord would repeal these iniquitous Acts, and suspend all other hostile proceedings for the present, he may probably lay the ground-work of peace; but, if he proceeds to a more diffuse and rigorous severity, he will put an end to every ray of hope that could be entertained of sincere or effectual conciliation. One hope, Sir, I will however still entertain, and which I am neither afraid nor ashamed to avow; it is, that the Americans may prove successful in the maintenance of their just rights. Sir, I heartily wish them success, for their sakes who have been grossly injured, and I wish it for our own. We have now before us a dreadful alternative: if the colonists gain the victory, we bid farewell to the most valuable branch of the commerce of Great Britain, and we no longer hold that preeminent distinction, which the triumphs of the last war, and our superior form of government, gave us a just title to among the powers of Europe: if, on the other hand, the ministerial army should come off with conquest, to judge by your northern addresses; by the accommodating temper of the military (so different from former times); and, above all, to judge by the complexion of our present rulers; the liberties of England must inevitably fall a sacrifice on the American continent. But, Sir, I trust, the eyes of Great Britain will open, ere it be too late, and that she will discover the dangerous precipice, on the brink of which she at this day stands. Sir, I venture to foretel, that if these violent measures of coercion be further persevered in, you will involve every district of the British dominions throughout the four quarters of the globe in the various calamities and horrors of your unnatural civil war. Surely, Sir, the country gentlemen, who are so frequently called upon from all sides of the House, now they are retiring into the country, must ponder, during the Christmas recess, on the mischiefs they have been accessary to, and will return to * See Vol. 1, p. 294. fourths were of our own manufactures, and that we got great profit from the other fourth, but that the whole of this exportation was lost, as also 600,000l. exported in the same manner from Scotland. That the West Indies took more than 1,100,000l. annually of British manufactory, and 470,000l. worth of goods were annually exported to Africa, to carry on the West India trade; all this added together, amounted to the amazing sum of nearly six millions sterling; and if this Bill passed, the whole of this immense export would be stopped, and thereby so great a national benefit would be lost, besides the infinite advantages we reaped on our trade and imports from thence, and a million of net money annually paid into the Exchequer. Therefore he implored gentlemen would consider whether it was not madness to risk so great a loss, and put the nation to so immense an expence of blood and treasure, in order to establish an unjust right in America. usurpers. Sir, I shall repeatedly affirm, that the administrators of government in this country, were guilty of an heinous act of rebellion, when they sent fleets on fleets, and armies on armies, to America, to compel the colonists to admit of taxation. Three millions of people, three thousand miles distant, without one delegate in your legislative body, and so eccentral with respect to this island, as not to be possibly comprehended in virtual reprePsentation; occupying a territory of such magnitude, that were you to take from the map of it, the extent of the British isles, the defect would scarcely be visible to the most accurate eye. I say, Sir, this was rebellion against the fundamental constitution of Great Britain, established on reason and the natural rights of mankind, from the earliest ages, confirmed century after century, and reign after reign; it was rebellion in the fullest sense of the word against the unalienable rights of such an imperial mass of British freemen. Such is my law; such I hold to be the law of common sense, and such I understand to be the efficient law of the land. Sir, I shall certainly give my vote to reject this Bill. I abominate every principle on which it is founded. Mr. Bayley said, he must tell those vociferous gentlemen, who were calling out in such a hurry for the question, that he must first call on the noble lord (North) for his estate which was going to be taken from him by this Bill. He said, if all trade and intercourse were stopped between the West Indies and North America, the plantations were at once ruined, as it was impossible to make either sugar or rum, or send it to this country, without American supplies. That as soon as it was made lawful to take American vessels, he did not doubt but all the sugar ships would be made prizes of; for as they were obliged to come home by the coast of America, it would be easy for a petty officer of a man of war to say those ships were found hovering upon that coast, and that they had arms and gunpowder on board (which no merchant ship is without) and were going to supply the rebels with them: this pretence is sufficient to condemn them, so that every planter's property would be confiscated and shared amongst the favourites of the minister. Proof had been given to the House, that the annual exports to North America, before this fatal war broke out, amounted to three millions and a half, of which more than three The Bill being read a second time, it was moved to commit it for the 5th. Upon which several gentlemen begged lord North to postpone it a few days, to give the West India merchants and planters, who had advertised a meeting of their body on this Bill for the 6th, an opportunity of laying before the House any information they might judge necessary; it was moved therefore to amend the motion to the 12th. The House divided: For the Amendment 55; against it 207. The main question was then put: the House divided again: For it 153; against it 24. December 5. Lord North moved the order of the day, to go into a committee on the Bill. Lord Folkestone observed, that the Bill, in its present form, was the strangest heterogeneous mixture of war and conciliation imaginable. He said, that the disparity of numbers in the House of those inclined to war and those who wished for peace, was very great, but nothing like the disparity in the clauses of the Bill; that there were 35 clauses that aimed at desolation, and one only, a single one, that pretended to be pacific; that this mixture of hostility and conciliation, in the same Bill, could proceed from no motive, but a desire, either of confounding the attention, by the variety of the objects and diverting it from observing the disparity of the various parts, or of precluding debate, by continuing the subject matter of two Bills in one; that both these reasons were indecent, and unparliamentary. He animadverted on the immense powers conveyed by the Bill, on it did not know whom, or it did not know how many or how few commissioners, or whether more than one, and observed, that they were left to act upon discretion; nay, without any rule to judge by, had power to suspend the Act. That if he had no other reason for wishing the House to agree to the motion in this way, there at least would be a bill of peace to balance one that prescribes nothing but war, horror, and confiscation. His lordship on these principles moved, "That it be an instruction to the Committee, that they do divide and separate the said Bill into two Bills." Mr. Rice opposed the motion, on the ground that the matter of the Bill and its substantial operation, would answer the ideas of the noble lord as well in one Bill as two. Mr. Dempster enlarged upon the Bill itself, and said, he wished much for the motion, not quite for the same reasons as had been given by the noble lord, for he approved of that part which treated of the commissioners; for though he thought the powers too great, yet great powers were undoubtedly necessary to the success of the commission; that it greatly distressed him in his vote, when he wished well to one part of a Bill, and looked upon the other part with horror, and earnestly begged the motion might pass. Mr. Byng observed, that the bringing in a Bill of such importance as the present, looked as if administration brought the Bill in at this season of the year, in order to avoid the opposition it would probably meet from the country gentlemen. The minister was well aware that the country gentlemen could not be kept in town this season of the year. Sir George Yonge objected particularly to the dispensing power given to the commissioners, which he considered as lowering parliament, and making it appear contemptible in the eyes of those upon the continent, who already entertained no very high idea of its free agency, and who must be satisfied, that it would not voluntarily submit to such an indignity, and therefore was brought to submit to it by indirect means. Lord North said, some were against the warlike part of the Bill, others against the pacific or conciliatory part, but that the most extraordinary reason, with those who wished for peace, and supported this motion, was the dispensing power given by the pacific clause; for, if the motion passes, the power of dispensing, will be of dispensing with the pacific, and not with the hostile Bill. He thought it fairer to declare against the Bill in toto; that, he was sure, was the ultimate wish of those who wanted to divide it in two; and as such, he should strenuously oppose any motion of that tendency. The question was put on lord Folkestone's motion; and the House divided: Ayes 34; Noes 76. The House then went into the committee. Sir George Hay supported the first clause. He said, no man in his senses could doubt but that America was in rebellion, nor that the present Bill was to all intents and purposes perfectly justifiable and necessary. He entered into a comparative state of the nature of a war carried on against rebels and alien enemies, to shew that the latter should be treated with much greater lenity than the former. The latter owned no obedience, no duty, no gratitude, while the former, turning their back upon every moral as well as civil tye, to violence and lawless rapine added moral guilt, and the blackest of all earthly crimes. Lord John Cavendish said it was improbable, that the hon. gentleman had drawn up that part of the Bill which measured out into such exact portions the several parts each admiral, captain, &c. was to share in the common spoils. But who, said his lordship, are those spoils to be taken from? He will probably answer, from the rebellious Americans. Will the hon. gentleman venture to assert, that all America is in rebellion? Or, after this Bill is passed, will he venture to assert, that any one man, whether resident within the twelve united colonies or not, will be safe to trade, or even proceed two leagues to sea? No, it is plain that he considered the Bill only in one point of view, the captures, the forfeitures, and confiscations, the sharing of the prize money, and the final condemnation. Sir George Savile was equally severe on the Bill in all its parts. He said, the ministry, from a mere childish, sottish obstinacy, to hold their places, were at once risking their heads, and plunging the nation into certain ruin. He said, dead majorities and thin houses, were matters very encouraging to the minister to perse vested in the sovereign on certain occasions, but still his ministers were looked upon as responsible to parliament for the due exercise of it; whereas, by the present Bill, that controul being given up, the commissioners would be left at liberty to commit every enormity with perfect impunity. vere; but he assured the House, that the thread, when drawn too fine, would at length break; for, however they might vote or divide within these walls, when our manufactures were ruined, our resources stopped or dried up, and that we were engaged in a French or Spanish war, majorities would avail the ministers very little: no majority would avail in such a critical state of things, much less one already universally execrated for its notorious venality, corruption, and blind submission to the mandates of a minister, who was himself confessed on all hands to be far from being popular. Mr. Burke said, it was the first time he ever heard it asserted, that open hostilities and rebellion were the same thing. He said a day would come, when the damnable doctrines of this Bill would fall heavy on this country, as well as on those who first broached them, and were the means of carrying them into execution. Mr. Bayley condemned the clause, and said the Bill would affect his property very materially in the West-Indies. Mr. St. Leger Douglas replied, he had a considerable estate in the West Indies, nevertheless, he thought the Bill a salutary measure. He knew that the West India islands had lumber sufficient to serve them for one, if not two years; but, if not, it was better to suffer temporary inconveniencies, than sacrifice the British empire in America to the local interests of any of its constituent parts. Sir George Yonge declared himself entirely against the Bill; but he saw no objection its most sanguine friends could have to put off the committee for a day or two, or until the West-India merchants, who were, he understood, to present a petition, stating the manner they would be affected by it, were first heard; he therefore moved, that the chairman do now leave the chair. The question being put, the committee divided: Ayes 34; Noes 126. Dec. 6. The House went again into a Committee on the Bill. Mr. Burke condemned the great impropriety of the discretionary power given to the commissioners, by the last clause, of pardoning or refusing to accept of submission. Mr. Feilde pursued the same idea, and said it was a power of such a nature, as ought not to be trusted to any set of men in a free government. It was a power [VOL. XVIII.] Mr. Bayley was against the clause. He said it gave persons a power to rob him and the West-India merchants of their property; that the present ministry, not content with their places, and their monstrous, undeserved emoluments and douceurs of office, went to war, in order to fill the pockets of their friends and hungry dependants. Lord North did not know he had done any thing which merited the hon. member's resentment, unless his displeasure was called forth on his refusing to let him vacate his seat last session, in order to enter again into contest with his antago nist. As the hon. gentleman said he was unjust, unmerciful, oppressive, &c. he supposed the whole charge might be well attributed to the refusal now alluded to. Captain Luttrell supported the clause, declaring, much as he disliked the Bill in gross, he would rather every other part of it should pass into a law, than that they should refuse to indemnify our officers, fo carrying punctually into execution such positive orders, as they have received from their superior officers, or that have acted uprightly according to their conscience, and the best of their understandings. Where such orders have been discretional, parliament were bound to protect them; but if any had exercised their power cruelly, or arbitrary, he trusted they would be amenable, both to the martial and common law of this land. Captain Luttrell proposed several amendments to the Act, which were accepted. The Bill was ordered to be reported tomorrow. Debate in the Commons on Mr. Hartley's Propositions for Conciliation with America.] Dec. 7. Mr. Hartley rose and said: I must entreat the candour and patience of the House this day, as I feel myself under an unusual anxiety and agitation, not simply from bashfulness of speaking in public, or before this House, which has always been very indulgent to me, but from the greatness of the object, in which, though a very private individual, I presume to interfere; an object, upon which [ 3 X] |