MR. CRUGER.

I Rise, Sir, to say a few words on this important subject, with all the diffidence and awe which must strike the mind, on a first attempt to speak before so august an assem­bly. Had I remained silent on this occasion, I must have condemned myself for seeming to desert a cause which I think it my duty to espouse. I cannot but be heard with candour by Englishmen, when what I offer is dictated by a love to my country.

[Page 8] I am far from approving all the proceedings in America. Many of their measures have been a dishonour to their cause. Their rights might have been asserted without violence, and their claims stated with temper as well as firmness. But permit me to say, Sir, that if they have erred, it may be con­sidered as a failing of human nature. A people animated with a love of liberty, and alarmed with apprehensions of its being in danger, will unavoidably run into excesses: the history of mankind declares it in every page; and Britons ought to view, with an eye of tenderness, acts of imprudence, to which their fellow-subjects in America may have been hurried, not, as has been unkindly said, by a rebellious spirit, but by that generous spirit of freedom, which has often led their own ancestors into indiscretions.

Acts of severity are far from having a tendency to era­dicate jealousies; on the contrary, they must produce new fears, and endanger that attachment and obedience which kindness and gentleness might have insured.

No country has been more happy in its colonies than Great-Britain. Connected by mutual interests (till the aera of the fatal sta [...]p act) they flourished in an intercourse of amity, protection and obedience, supporting and sup­ported by each other. Before than hated period, we meet with no instances of disobedience to your laws; no denial of the jurisdiction of Parliament; no marks of jealousy and discontent. They ever loved liberty; their zeal for it is coeval with their first emigration to America. They were presecuted for it in this country; they sought a sanctuary in the unexplored regions of that. They cleared their inhospitable w [...]ds, cultivated their lands, and poured the wealth which they derived from agriculture and commerce into the bosom of the mother country.

You protected them in their infant state, and they re­turned it, by consining to you the benefits of their trade. You regulated their commerce for the advantages of this country, and they never discovered an opposition, either to the authority or the exercise of it. Are these evidences of a spirit of disaffection to Great-Britain, or ingratitude for its protection? Are they not rather proofs, that if the same [Page 9] line of mild and lenient government had been pursued, the same cordiality and submission would have been continued?

Every American who loves his country must wish the prosperity of Great-Britain, and that their union may ever subsist uninterrupted. If the paternal trunk is injured, the branches must suffer with it. A subordination on the part of the colonies is essential to this union. I acknowledge, Sir, that there must exist a power somewhere to superintend and regulate the movements of the whole, for the attain­ment and preservation of our common happiness; this supreme power can be justly and adequately exercised only by the legislature of Great-Britain. In this doctrine the colonies tacitly acquiesced, and were happy: England en­joyed by it all the advantages of an exclusive trade. Why then strain this authority so much, as to render a submis­sion to it impossible, without a surrender of those liberites which are most valuable in civil society; and were ever acknowledged the birthright of Englishment? When Great-Britain derives from her colonies the most ample supplies of wealth by her commerce, is it not absurd to close up those channels, for the sake of a claim of opposing taxes, which (though a young member) I will dare to say, never have, and probably never will defray the expence of col­lecting them?

The expediency of coercive measures is much insisted on by some, who, I am sorry to say, seem to consider more the distresses into which they will involve the Americans, than the benefits they can procure from such vindictive conduct to this country. Humanity, however, will prompt the ge­nerous mind to weep over severities, though they may be even necessary; and a prudent statesman will reflect, that the colonies cannot suffer without injury to Great-Britain. They are your customers—they consume you manufac­tures;—by distressing them, if you do not drive them to foreign markets, you will most assuredly disable them from taking your commodities, and from making you returns for what they have taken.

Should coercive measures reduce them to an acknowledge­ment of the equity of parliamentary taxation, what are the [Page 10] advantages which will result from it? Can it be thought that the Americans will be dragooned into a conviction of this right? Will severities increase their affection, and make them more desirous of a connection with, and dependence on, Great-Britain? Is it not, on the contrary, reasonable to con­clude, that the effect will be an increase of jealousy and dis­content; that they will seek all occasions of evading laws imposed on them by violence; that they will be restless under the yoke, and think themselves happy in an oppor­tunity of flying to the protection of any other power, from the subjection of a mother, whom they consider cruel and vindictive?

I would not be understood, Sir, to deny the good inten­tions of administration. The abilities of the Minister, it seems are universally acknowledged; but I must add, hu­manum est errare. Though an American, I applaud his jea­lousy for the dignity of parliament, and think the impolicy and inexpediency of the late measures may reasonably be im­puted to the difficulty of the occasion, and the unsettled and undefined nature of the dependance of the colonies on the mother country; and vice versa, candour must admit the same apology for the violences and mistakes of America.

But since these measures have been found, by sad expe­rience, totally inadequate; since they have widened the breach, instead of closing it; diminished the obedience of the colonies, instead of confirming it; increased the turbu­lence and opposition, instead of allaying them; it may be hoped, that a different plan of conduct will be pursued, and some firm and liberal constitution adopted, by the wisdom of this house, which may secure the colonists in their liberties, while it maintains the just supremacy of parlia­ment.

Mr. CRUGER's SPEECH on the MOTION for an ADDRESS to the KING.

HE said, though interested as he was in the business before the House, he should have remained silent, had be not conceived that an honourable gentleman * had thrown some undeserved reflections on the Americans, which he should take some notice of before he sat down, but that he chose first to pay a little attention to the general busi­ness. He observed, that the dispute between this country and her colonies was of such infinite importance to both, that he hoped he should be forgiven if he said it would be imprudent to enter into it, but with the utmost caution and deliberating; that we were now like men walking on the brink of a precipice; that there was danger in every step, and that in his opinion the salvation of this country depended on the measures that were adopted by the house this night. He then apprized the house, that the settlement of the unhappy disputes between England and America did not particularly concern any set of men, whether in or out of administration; that it related to all, was connected with all, and materially affected the interests of the whole state. He then strongly recommended to all parties to go into an examination of the question, free from resentment or prejudice; to consider it with impartiality, to discuss it with temper, and to adopt with unanimity and salutary proposition, regardless of the man or party that may suggest it. He then endeavoured to vindicate the Americans, both as to their courage and gal­lantry, (in opposition to the assertions of the colonel;) the latter he did with much good humour and pleasantry, but lost his temper in the former, became personal, and was called to order. He concluded with saying, that as many schemes of accommodation were talked of, he earnestly wished that some one might be adopted which would tend to restore the harmony any affection that once subsisted be­tween Great-Britain and her colonies, and produced so many invaluable blessings to both.

Governor JOHNSTONE's MOTION for recom­mitment of the Address.

BEFORE you pronounce this dreadful sentence upon a meritorious, sober, and industrious people, I hope the House will indulge me with a few words in discharge of the duty I owe myself, and likewise a view of trans­mitting my character fair to posterity, when those black scenes shall be examined without prejudice.

The real question before us is, upon the proper measures to be pursued respecting our fellow-subjects in America. In order to judge of this, we must consider the real cause of dispute. I say, the substantial difference turns upon the right of taxation. Most of the advocates on the other side have endeavoured to slur this point, and alledge, That the claims of the Americans extend far beyond this article, and that the act of navigation itself is in danger.—But it is im­possible for a judicious mind to read the material papers, and not see that this is illusory. The Congress has expressly told us, They are willing to acquiesce in those laws which secure to us the monopoly of their trade, as necessary in the mutual connection;—and the instructions from Philadelphia, on which the proceedings of the Congress are chiefly formed, avow these doctrines in more full and explicit terms. This method of condemning men by inference and conjecture, contrary to their repeated declarations. I cannot approve; I shall therefore bend the whole force of my argument to the original cause of quarrel,—taxation.

The great and only secret yet found out, for preserving the liberties of mankind from the incroachments of that power which is necessary for the executive in large king­doms, is the power of the purse. This was the subject of contention in the civil wars of Charles the First. It is this privilege alone which makes the House of Commons re­spectable: this is the point which Hampden obtained for us! And I leave every one acquainted with the history of those memorable times, to determine in his own mind, "Whether we should ever have enjoyed this blessing, if [Page 13] he had tamely paid the tax, and had not resisted?"—From, this power we derive the certainty of assembling the repre­sentatives of the people; by this redress of grievances may precede supplies; and the security that the exercise will not be abused is derived from hence, that the House cannot impose on others what they are not to feel themselves. By the principles of the constitution, every man should be [...] ­presented; but the deviation from a rule, too nice for prac­tice, is safely borne, because the interest of every particu­lar member remains as a pledge, that no individual can be over-burthened: when this security is removed, there is no longer any safety for those to whom the fact [...] not apply. What is the case respecting the American [...] Does any member feel himself affected by the impositions he shall lay on them? Nay, does not the contrary principle prevail? The more he shall burthen America, the more he will re­lieve himself. Judge Hobart says, "If an act of Par­liament was made constituting a man a judge in his own cause, it would be void by the law of nature." Yet such is the precise si [...]uation in which we contend we ought to be placed, respecting the Americans, and for the denial of which we are ready to condemn our fellow-subjects to all the tortures enacted by the laws of treason.

Let us look round, and view the fate of different states that have yielded or preserved the privileges for which the Americans contend. So soon as the cortes lost this power, their slavery was complete. Portugal has now no vestige of this Palladium—Here is tyranny supreme! In France, where the traces are left, (as in the pays d'etat,) their happi­ness is distinguishable from the misery of other parts. In Britain we are yet free, because we retain it. In Holland, Switzerland, and the other states of Europe, they are more or less so as they preserve it.

What are the circumstances that distinguish and protect the British colonies from those of other nations? The repre­sentatives of the people met in general assembly and the trial by jury.—It the system of taxation by the Parliament of Great-Britain, takes place, what being can be so credu­lous as to expect the Assembles of the people will ever [Page 14] meet; and it is confessed, that Admiralty Courts, disclaiming trials by jury, are necessary to enforce this species of taxa­tion. Here then are all the essential privileges of an En­glishman dependent on this question, and the real interest of the state is no way concerned in the contrary scale, since the prosperity of the colonies must ever prove the riches and glory of England. Nothing but the absurd pride, or narrow ignorance of the present administration, can be thrown into it. When once this system takes place, we shall then feel the tyranny and oppression of Governors, with all their train of dependents, as in the provinces of Rome, which are now quoted as an example.

Thus much, supposing the Americans right in the dis­pute (as I believe they are;) but supposing them wrong, I shall now state their excuse, and see what heart can condemn them, and retain any claims to humanity.

The question concerning the right to tax the colonies, though clear to those who are accustomed to think deeply on the principles of free governments, is difficult to common apprehensions. Montesquieu has observed, "that in de­spotism every thing ought to depend on two or three ideas." As for instance, is there any thing so fit to solve this dispute, as the unity of the British empire—the supremacy of the legislative authority of Great-Britain—the omnipotence of Parliament? Is there any man so ignorant, after having heard those sounding words, as not clearly to comprehend the whole of the controversy? Plodding, thinking creatures, who are accustomed to consider the complicated privileges in a free government, from whence the harmony of the whole springs may be puzzled; but men who have never disturb­ed their repose with such dry considerations, can have no doubt on the matter; be that as it may, certain it is, that the discussion of this most important question was debated in this assembly by the greatest abilities, after the fullest informa­tion that ever accompanied any political question. The de­cision was in favour of the Americans; the stamp-acts was repealed.—I admit that "principles of expediency" are al­ledged as the reason, in the preamble of the bill, but the men who boldly denied during this discussion, the power of [Page 15] taxing the colonies, as constitutionally existing in the com­mons of Great-Britain, namely, Lord Chatham and Lord Camden, (men of as extraordinary talents as ever adorned society) the one was made prime minister, the other was created a peer, and Lord High Chancellor of Great-Britain, the keeper of the King's conscience!—What American could have retained any doubt of his cause in the mind of his Majesty, or the nation, after such a decision? The com­promising act soon followed (for the sake of gratifying a party) violating all the principles of commerce and policy in the lump-giving draw backs here, exacting duties there, committing the power and authority of the nation on sub­jects which never could produce any effectual revenue, and this in a manner that all men of sense must ever condemn.

When the Americans saw, by this act of parliament, that the great question was likely again to return upon them, in the progress of time, though the greediness, ignorance, or caprice of statesmen, they met the position in its fly, circui­tous, questionable shape; they recurred to their old prin­ciples; they revolted against the preamble; they transmit­ted petitions; and all failing, they entered into non-im­portation agreements; this produced Lord Hillsborough's circular letter, which I will repeat again, and again, till a contrary conduct is pursued; for no satisfactory answer can be given about it, while the present doctrines are avowed. The Americans thus fortified in their opinions concerning the point of taxation, are unanimous against our power, from Nova-Scotia to Georgia. If there be any doubt on this fact, why not call Governor Eden? We are told he lately arrived; it would have been becoming to have pro­duced him; but I call on his relations friends, or any man, to contradict me in this assertion, "that the Americans are unanimous against this power of taxation, as lodged in the British Parliament." They are resolved to resist; and since you have placed them in a situation, where they must either be rebels or slaves, the blame must lie with those who have drove them to this dilemma.

In discussing the question of resistance, the gentlemen on the other side have great advantages. We stand on difficult [Page 16] ground, since, from its nature, it never can be defined, or admitted as lawful. The first officer of the crown has fairly expressed my ideas on the subject. The principle should never be extinguished in any government, much less in a free country; the occasion must ever be referred to the ge­neral feelings of mankind. Now, if depriving a trading town of its commerce—if cutting of whole societies from the benefit of the element which God has given them—if proceeding to deprive them of the fishery, their subsistence—if altering their charter, and annihilating all their rights, without hearing them in their defence—if establishing, in its stead, a new form of government, which leaves all things in confusion—if erecting a system of tyranny in their neigh­bourhood, and establishing not tolerating) all the absurdi­ties of the Roman catholic religion—trial by jury dismissed—babeas corpus denied—the representatives of the people determined useless—inferior duties levied by act of parlia­ment—in short, precedents for the violation of ever thing we hold most sacred in this country: I say, if acts like these can vindicate resistance, the Americans can quote them, and God and the world must judge between us. For my own part, I consider, with Lord Somers, "that treason against the constitution is the first species of that crime." Acts of parliament are sacred things, and yet they may be so made, grinding the face of mankind, that human nature will revolt at their severity. Dudley and Empson were hanged for acting—according to act of parliament.

I have now stated the arguments which should induce you to pause at least before you take this irretrievable step. I shall examine next the consequences.

Suppose we should succeed in subduing the Americans, is it not clear from henceforward that we must govern them by military force? Must not our army be increased in pro­portion? While his Majesty retains the power of moving his troops from one part of his dominions to another, can there be any safety for the liberties of this country? If the mortification begins at the extremities will it not soon com­municate to the centre? Every man acquainted with the history of nations must foresee the consequences. If we [Page 17] fail in the attempt, which is the happiest event that can occur what difficulties may not disgust, irritations, and all the horrors of civil war, enge [...]der? While the justice and moderation of this country are blotted from the face of the earth, and the accumulated expence, when the springs of riches are cut off, must shake public credit t [...] the very centre.

The noble Lord has hinted, "if repealing the tea tax would do, he would yield that," and he speaks even faintly on the power of taxation. If these are his principles, we are yet more inexcusable. We are going to punish men for maintaining what we are ready to yield, and to engage the nation in endless expence, for the sake of a quiddity. Since whether renounced on the principles of expediency or right, the satisfaction must be equally complete to the Americans.

But the noble Lord alledges, "that yielding the point of taxation would not now do." This is conjecture on his part; but at least it would produce this good effect, we should divide the Americans; we should unite men in this country, and go to the contest with better hopes of success. The proofs the noble Lord gives for his opinion are seve­ral indiscreet acts of different meetings since the late con­fusion in America. Such detail never affects me. I think no conclusions can be drawn from them—In all civil wars, when the people are let loose to reason on government, a thousand absurd doctrines are broached. Let us apply this to our own country—let us remember all the ridiculous circumstances which Hudibras has painted better than I can. But should the great cause of liberty, in which our ancestors were engaged, suffer from such circumstances? To their feelings we may trust; on the reasoning of the multitude there is little dependence. For my own part, I think with Cardinal De Retz, "that any number above one hundred is at best but a more mob." [Here the House felt the expression as too strong.]—It never could be my in­tention to apply the rule to this House, long trained in form and discipline, though sometimes there are doctrines and proceedings, eyen here, that would surprize a stranger into this belief.

[Page 18] But the noble Lord says, "Why not petition first, and acknowledge the right, and then we will grant relief." Have they not petitioned? Is there a means of supplication and protestation they have not tried? I am convinced they went to the crown merely as a mode of introducing their petition here. Now you deny hearing their agents. An honourable gentleman in administration says, "he wished we had heard their petitions." Do not then condemn them for not petitioning, till you have declared your resolution to hear them. Can it be expected the Americans will act on the inuendos of a minister? If you mean fair, why not declare your intentions by some binding act? After the East-India company, who will trust you? You invited them to petition, under hopes and declarations, and afterwards made use of this very petition, to deprive them both of their money and their privileges. In the ceded islands you invited men to settle under the royal proclamation, and then levied four and a half per cent. on their produce, which precedure has lately been condemned in the courts of law. In Canada you have been guilty of a greater violation, as liberty is dearer that property. Here you have despised the royal proclamation, and forfeited your engagements to mankind. I repeat it again, What man or society of men can trust you?

The next objection to the Americans is the congress. This is now termed an illegal meeting. Government here, lay by with great expectation, waiting their resolves. If they had been favourable to their views, or had any un­toward circumstances broke their union, we should have had much eulogium on the congress. Now they have come to resolves favourable to the liberties of mankind, all is abuse. I do not know by what law (except that of com­mon sense) mankind can be regulated on these occasions. What kind of meeting can that be called, which was held in this place at the Revolution? Aldermen and old mem­bers of parliament mixing in consultation. The necessity on these occasions gives rise to the case. You wished to know the sense of the people of America: Was ever the judgment of a people so fairly taken? First the occasion is [Page 19] promulgated: The people chuse representatives; these chuse deputies; the deputies in congress publish their pro­ceedings, each member returns to his respective colony, where his conduct is again approved—No place, no pen­sion, no bribe, to influence his election, or bias his vote. But even as to the legality, the manner of meeting is not new; government itself called a congress in the last war, to apportion the quotas of men and troops.

One gentleman has said, "that our situation is quite new, and there is not example in history to direct our steps." I say there is a case directly similar, but we are too conceited to profit from such experience. Philip the Second and his seventeen provinces are the counterpart of what we are acting. The debates in his council on sending the Duke of Alva into the Netherlands, are applicable in every part. He was advised by two sensible men, to repair thither him­self, and hear the complaints of his people, before he came to such rash resolves; but the majority said, as in this case, that his glory was compromised. It was not religion only, but taxing without consent of their states, that brought matters to the last extremity: The Duke of Alva, it is true, was victorious every where at first, but his cruelties were but sowing the serpent's teeth. The Gues, the Beg­gars of the Briel esteemed at that time infinitely more de­spicable than the New-Englandmen are represented, gave the first shock to the power of Spain. In comparing the probability of events, can any man say Great-Britain has such a prospect of victory in the contest, as Spain might then have expected? Yet we know the event, and how that mighty empire was rent in pieces. The present reso­lution hurries us into that situation, from which there is no retreating. It obliges the Americans immediately to act. By declaring them in rebellion, they must have recourse to arms; all negociation is cut off.—I think the word rebel­lion both impolitic and unjustifiable. I beg to know what paper on your table can vindicate that term? The first law officer of the crown said, "A number of men committing treason was rebellion." I differ from him in the definition: According to my conception of the phrase, they must be [Page 20] in military array, to affect some military purpose. One hundred men coining money are not in rebellion, though committing treason. Insurrections to pull down inclosures is not rebellion, though deemed a constructive levying war. In the case of Purchase and Demerce, for pulling down the meeting-houses, they were convicted of treason, but no one ever thought of saying the confederates or associates were in rebellion. I think we should be very cautious how we criminate bodies of men on such intelligence. I dare say the noble Lord has been deceived himself; but this I affirm, he has hitherto constantly deceived this house. It appears to me that no intelligence from General Gage can be depended on. I beg the house will attend particularly to what I now say, before they engage their lives and for­tunes. It appears General Gage has regularly deceived ad­ministration. No event has turned out as he foretold, or gave reason to hope; the next letter constantly contradicts the expectations raised in the former. He seems never to have known what they were about—no doubt grossly im­posed on himself—but the facts are undeniable. When he first arrived, he writes the malecontents were abashed, and the friends of government would soon appear. Next, his expectations from the assembly were disappointed, and he dissolves them in surprise: Then, there would be no con­gress; next, though there would be a congress, they would differ and disagree: In short, led on, and leading others by vain expectations, till the last letter, which announces a total disaffection, and which I believe to be the true state of the provinces.

Singling out the province of Massachusetts-Bay, can answer no purpose, but to expose our partiality. It is the cause of all, and the other colonies can never be so mean as first to encourage and then desert them before the general right is settled.

The noble Lord talks next of stopping their fisheries; but he says, "the act is only to be temporary." Does the noble Lord think he can turn the channels of trades as easily as he can turn the majorities of this house? The explain the idea, supposing the New-England fisheries stopt, their [Page 21] utensils must waste and destroy. But, will the English merchant madly increase his stock, and fit out new ships, if the act is merely temporary? If it is perpetual, the people in America are ruined. The consequence is, the French must in the end reap the benefit of all this strange policy.

We are constantly stating the great obligation we have conferred on the colonies by our former behaviour towards them: If it was ever so good, we can claim no merit from hence in private or public concerns, to do injury in future. They do not complain of your former behaviour, but they say, you have altered this very system from whence you would now derive their submission.

There are two arguments of the noble Lord which I must remark upon before I sit down; the first is, "the comparative view of taxation between this country and the colonies, according to the number of inhabitants." His Lordship says, "we pay about twenty-five shillings a head, and they pay about six-pence." Who is there so unac­quainted with political arithmetic as not to know that the small sum people pay in taxation is often a proof of their poverty, and a large sum a proof of their prosperity, by demonstrating the riches from the greatness of the con­sumption? Let this kind of reasoning be applied to Ireland and Scotland, where we know the multitude to be poor in comparison to the inhabitants of London, whom we know to be rich; besides, if the colonist does not pay in palpa­ble cash from his own hand, does not he pay all the taxes on the four millions of manufactures he receives, and part of those taxes on the raw materials he sends hither?

The other argument is still more extraordinary. The noble Lord says. "if we fail in our attempt of forcing America, we shall still be in the same situation we are in at present." What! after our armies have been disgraced, our fellow-subjects destroyed, all the irritation of a civil war, public confidence, and fair opinion lost? Does the noble Lord think he will be in the same situation himself? I really speak it with regret; for personally I have much regard for the noble Lord, and particularly because I per­ceive, [Page 22] from his faint manner of stating his propositions, that they are not the dictates of his own mind, and that they are forced on him.

I cannot see my other memorandums, and therefore I shall conclude by heartily concurring with the noble Lord who moved for the recommitment of this address.

Honourable TEMPLE [...]TTERELL's SPEECH on the Employment of 2000 additional Sea men.

I Rise up under a number of disadvantages, and shall scarce be able to express my sentiments without much agitation and embarrassment, a novice as I am at political disquisitions, and attempting, (from a seat which till this hour I might not call my own) to speak on a subject of such high import, in the presence, and possibly against the opinion of the most experienced statesmen in any country of the universe.—But, Sir, it has been earnestly recommended to me, as well by the electors of the borough of which I have the honour to be a representative, as by several other persons of respectable consideration, that I will exert the utmost of my humble endeavours and faculties, towards the establishing of peace, and conciliating the affections of the American colonies with the parent-state of Great-Britain, and to promote the joint happiness of both divisions of this mighty empire, on the firm basis of equity and mutual good offices: and I should hold it an unpardonable omission of duty were I to remain now silent, especially as I was pre­cluded, by the dependence before Parliament of a contro­verted return, from declaring my disposition towards the oppressed colonists, at the opening of the present session, when a speech from the throne of the most inimical ten­dency to America, and therefore the most alarming and dangerous tendency to the whole British realm, received the thanks of this House. I was under the same preclusion [Page 23] when commerce here stood a dejected supplicant, in just apprehension from the impending storm. Well, Sir, might she be alarmed, to see a pilot at the helm, as the winds and the billows arise, who, rather than part with the guns, throws the merchandize overboard: save them, Sir, he may, by so costly a sacrifice, but not for jubilee or triumph; they shall be saved for signals of distress, and to solemnize the obsequies of your empire.

The merchants were not then to be heard lest their candid story should set in the proper point of view those insidious fragments of official letters laid on your table. What hu­man understanding could cement such a mangled correspon­dence together, so as to derive any clear accurate knowledge of the real condition or sentiments of the Americans?—Whatsoever might extenuate offences, excuse error, and restore perfect amity between the two countries, did the partial hand of administration wickedly suppress, while in too glaring a light was exhibited every fact that could serve to widen the breach, and inflame the passions, and blow up a faint, luckless spark of animosity to the full combustion and horrors of a civil war!—These misrepre­sentations however answered the ends proposed, for both Houses were blindly entrapped to give their sanction to as sanguinary a scroll (in the form of an address) as was ever laid by a prostitute senate at the feet of deluded majesty.—Did not your ancestors, Sir, manfully fight, did not some of them heroically fall, to preserve those constitutional Rights of the subject to every Briton, which you have not by one vote pledged yourself, at the hazard of life and for­tune to subvert and annihilate throughout the better part of the whole British monarch?

I do not conceive it possible that any man here present can feel as he ought, be conscious of a participation of the least participation, in the superintendence of the common-wealth, and remain a mere tranquil observer, when so weighty, so interesting a subject comes before you; a subject, on the issue of which perhaps his own individual happiness or misery, doubtless the happiness or misery of his nearest posterity, will depend.

[Page 24] With what hebetude, Sir, must the blood circulate thro' his veins! What must his definition be of an ignominious supineness and apathy!—This is not a debate of slow animation, in which few persons are concerned, and of limited influence; we are now to decide upon the fate of millions through a long series of ages, and the part which every man shall take on this occasion must stamp him with characters indelible through all eternity—a patriot or a parricide.

'Tis, Sir, from the collisions of controversy that those radiant sparks are struck out by which truth lights her sacred torch—nor have I less expectation from those gentle­men who are but just initiated into parliamentary business, than from your veteran politicians "deep on whose front engraven (to use the phrase of Milton) deliberation sits and public care." Such veterans might indeed be our surest guides, were we now about to agitate questions wrapt up in subdolous Machiavelian mystery, and only to be deve­loped by the acutest abstract reasoning. The present juncture, Sir, requires only a well principled heart, and a head moderately conversant with the nature of men and things.

It is not, I own, I feel, given to a young member of this august assembly to deliver his ideas with that method, that guarded correctness, that unagitated confidence which long habitude of speaking usually supplies; but will he, Sir yield with less ductility to the dictates and honest zeal of inward conscience? He comes among you at least with a judgment unbiassed: he has not pledged himself to any partial junto, whose maxims and interests he is at all events to adopt for the measure of his political career: he has not stood forth an accomplice to any of those manifold mis­chiefs and blunders which have heretofore been committed in the administration of your colonies: he has had no share in inflaming the evil by temporary anodynes; nor has he treated the imperial concerns of that wide-stretched conti­nent as only accessary to, and of trivial account when com­pared with his own private schemes of ambition and ag­grandisement. Upon the whole, Sir, I can but thinks him [Page 25] rather the more likely to execute the share of such impor­tant award committed to his discretion, as becomes an up­right delegate of the people at large, heedless whether his conduct therein may quadrate with the narrow, selfish views of this or that set of men who are candidates for titles or power: not but that I have the satisfaction to see here pre­sent some characters animated with the true patriotic spirit, who have long and worthily been seated within these walls; on whose eminent talents, on whose approved integrity, America rests her best hope.

Such gentlemen as come within the scope of any of those disadvantageous allusions I have just thrown out, will con­sider, that a well-timed recession from error claims the next praise to a perfect exemption therefrom; they will no longer endeavour to palliate a dreadful disease, which, if once ar­rived at a full paroxism, it will baffle the Esculapian skill of their expertest state-doctors to cope with.

Our present sagacious rulers had, it seems, drawn their political clue in that quarter of the globe to so Gordian a tie, that despairing to revolve by patience and sober wisdom through the several implications their hands had wrought, they took a summary recourse to the edge of the sword. Sir, their sword-law will best agree with the arbitrary prin­ciples and system of government applied to almost every department of the state by that flagitious confederacy which hath latently presided over the councils and arcana of the cabinet ever since the accession of our present most gracious sovereign.

I say, Sir, that these occult dictators to the royal con­science should prefer the sword-law, I am not at all asto­nished; but that the ostensible adviser, a man of profound judgment, and the clearest penetration; a man whom the most slanderous of his enemies allow to possess the tenderest feelings of social affection, to be even prodigal of the prac­tices as well as professions of humanity, that he, Sir, should with a ruthless composure, adopt and carry into execution their bloody mandates, may well create general consternation and the deepest concern.

[Page 26] It was pronounced by a consummate minister, who once held the reins of government with so much honour to himself, and transcendant glory to the whole empire of Britain, that the Canadian America was conquered in Germany.

It is, it seems, by the German policy of dominion, which our own clan-bred feudists are ever prone to expose, that British America is to be reduced to vassalage: but let the all-potent minions beware, lest while they are bowing the stubborn necks of these colonists to the yoke, they find not their own necks bow to the block of an executioner.

Sir the far more considerable part of the people of Eng­land do now wish us to use temper, moderation, and for­bearance towards America. "Dignos esse qui Romani [...]iant (said the illustrious consul to the senate, of certain tributaries in allegiance to the Roman eagles) eos, qui nihil praeterquam de libertate cogitent."

Sir, when the two most renowned republics of ancient time had long contended for universal empire, and victory over many a well-fought field had held almost an equal balance then it was the rigid censor (M. Cato) denounced that memorable judgment, "Delenda est Carthago." Sir, the Carthagenians were the natural rivals of the trade and glory of Rome; they had in cool blood inhumanly put to death one of the most perfect heroes and patriots her an­nals could boast: in their national character they were per­fidious to a proverb; and they early led their children to the altar to lisp assent to solemn adjuration of eternal war­fare and vengeance against Rome. In short, Sir, the fur­ther existence of these Africans was become quite incom­patible with the peace and security of the Roman com­monwealth.

The words, Delenda est Carthago, were, in the reign of our Charles the Second, borrowed by a member if the other House of Parliament, the famous Earl of Shaftesbury, in the height of passionate resentment against the Hollanders: but, Sir, though the Hollanders had to the most substantial in­juries added the provoking insult of sailing up to the em­porium of your commerce, with brooms at their mast heads; [Page 27] though they had by many an inveterate combat on the ocean brought your marme power, and consequently our very being as people, to as desperate a crisis as ever befel Rome during the rage of the punic wars, yet, Sir, it is a well known anecdote of that day, there was scarce a peer in the assembly but stood aghast, and shuddered at the unchristian severity of the sentence.

Delenda est Carthago has been applied for the third time: it has, Sir, been recently and publicly applied, by an avowed zealous partizan of the present administration of your go­vernment, to our fellow-subjects of America, and the news will, I fear, ere long, reach your colonies.

I am not master of language sufficient in energy to give the due comment to such an expression: but, Sir, should it be here uttered in sobriety, and calmly listened to, might you not be apt to imagine yourself feated amidst the deputies of the Indian tribes, near the interior lakes of that continent, and sacrisicing to the demon of revenge, rather than with the deputies of the free, polished natives of the British isles, in their imperial seat of legislation?

I can indeed easily conceive that the gentleman alluded to,^* was rather more forward, rather more ingenious, than the chieftians of his cause will thank him for: they hardly could mean, that the sinal catastrophe of this their tragic plot should be discovered just at the opening of the very first act.

It was a noble sentiment of Fenclon (Archbishop of Cambray) that "he loved his friend equal to himself: his country far better than his friend and himself; mankind in general beyond all put together."

What that ami [...]ble prelate makes Mentor say, on re­vealing a celestial form to the son of Ulvsses, who had just attained to years of manhood) may afford and allegory to assist the British legislature at some futu [...] period, in the safest and sagest conduct towards, [...]. "I have guided you through rocks and quicksands, through the ensangum­ed battle, and the various calamities incident to the human [Page 28] species: I have taught you, through forcible experience, the good and the bad maxims by which government may be carried on: 'tis now time that you be fully emancipated. Love your fellow creatures, endeavour to renew the golden age; avoid effeminacy, profuseness and ostentation; let sim­plicity be your best ornaments: on virtue and your own just actions rest your chief security, pure liberty, peace, delightful abundance, and unsullied glory ever attend you!

I am sensible, Sir, that I have too long withheld the at­tention of the House from persons of far superior weight and abilities. I shall therefore at a future day hope for the same indulgence that has now been shewn me, while I urge, that to compel the Americans by a military force to ac­knowledge the paramount and unbounded authority of Parliament in the taxation of their property, property cre­ated by their intellects and industry, is neither just, poli­tic, nor practicable; a measure totally repugnant to the liberal notions of rectitude which have ever characterized the happy natives of England, and irreconcilable with the spirit of those very rules and institutes, by which the three estates of this realm hold existence.

Colonel ACLAND's SPEECH on the Report from the Committee on the 20th of February, concerning the American Affairs.

I Hope the House will pardon me, if I beg their atten­ttention a few moments, and but for a few moments; for I should make a very ill return to the favourable indul­gence shewn me on a former day, if I presumed to trouble it long on this. Uninformed, unacquainted, unexpecting a proposition of so extraordinary a nature, as that laid be­fore us by the noble Lord on that day. I felf myself forced from a seat of silence, which perhaps would then have, [Page 29] and might still better become me; but which I should have thought, under such circumstances, it would have been shameful to have continued. After having maturely con­sidered the resolution, whether, on the principles of accom­modation with American demands, or on the principles of enforcing the authority of this country, I think it nugatory and humiliating. Does the noble Lord really think, that a people who deny all right of taxation will be satisfied with having the mode of taxation left to them? Does he not think, the Americans will feel themselves as effectually put under contribution as any town or country ever yet was, in any state of open war? Will he presume to call that an amicable plan, which asks for contribution at the mouth of your cannon and point of your bayonets? Sir, by holding out these terms of accommodation, ridiculous in themselves and nugatory in their effect, by making the first offer to treat with those men you have just declared rebels, you will lower the dignity of this country; you will bring your government into contempt, and, by the insult of the offer, irritate, not appease, that spirit which your are now about publicly to declare to the whole world you tremble to encounter. This, Sir, I am confident, is the light the Americans will see it in; and these are the prin­ciples on which they are expected to accommodate.

I will now, Sir, beg permission of the House to make a few remarks on the resolution itself, and for this purpose I must beg leave to refer it. Sir, I would beg leave to ask of the noble Lord, what consequences he means to draw from these words of the resolution, “According to the condition, circumstances, and situation of such province or colony, for contributing their proportion, shall be approved;” and I hope, if my questions should not appear as pertinent to the House as they do to me, it will be recollected under how many disadvantages a young man, unacquainted with parliamentary proceedings, unacquainted with parliamenta­ry language, must labour. Before I give my assent to any measure, I ought to inform myself what is meant to be founded on that measure, and what consequences are meant to be drawn from it; for by these means alone I can judge [Page 30] of the propriety or impropriety of the measure. I do not doubt, therefore, that the noble Lord will answer me with as much candour, as I shall ask with diffidence. Now the words I would wish to draw the attention of the House to are these: “According to the condition, circumstances, and situation of such province for contributing their propor­tion, shall be approved.” Sir, the questions I would ask are these, Is this proportion to be annually offered by the colonies, and annually refused or accepted by Parliament? Or is it in the first instance to be settled for a certain period of years, or is it to be settled for ever?

The questions demand a serious answer: in the first case, you perpetuate the feeds of discord, and lay the foundation of a dispute that can never end, but in a total convulsion of the British empire. In the second case, adopting a temporary expedient, you withdraw your own shoulders from a burthen you have no resolution to bear, leaving the great point in dispute as unsettled as you found it, leaving it to arise at that fixed period, whenever that period shall arrive, to be the cause of new disturbances, new quarrels, and fresh blood­shed. If you settle it for ever, do consider what a miserable bargain you are contending for. The Americans are suppos­ed to double in twenty years; it is but reasonable to suppose, that their wealth and opulence will encrease in proportion; that, therefore, what would be a reasonable proportion now, will, in a few years, become comparatively with their in­creased wealth, a miserable pittance.

I must here take notice of an argument the noble Lord has enforced more than once, with great weight; it is, that these terms are such as should be offered, after the most com­plete victory. For the sake of the argument, I will agree with the noble Lord, and therefore conclude, that they are improper to offer before the victory. That, Sir, which is generosity, which is magnanimity after victory, is timidity and foul disgrace before it. There may be situations, Sir, in which states may be found where they cannot, without certain ruin, acqu [...]es [...]e even in just claims; there are situ­ations too, in which states may grant more than is asked, and gave more than is desired, with honour, security and [Page 31] advantage. The first of these situations precede great commotions, the second succeed complete victory. I re­member, Sir, the Romans, in a war they had with the Italian states, granted them, when conquered, those privi­leges which, with a firmness peculiar to their nation, with a firmness that led them to universal empire, they haughtily refused them before their contest.

I will now tell the noble Lord the effect these propositions have had on the minds of the people. I will not take upon me to say what confidence the people reposed in administra­tion before, but I will take upon me to say, that whatever confidence they might repose in administration before, it is now entirely done away; they no longer expect to find firmness, resolution and unanimity in the councils of the King's servant, they have seen them weak, irresolute dis­ [...]mous; for the reception these propositions met with within these walls. I will appeal to the apparent, undeniable, unequivocal effects they had at their first opening, on the members of this House. I will recall to the noble Lord's memory, the feelings he must have had, during those awful moments in which the common sense of the House stood amazed at the propositions that were held out to her, when [...], surprise distraction, was seated on every coun­tenance wh [...] the doctrine held out to us, was so new and unheard of, [...] contrary to every principle we have been thought to adopt, that no man could guess at the opinion of his neighbour, when those, who had relied on that firm­ness, which the noble Lord had so often and so publicly pledged, turned pale with shame and disappointment, when within the space of a few awful moments, the dignity of government and the honour of this country were given up for ever. That this was the immediate effect, I believe every gentleman that hears me and was present on that very extraordinary day must admit. I have expressed myself warmly, I felt and do still feel my disappointment warmly; I estimated the noble Lord's public wisdom, prudence, and above all his political resolution, at as high a rate as I honoured, and do still honour, those privated virtues which adorn his character, and which shine illustriously pure amidst a [...] and a dissipated age.

[Page 32] I will address a few words to the honourable Lord, and have done; I will tell him that decision and resolution, even when employed to but indifferent purposes, render their possessor respectable; I will speak with tenderness, I will not tell the noble Lord what effect, even with the best in­tentions, the contrary qualities will have.

I will conclude with telling the noble Lord, that if he adopts a decided line of conduct, he will have decided friends, and he may still stand on firm ground; but that if he continues to waver between both, he will fall to the ground unsupported by either.

The Hon. HENRY TEMPLE LUTTRELL, a Junior Son of SIMON, Lord IRNHAM.

UPON a former occasion I presumed to state a few of my sentiments of the House, relative to the war im­pending over the Americans, because I was sure I could not answer it to my own feelings. I thought I could not answer it to my country, had I neglected at the very ear­liest moment that might offer, to declare my utter abhor­rence of those unconstitutional, arbitrary, and diabolical projects, devised by his Majesty's ministers for the destruc­tin of that unhappy people.

I flatter myself a certain illustrious character may soon be left out of this opprobious list of projectors; there seems to be a divine gleam of radiance coming round his temples; and I foresee almost, if not altogether, as marvellous a conversion into the right path, as that which happened in days of yore to the great persecutor of the christian follow­ers on the plains of Damascus.

To what black storm in the political firmament we are indebted for this sudden change, I, Sir, move in too con­tracted a sphere to discover; but the noble Lord will allow me to tender him my hearty congratulations, that he is at [Page 33] length awakened to that clemency, and to that justice, which will best agree with the innate temper of his heart. There is a long line of statesmen seated in firm array not far from your chair, who have, ever since the birth of this parlia­ment, uniformly shrunk (and I am sure their consciences always must shrink, whatsoever their politics or their elo­quence may do) from the great American question; they have wished to defer to the latest hour possible, all discussi­ons of this critical topic, in hopes, as they term it, to learn what is actually doing on the other side of the Atlantic. Sir, I can inform them, there rises not a sun in that hemis­phere, but sets to such additional grievances and outcries, as the most soothing future concessions, the most exempla­ry future sacrifices on your part, will scarce be able to atone for.

However grating to the ears of some individuals the sub­ject may be, I shall take the liberty, with the indulgence of the House, to affirm, that these measures of compelling the Americans by force of arms to acknowledge the para­mount and unlimited authority of parliament, in the taxa­tion of their property, a property created by their faculties, and by their industry, are not just, are not politic, are not practicable, but a traiterous infringement on the constitution of the colonies, which rests upon the same fundamental principles that uphold the property and uphold the fran­chises of every native of this island.

Sir, I ever will contend, that the united parliaments of England and Scotland cannot legally impose a tax on the subjects in any other part of the British dominions, without the consent of such subjects, either by themselves in per­son, or by their representatives. Let the champions of despotism avail themselves of all their knowledge and so­phistry, I will venture to maintain this proposition, not ar­rogantly presuming on my talents or skill to manage it, but on its own clear intrinsic merits, and the conviction that to every dispassionate mind must naturally result from its in­vestigation.

The coertion proposed militates against the privileges of all emigrants of their description, from the time of the pa­triarchal [Page 34] disjunctions to this day; emigrants who carried with them as their penates) certain inherent rights natural to mankind, immutable and unalienable; confirmed to them for an heritage, by that blessed constitution of S [...]xon con­texture under which they were [...].

Laws established on first necessity and impotence between them and the present state, either by express or r [...]cit assent, were not of an universal, indol [...]ite obligation, they were of a fiduciary nature (of the nature of a trust) adapted to the comparative state of the contracting parties, for the purpose of temporary expedience, and must of course vary conformable to such other relative alterations as lapse of time and the vicissitude of human affairs may effect.

Acts of parliaments, or other deplomatic titles, may be produced to shew a formal, and perhaps uncontested as­sumption of power at some given period of time, but will not countervail the primeval and indefeasible rights of mankind, whenever such rights shall be asserted by a clear major part of the community. On this ground, and this ground only, rests our spiritual reform under Harry the VIIIth, and that most glorious of all civil revolutions—the Revolution by which James II. lost the throne of these realms.

Those gentlemen who plead for the omnipotence of par­liaments, and the infallibility of their codes, should advert to the many absurd, contradictory positions and doctrines laid down during the contention of the several pretenders of the Plantagenet line, and afterwards of the heiresses of the House of Tuder.

In fact, Sir, your statutes of those days borrowed too frequently their maxims and complexion from whatsoever brow might happen to be encircled with the regal diadem. In the reign of King Richard II. a law passed to transfer the power of both houses of parliament to twelve barons. By an act under one of the Henries, the King's proclama­tion, with the consent of his pravy-council, was thence­forward to carry with it the force and efficacy of a law of the land. And we all know that the parliament of 1641 voted itself perpetted, never to be dissolved nor prorogued [Page 35] but by its own consent; and the act read by an honourable member to the committee on the present resolution, and which he treated with so much deference, because it declared the people of the Massachusetts-Bay in a state of revolt, was passed by this immaculate parliament.

Now, Sir, let us suppose (what in these our uncorrupt days there can be no reason to apprehend) that a statute should be procured by some future minister and minion of the Sovereign. vesting the whole legislative as well as exe­cutive power in the crown, totally to abolish both houses of parliament; would such statute be valid and binding on the subject throughout Great-Britain and America? All persons have natural rights—a free people have legal rights, independent, of parliamentary edicts, and of which no form of government whatever can deprive them. Laws not founded on constitutional justice, are in themselves null and void; nor are the makers of them legislators, but usurpers.

A very wise and learned writer (Judge Blackstone) has in his commentaries the following passage: "If the sovereign power advance with gigantic strides to threaten desolation to a state, mankind will not be reasoned out of the feelings of humanity, nor will sacrifice their liberty in a scrupulous adherence to those political maxims, which were originally established to preserve that liberty."

If the powers and pretensions of a few adventurers and fugitives, occupying about two centuries ago a small corner of a grac [...]less desart, and possessed of none of the good things of this life, are to ascertain the powers and pretensions of three millions of people spread over a land flowing with milk and honey, and a thousand leagues in circumference, they may, with the same justice and propriety, be brought two centuries hence to ascertain the rights and pretensions of thirty millions, when the inhabitants of this diminutive isle shall scarce reach a fourth part of that number: neither can I own such disparity in the calculation of increase to be at all exaggerated, if we consider the various drains from this country, and the daily influx of persons of both sexes at the very meridian of life into these inviting regions; be­sides [Page 36] new settlers usually restrict themselves to hunting and agriculture, to toil which afford vigour to the body, and enterprize to the mind. They live on plain, wholesome diet; their progeny is healthful, and of boundless increase; whereas in nations that have reached their full zenith of luxury, the mass of the people are occupied at sedentary arts and manufactures, drawing in, from morn to eve, an impure, confined atmosphere, or brooding over unwhole­some furnaces: hence the vital stamina are hurt, the appe­tites soon appaled, the spirits easily depressed; they become enfeebled ere the sand of their mortal glass be half run out; their offspring is sapless and emasculate.

America has been loudly charged with ingratitude to­wards the parent country, from whom she received protec­tion during the late conflict of war. 'Tis not quite clear how far the balance of that account is in her disfavour: how­ever, she cannot be so ignorant of the real springs of war or peace, as to persuade herself that your numerous embat­tled legions, under triumphant fleets sent to her coasts, were supplied purely from motives of parental affection, or sym­pathetic benevolence. Had, Sir, that vast territory been planted with Portuguese scior [...]s, instead of those from your own stock, ponderating as the political scales of Europe then were, would you have not afforded to a people, in their natural and moral character as far from unison with your­selves as discord is from harmony, an equal supply of men and treasure? Remember, Sir, your prowess at the eve of that same war, near the banks of the Tagus.

The love or enmity of one people to another, cannot be estimated by their occasional alliances, compacts, or guaran­tees, as a body politic. It is but a century ago that our English brigades served with unparallelled ardor in the army of that arch-enemy to civil and religious liberty, Lewis XIV. of France; the execrated revocator of the edict of Nantz; the aspirer to universal despotism. We served, Sir, against a people, whose tolerance and charity of religion, whose whole system and freedom of government we at that very time held in emulative veneration; a people whose [Page 37] assistance we supplicated and obtained, scarce twenty years after, to deliver us from monarchical tyranny.

Such coertion were highly impolitic, because it is from the prosperity, peace, and contentment of her colonies, that resources of wealth and laurels of honour are won to a mother country. History teaches us, that populousness and affluence are the product of that clime alone, where the people may reap in security a full harvest of their la­bour; where they have affluence in their leaders and go­vernors; where no exactions are inflicted by an alien hand; where the municipal, if not the imperial jurisdiction, toge­ther with the power of levying taxes, are vested in substi­tutes of their own free choice or approbation.

That saying of a despot, "Oderint dum metuant," may be applicable to the swarthy sons of the opposite division of the globe; but, Sir, it will never accord with the senti­ments of our brethren in America.

Threats and violence used against hearts of the same sturdy temper with your own, must induce the most calami­tous events to both parties. There will be seeds of equal courage and perseverance found in one battle as in the other, with this difference at the onset, that the arm of the ag­grieved is usually braced to bolder, more decisive efforts of rage and despair, than that of the aggressor.—"Aquiloe non generant columbus." Let us, Sir, rather rejoice that our breed has not degenerated; that these colonists have a sense of rational freedom, becoming the sons of such high met­tled progenitors.

Ill would it answer your purpose to bring their bodies under a short-lived subjection, and to leave impressed up­on their minds an unabating rancour and aptness for re­volt.

Revenge is an unchristian passion, yet how rarely do we find the human soul possessed of a sublimer heroism, with­out this alloy!

Neither, Sir, am I altogether unacquainted with the peo­ [...] of whom I am now speaking. Curiosity once led me to travel many hundreds of miles along their flourishing and hospitable provinces. I found in most of them the Spartan [Page 38] temperance, in many the urbanity of Athens; and, not­withstanding the base and groundless imputations on their spirit, which the cankered tongue of prejudice and slander has with so licentious a virulence here poured forth against them, they will, I am confident, if set to the proof, evince the Roman magnanimity, ere Rome fell under scep­tered usurpation. But, Sir, if a foreign enemy should ap­pear at your gates, and you need their assistance, will there then be found among them many a Coriolanus? He stands single as a prodigy of forgiveness, in the annals of a people whose attachment to their native land was carried to the ut­most height of enthusiasm. How soon that foreign enemy may appear at your gates, I know not. According to the horological predictions of a most enlightened state sooth­sayer, we have about seven years more of profound tran­quility with the House of Bourbon to trust to; but, from the symptoms of our domestic distraction, and the improved state of the government and finances of our neighbours, I should judge it prudent to be somewhat better provided than we are at present for an early rupture; not entirely to dismantle our ports and our coasts of soldiers and seamen, sent to immolate the martyrs to liberty of their own flesh and blood, on the distant continent of America.

It has been made evident to you, that a defection of the northern colonies will soon bring on the complete ruin of your West-India settlements, which cannot elsewhere afford­ably provide themselves with cattle, lumber, and divers other articles requisite for the support of a plantation.

Let us turn our eyes to the inland trading towns here at home; those large iron founderies which used to supply the anchors of commerce and implements for husbandry and the ingenious arts, and now set at work in moulding the sword and the bayonet to enslave America. From the former com­missions there accrued constant returns of profit, and num­berless comforts; from the latter, what can be expected but poverty, dejection, and mourning! Peace with America will make your thousands of manufacturers and artisans a thriv­ing, obedient people; war with America will make them idle, profligate, and tumultuary. In short, the first open [Page 39] hostilities committed by your troops on that continent, will realize to the race of man, from one extremity of the earth to the other, more fatal evils than were even contain­ed in the fabled box of Pandora.

It is well known, through melancholy observation, drawn from the fate of the Assyrian, Persian, and Roman empires, that national societies, as well as the individual mortals of whom those societies are composed, have their non-age, their adult vigour, and their decline. Whatsoever share of indulgence and independency Great-Britain shall, in this her florid and athletic stage, generously bestow on her rising co­lonies, they will, no doubt, amply repay her in some future generation, when she is verging towards that awful goal which must close her race of glory.

The military coertion of America will be impracticable▪ What has been the fate of your famous bill passed in the laft session of the deceased parliament? I mean, Sir, the Boston port bill, and the bill for altering the charter of Massachu­sets-bay. America, as an earnest of her triumph over the future labours for which envy and malice may reserve her, has, like another Hercules in the cradle, already grappled with those two serpents sent for her destruction. Neither shall we be long able to sustain the unhallowed war at so remote a distance;—unexplored desarts, wood-land ambuscades, latitudes to which few of our soldiery have been seasoned; the southern provinces scarce to be endured in the summer months, the northern provinces not approachable in the winter season;—shipwrecks, pestilence, famine. The un­relenting inveteracy and carnage of York and Lancaster, will here be joined to all the elementary hardships and ma­ladies of a bigot crusade. Shall not such dreadful aeras in our earlier chronicle, serve us for beacons at this perilous crisis? Those rash expeditions indeed, undertaken by a few martial zealots on misconceived piety, began to decline at the death of the hot-brained, savage-hearted King, under whom they were first enterprized; and the sluices of kindred blood, which had long inundated the land in the red and white roses, were at length happily put a stop to, by a single matrimonial contract. Now, Sir, who can look [Page 40] forward to a probable epoch in the red volume of time, when the sword drawn in this quarrel shall be sheathed in peace! I can see no end, till slaughter, proscription, extir­pation, shall totally have annihilated either one or the other people.

Far be it from me to anticipate by conjecture to either country so dreadful a sentence; but, Sir, without a gift of preternatural foresight, I may remark, that there are features in the aspect of infant America, which denote at maturer years a most colossal force. The Helvetic and Flemish con­federacies have demonstrated what extraordinary obstacles a small band of insurgents may surmount in the cause of li­berty. The Helvetic confederacy consisted of a few strag­gling peasants, bannered against a mighty Prince; yet firm­ness and desperation supplied that energy, which the best disciplined numbers could not resist.

The tragic scenes of Numanti [...], and of Saguntum, shew to how dire a catastrophe a spirited people will devote them­selves, sooner than submit to an unjust dominion. It appears from one of the American letters of a late date brought to your table, that the inhabitants of Boston were inclined to copy in part these dire examples; that they meditated to abandon the town with their wives and families, and the reducing it to ashes.

Did not we ourselves give a very striking proof at the commencement of the 12th century, to what an incendiary height the flame of vengeance might reach, when we invited over, and received into the very centre of this island, a whole army of Frenchmen to aid us against a tyrant monarch and his iniquitous counsellors? We owe perhaps that sacred palladium of our liberty, Magna Charta, as much to a Dauphin of France, as to a King of England.

The Americans alledge, that what they now contend for is that reasonable portion of liberty with which they were chartered as their birthright, not by any earthly potentate, but by the King of Kings, "to make their lives happy, in the possession of which liberty they do now hourly invoke that King of Kings, or to make their death glorious in its just defence."

[Page 41] What is the aim and scope of the resolution before you? To lure some of the less refractory provinces of America, to dissociate from, and betray their fellow-sufferers; to join in raising a contribution throughout one half of the colonies, to support your armaments and outrages against the other half, with a view to annihilate trade, cut off every natural channel of livelihood and subsistence, and butcher the dis­obedient; and how are these seceders to be recompensed for such signal perfidy? Why, by a temporary exercise of cer­tain empty forms and modes of taxation, confirming at the same time a right in the crown and Parliament of Great-Britain, to fix the gross amount of all continental subsidies whatsoever; that is, in fact, they are to be still subject to a ministerial majority in this House, which may levy imposts on them, not by any fair scale of proportion, to the burthen laid on the mother country, but the demand may perhaps be carried beyond their abilities, or they may be liable to the discharge of an immense national debt. By way of earnest, however, against the numerous abuses in future to which this curious plan lies open, they small in­stantly repose entire faith and confidence in the present set of the King's Ministers at Westminister, so remarkable for consistency, lenity, and wisdom.

The noble Lord on the other side of the House puts me in mind of King Arthur, in our modern dramatic mask, where that first of the British worthies stands balancing be­tween Grimbald and Philadel. He has just caught a glimpse of the cloven foot of the infernal fiend by whose dazzling snares and incantations he has been thus long fascinated, and is turning to the fair, heavenly spirit, who would guide him into the ways of happiness and honour. Let him not stop short, but pursue the only tract that can save his coun­try—perhaps save himself from perdition.

I should be as strenuous an advocate for the just autho­rity of parliament as any man; but I think we ought can­didly and effectually to relinquish all vain pretences to su­preme sovereignty, in cases where they are not maintainable on principles of justice, of sound policy, or the constitution of the land.

[Page 42] If you persist in pride and error, what will be the conse­quence? Intestine enmities will be encreased—devastation and havock must ensue.

When questions of such weight and magnitude as these now in agitation, concerning America, shall come before you, every member ought to reflect, that the fate of a whole nation may possibly depend on his single vote.

Whosoever gives the power of oppression, is in fact a tyrant—whosoever gives the power of murder, is in fact an assassin.

I am against this resolution, because I think, that so far from extinguishing the flame, it will only throw oil upon it to aggravate its fury; and, however specious, however conciliatory, it may seem at first sight, when it comes to be analyzed on the other side of the water (fashioned as it now stands) it cannot possibly have any other construction put upon it, than that of adding insult to injury.

Mr. HARTLEY's SPEECH on the MOTION for reading the Bill, for restraining the New-Eng­land Fishery Bill.

HE moved, that the following clause be inserted in the bill, viz. "Provided always, and be it further en­acted, that nothing in this act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to prohibit the importation into any or either of the said colonies or provinces, of fuel, corn, meal, flour, or other victual brought coastwife from any part of America." This clause, said he, cannot be objected to, even by the most vindictive spirit, against the four provinces of New-England, who are the objects of this bill, as it is extracted from the Boston port bill of the last year. The lenity or humanity of which was never so much as pretended, even by its advocates. There cannot [Page 43] be a reason why you should throw away this year, the little share of humanity which you had the last; more especially, as we are come to discover, and even to acknow­ledge, by the votes of this House, that we have proceeded hitherto, in this business with America, with rashness, mi [...]judgment and precipitation. The vote I allude to is passed but a few days since; which says, or pretends to say, that it would have been proper (that is the term) to have proceeded in a way of asking a supply of the Ameri­cans, by the constitutional way of requisitions, before proceeding to compulsory or forcible methods. Having confessed ourselves wrong in the foundation, it is but equal justice to our rellow subjects of meric [...] to suppose, that those riots and resistance would not have happened, if we had not begun with them con [...]essedly in an unconstitutional way. Surely then, it is not a time to add to the severity of our acts, in proportion as we find, that we have been unjust in the outset, and that they have been less to blame. It is surely but a little matter to ask, that you would not be more severe or cruel towards America, who have never been heard on their defence this year, than you were the last. Besides, what construction can the town of Boston put upon your measures, if you refuse the clause now of­fered? They will be besieged, as in actual war with a foreign enemy. General Gage has fortified the Neck which joins Boston to the continent, by which he may intercept provisions; and by this bill you proclaim the same intention by sea. Do you expect, that they will submit to be starved, in passive obedience? What resource have they left, but resistance; and, perhaps, to take advantage of the small­ness of numbers of General Gage's troops, before they are reinforced; for this act puts it out of all doubt, that you mean to proceed to all extremities. I have been informed, by those who know best the temper of the Americans, and I hope and believe that they will hold out their patience to the utmost, and that they will not strike the first blow: but what is the difference to them, whether you strike the first blow by the musket or the sword, or, to equal effect, by famine? The refusal of this clause will be a declaration [Page 44] on your part, that you mean to bring famine upon them, to the utmost of your power, and therefore a warning to them of the mercy which they are to expect at your hands. As to the bill in general, it has been so ably debated by my friends near me, that I shall only add two remarks: this bill, by destroying the North-American fishery, not only destroys that nursery of seamen, but will disable the provinces, under the prohibition, from the means of pay­ing their debts to this country, who therefore will finally be the sufferers; and when the next year comes, and you find this consequence, you will then turn accusers of the North-Americans for not paying their debts, and you will add, according to the usual falshoods towards the Ameri­cans, that they never intended to pay their debts; and, by the distance of the place, and the falshood of representations, you will impute those very effects which you have produced yourselves, as the justifying causes of resentment. This is the unjust way in which the Americans have been treated, on all occasions. I myself asked, the other day, why, on a particular occasion of a slight riot of not more than a few hours continuance four regiments and a train of artil­lery, were ordered to Boston? To justify this enormous intervention of the military, I was told in this House, that indeed the riots were trifling, but that the Americans had come to a resolution to arm the country. What then was the real fact, as testified by dates? The fact was, that the resolution to arm, was not taken till the troops were seen in the offing. It was the fight of the troops, upon so trivial an occasion, that gave to understand what they were to expect; and, by dates, the fact is verified, that they did not take to arms till some months after the troops were ordered; but it was upon their first notice of the troops being to come, and the resolution to arm against the worst, was actually debated but a few hours before the troops were landed. So it is that facts are misrepresented in America, and so let me put in my caution now, that the Americans do now actually pay their debts, like honest men, to the utmost of their power, and let me be before hand with this change; if when the natural consequences [Page 45] of these measures come next year, we should hear any false accusations of the Americans, as combining not to pay their debts, I shall make but one remark more, but which seems to me to be of the utmost importance to the whole commercial system of England, which is, that the plantation-built bottoms are two thirds, or three quarters, of all the bottoms upon which the British merchandize, to every quarter of the globe, is carried on; when we medi­tate a blow at the American trade, we should recollect at least, that there is this one manufacture (if I may so call it) of ship-building, upon the encouragement of which our very existence in this kingdom, as a trading people, de­pends. However we may think it our interest to suppress the rivalship of the colonies with ourselves, in other manu­factures, yet in this trade of ship-building, they are our most material and essential support. This revengeful blow at the American ship-building, will fall most immediately and fatally upon the manufacturers and merchants of every commercial article in this kingdom. For these reasons, I am against the whole principle of the bill now before us; and if we cannot prevail to have the whole rejected, I must humbly move, at least, the admission of the clause which I have just now offered to the House.

The Marquis of GRANBY's SPEECH on the Bill for restraining the Trade of New-Jersey Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina.

I Rise to trouble the House with a few words on the [...] now before it. I have sat, Sir, during the course [...] two divisions, without taking any part; even so much [...] giving a silent vote on any American question: because Sir, as I will fairly confess to you, I entered these wal [...] with prejudices against the system administration was pur­suing [Page 46] I thought it was but justice to hear the arguments that might be urged on both sides, to compare those argu­ments, and draw my opinion from that comparison. As to the bill, immediately the object of our consideration, I think it in every respect to arbitrary, so oppressive, and so totally founded on principles of resentment, that I am exceedingly happy at having this public opportunity of bearing my testimony against it, in the strongest manner I am able. In God's name, what language are you now holding out to America! Resign your property, divest yourselves of your privileges and freedom, renounce every thing that can make life comfortable, or we will destroy your commerce, we will involve your country in all the mise­ries of famine; and if you express the sensations of men at such harsh treatment, we will then declare you in a state of rebellion, and put yourselves, and your families, to fire and sword. And yet, Sir, the noble Lord on the floor has told this House, that a reconciliation is the sole object of his wishes. I hope the noble Lord will pardon me, if I doubt the perfect sincerity of those wishes; at least, Sir, his actions justify my doubts; for every circumstance in his whole conduct, with regard to America, has directly militated against his present professions: and what, Sir, must the Americans conclude? Whilst you are ravaging their coasts, and extirpating their commerce, and are with­held only by your impotence, from spreading fresh ruin by the sword, can they, Sir, suppose such chastisement is in­tended to promote a reconciliation, and that you mean to restore to their forlorn country those liberties you deny to their present possession; and in the insolence of persecution, are compassing earth and sea to destroy? You can with no more justice compel the Americans to your obedience, by the operation of the present measures, by making use of their necessities, and withholding from them that commerce on which their existence depends; than a ruffian can found an equitable claim to my possessions, when he forcibly en­ters my house, and with a dagger at my throat, or a pistol at my breast, makes me seal deeds which will convey to him my estate and property.

[Page 47] [Mr. Rigby having declared the Americans to be in rebellion, Lord Granby, in answer, said, his ideas of rebellion were totally different from Mr. Rigby's. If, according to his ideas of re­bellion, the Americans were in that state, he should be as warmly their opp [...]nent as he was their friend; and then went on:]

I have a very clear, a very adequate idea of rebellion, at least according to my own principles; and those are the principles on which the revolution is founded. It is not against whom a war is directed, but it is the justice of that war that does, or does not, constitute rebellion. If the in­nocent part of mankind must tamely relinquish their free­dom, their property, and every thing they hold dear, merely to avoid the imputation of rebellion, I beg, Sir, it may be considered what kind of peace and loyalty there will then exist in the world, which consists only in violence and ra­pine, and is merely to be maintained for the benefit of rob­bers and oppressors. I hope, Sir, I shall be believed, when I assure you that I am as warm a friend to the interests of my country, as any man in this House; but then must be understood, when those interests are founded in justice. I am not attached to any particular acre of land; the farmer in Cumberland o [...] Du [...]ham, is as little connected with me as the peasant in America; it is not the ground a man stands on that attaches me to him; it is not the air he breathes that connects me with him, but it is the principles of that man, those independent, those generous principles of liberty which he professes, co-operating with my own, which call me forth as his advocate and make me glory in being considered his friend. As for myself, Sir, I am not in the least ashamed to avow, that my attachment is to a noble Lord, who has been in my opinion, very unjustly reflected on in the course of this debate, (I mean Lord Chatham) I am not even personally acquainted with the noble Lord, I do not know the inconsistencies of which he stands accused; but this, Sir, I know, I shall not support his inconsistencies, I shall only support him in those prin­ciples, which have raised his name to the elevation on which it is now placed in this country, and have so deservedly procured him the love and admiration of his fellow citi­zens.

[Page 48] Sir, I shall not trouble this House any longer, as this matter has been so fully discussed, though I must confess, I am not sorry a debate has taken place, because I was rather desirous of making a kind of political creed, some professions of my sentiments on this very important, this very serious national question.

From the fullest conviction of my soul, I disclaim every idea both of policy and right internally to tax America. I disavow the whole system. It is commenced in iniquity; it is pursued with resentment: and it can terminate in no­thing but blood. Under whatsoever shape in futurity it may be revived, by whomsoever produced and supported, it shall, from me, meet the most constant, determined, and invariable opposition.

Mr. HARTLEY's SPEECH for an Address to the Throne; that his Majesty will be pleased to give Orders that Letters of Requisition be written to the several Provinces in America, to make Provision for the Purposes of defending, pro­tecting and securing the said Provinces, &c.

I Find myself under the necessity of making some apo­logy to the House for the trouble I am going to give them this day; and to assure them, that it is with the great­est deference that I presume to obtrude any sentiments of mine, upon the important subject of America. Though I have so lately had the honour of a seat in this House, yet I have for many years turned my thoughts and attention to matters of public concern and national policy. This ques­tion of America, is now of many years standing; of the greatest public notoriety, as to the facts upon which it turns; and every opinion has been so fully debated over and over, that any man who has given his mind to public business, may be supposed equally informed out of the House as in it.

[Page 49] When I threw out the propositions casually before Christ­mas, which I shall offer to you more formally to-day, my view was in no sort hostile to the administration. I saw the difficulty that we were got into by our own precipitancy; that unhappy dilemma, which offered nothing but ruin in going forward, or disgrace in the retreat. I was in hopes, from some phrases dropt by the noble Lord at the head of the treasury, in the beginning of the session, of others being more sanguine and more impatient than himself; that he at least would have shewn some disposition to relent; and, I still believe, if he were at liberty to follow his own inclina­tion and judgment, that it would be so. I am the more warranted in thinking so, from the proposition which the noble Lord himself offered to the House some time ago. There was in that proposition, a shew of conciliation to captivate one side of the House, and sufficient to betray what were his own wishes; but on the other side there was the reality of every unrelenting and vindictive measure an­nexed, to prove, that there still were others more sanguine and more impatient than himself; over whom, with all his abilities, with all his eloquence, with all the advantages of his situation, he could not maintain his ascendant. What­ever struggles the noble Lord may have had with himself or his friends, they are all at an end; the dye is cast for war with America. It was found, that any conciliatory proposition must have been in some degree a concession, which none of his unrelenting friends would consent to.

However, by the noble Lord's proposition, there is one concession made to America, under the authority of this House, which cannot be recalled; and which finally and conclusively condemns the conduct of every administration for these ten years past, one excepted; I mean the repeal of the stamp-act. If it can be proper now to offer to the colo­nies, to pay upon requisition, what can this nation say for having kept out of the only right road for ten years? How can we censure the colonies for any errors committed by them, which were the consequences of our beginning at the wrong end? Though a threat is now annexed to the noble Lord's requisition, yet if, at first, we had begun with [Page 50] a requisition instead of taxation, it would have been more just and prudent. There could be no justice or prudence in threatening a people who had always contributed most freely; who never would have called our supposed right in question, but for our misapplication of it. Therefore, Sir, when I have brought back the noble Lord's compul­sory requisition, to my free requisition, it stands confessed, upon the very nature of his proposition itself, that I have set it upon its own true original ground.

There is another objection to the noble Lord's plan, which, as I have mentioned it upon a former occasion, I shall only remind you in a few words: I mean a breach of faith with the colonies. A Secretary of State writes, in 1769, a circular letter to the colonies, to assure them, That you will never raise a revenue by taxing. A few years after, upon a negociation with the East-India Company, the three-penny tea tax becomes not merely a quit-rent for the point of honour, but rises to an actual revenue. Then you plead, that you did not break your word, as the reve­nue arising was not in your original intentions, but only casual, from a regulation of trade. But what can you say now? The noble Lord boasts, that he has put the question upon the true ground, a demand for a substantial revenue, a demand attended with threats of compulsion. What is this less than raising a revenue by a tax?

But in any case, let the noble Lord think what he will of his proposition, why has he not, in so many weeks, given it some practicable shape? Why has he not offered some act of Parliament to give it effect? However, as he has omitted that, I shall take the proposition without its objectional parts, and propose an address to the King to give it force; in which motion, I hope to meet with the support of those gentlemen who gave it countenance originally, when it came from the noble Lord. I shall give the whole substance of the proposition; only leaving out in the address to the King, any threats of the compulsion, which you meditate in re­serve. If you think that you have the right of taxing, I pass it over in silence,—if you have the power, I do not,—I can­not, take that away. Then make a free requisition; and be [Page 51] contented to keep to yourselves the satisfaction of thinking, that you have something in reserve, in case of non-compli­ance. Keep that sub silentio; at least till you find that it becomes necessary. I am not an advocate either for the right or the expediency of taxing the Americans, but the con­trary. However, as far as we go the same road of requi­sitions, let us go together.

As what I have to offer, will be founded upon requisiti­ons to the colonies, I will endeavour to answer an objection before hand, which I have heard in this House. It is to the plan of royal requisitions. This objection to the interference of the royal name, comes from a side of the House, from which one should least have expected it. However if this be an objection, mine are not royal requisitions. My motion originates from the House of Commons, to desire the King, as the executive magistrate, to put their plan into effect. If the power of making requisitions to the colonies, is not in the King; my motion is to give the authority and sanction of Parliament to this measure. It is so far from being my proposition, to enable the crown to raise what supply it can from America, independent of Parliament; that my motion is the very first which has ever had in contemplation, to lay a parliamentary controul upon that power; and to require that all answers from America shall be laid before this House for the very purpose of controuling that power in the crown. I have so doubly guarded that point, that my motion is not even for the crown to demand a supply from America; but for services to be performed in America; for the defence, security and protection of the colonies themselves.

I would wish to state to the House the merits of this question, of requisitions to the colonies; and to see upon what principles it is founded; to revise and settle the ac­counts between Great-Britain and her colonies; and then, upon a foundation of distributive justice, to come to some settlement. We hear of nothing now, but the protection which we have given to them; of the immense expence in­curred on their account.—We are told that they have done nothing for themselves; that they pay no taxes; in short, [Page 52] every thing is asserted about America to serve the present turn, without the least regard to truth—I would have these matters fairly sifted out.

To begin with the late war. The Americans turned the success of the war, at both ends of the line. General Monk­ton took Beausejour in Nova-Scotia, with 1500 provincial troops, and about 200 regulars. Sir William Johnson in the other part of America, changed the face of the war to success, with a provincial army, which took Baron Dieskau prisoner. But, Sir, the glories of the war, under the united British and American arms, are recent and in every one's memory. Suffice it to decide this question; that the Ame­ricans bore, even in our judgment, more than their full proportion; that this House did annually vote them an ac­knowledgement of their zeal and strenuous efforts, and a compensation of the excess of their zeal and expences, above their due proportion. They kept, one year with another, 20,000 men on foot, and lost in the war the flower of their youth. How strange must it appear to them to hear of nothing down to the year 1763, (March 14, 1763) but en­comiums upon their active zeal and strenuous efforts, and then, no longer after than the year 1764, in such a trice of time, to see the tide turn, and from that hour to this, to hear it asserted they were a burden upon the common cause; asserted even in that same Parliament, which had voted them compensations for the liberality and excess of their services.

Nor did they stint their services to North-America: They followed the British arms out of their continent, to the Ha­vannah and Martinique, after the compleat conquest of America. And so they had done in the preceeding war. They were not grudging of their exertions,—they were at the siege of Carthagena,—yet what was Carthagena to them, but as members of the common cause, of the glory of this country! In that war too, Sir, they took Louisbourg from the French, single-handed, without any European assistance; as mettled an enterprize as any in our history! an everlasting memorial of the zeal, courage, and perseve­rance of the troops of New-England. The men themselves [Page 53] dragged the cannon over a morass which had always been thought impassable, where neither horses nor oxen could go, and they carried the shot upon their backs. And what was their reward for this forward and spirited enterprize? for the reduction of this American Dunkirk? Their re­ward, Sir, you know very well; it was given up for a bar­rier to the Dutch, the only conquest in that war which you had to give up, which would have been an effectual barrier to them against the French power in America, though con­querred by themselves, was surrendered for a foreign barrier. As a substitute for this, you settle Halifax for a place d' armes, leaving the limits of the province of Nova-Scotia as a matter of contest with the French, which could not fail to prove, as it did, the cause of another war. Had you kept Louisbourg instead of settling Halifax, the Americans may say, at least, that there would not have been that pre­text for im [...]uting the late war to their account. It has been their forwardness in your cause, that made them the objects of the French resentment. In the war of 1744, at your requisition, they were the aggressors with the French in America. We know the orders given to Mons. D'Anville, to destroy and lay all their sea-port towns in ashes; and we know the cause of that resentment; it was to revenge their conquest of Louisbourg.

Whenever Great-Britain has declared war, they have taken their part. They were engaged in King William's wars and Queen Ann's, even in their infancy. They con­quered Acadia in the last century, for us; and we then gave it up.—Again, in Queen Ann's war they conquered Nova-Scotia which, from that time, has always belonged to Great-Britain. They have been engaged in more than one expedition to Canada, ever foremost to partake of ho­nour and danger with the mother country.

Well, Sir, what have we done for them? Have we con­quered the country for them from the Indians? Have we cleared it? Have we drained it? Have we made it habit­able? What have we done for them; I believe precisely nothing at all, but just keeping watch and ward over their trade, that they should receive nothing but from ourselves [Page 54] and at our own price. I will not positively say, that we have spent nothing; though I do not recollect any such ar­ticle upon our journals; but I mean, not any material ex­pence in setting them out as colonists. The royal military government of Nova-Scotia cost, indeed, not a little sum; above 500,000 l. for its plantation, and its first years. Had your other colonies cost any thing similar, either in their out-set or support, there would have been something to say on that side; but instead of that, they have been left to themselves for 100 or 150 years, upon the fortune and capital of private adventurers, to encounter every difficulty and danger. What towns have we built for them? What desarts have we cleared? What country have we conquered for them from the Indians? Name the officers—name the troops—the expeditions—their dates. Where are they to be found? Not in the journals of this kingdom. They are no where to be found.

In all the wars which have been common to us and them, they have taken their full share. But in all their own dan­gers, in all the difficulties belonging separately to their situ­ation, in all the Indian wars which did not immediately con­cern us, we left them to themselves to struggle their way through. For the whim of a minister, you can bestow half a million to build a town, and to plant the royal colony of Nova-Scotia; a greater sum than you have bestowed upon every other colony together, since their foundation.

And notwithstanding all these, which are real facts, now that they have struggled through their difficulties, and be­gin to hold up their heads, and to shew that empire which promises to be the foremost in the world, we claim them and theirs, as implicitly belonging to us, without any con­sideration of their own rights. We charge them with ingra­titude, without the least regard to truth, just as if this king­dom had for a century and a half, attended to no other object; as if all our revenue, all our power, all our thought, had been bestowed upon them, and all our national debt had been contracted in the Indian wars of America, totally forgetting the subordination in commerce and manufactures, [Page 55] in which we have bound them; and for which, at least, we owe them help towards their protection.

Look at the preamble of the act of navigation, and every American act, and see if the interest of this country is not the avowed object. If they make a hat or a piece of steel, an act of Parliament calls it a nuisance: a tilting hammer, a steel furnace must be abated in America as a nuisance. Is it so with their fellow subjects on this side of the Atlantic? Are the hats and cloths of Gloucestershire nuisances? Are the tilting hammers of Pontipool nuisances? Are the cut­leries of Sheffield and Birmingham nuisances? Are the stockings of Nottingham nuisances? Are the linens of Scotland, Ireland, or Broomsgrove nuisances? Are the woollen cloths of Yorkshire, the crapes of Norwich, or the cottons of Manchester, nuisances? Sir, I speak from facts. I call your books of statutes and journals to witness. With the least recollection every one must acknowledge the truth of these facts.

But it is said, the peace establishment of North-Ame­rica has been, and is, very expensive to this country. Sir, for what has been let us take the peace establishment before 1739, and after 1748. All that I can find in your journals is, four companies kept up at New-York, and three com­panies in Carolina. As to the four companies at New-York, this country should know best why they put themselves to that expence; or whether they were really at any expence at all; for these were companies of fictitious men. Unless the money was repaid into the treasury, it was applied to some other purpose; for these companies were not a quarter full. In the year 1754, two of them were sent up to Al­bany, to attend commissioners to treat with the Six Nations, to impress them with a high idea of our military power; to display all the pomp and circumstance of war before them, in hopes to scare them; when in truth, we made a very ridiculous figure. The whole complement of the two companies did not exceed thirty tattered, tottering invalids, fitter to scarce the crows. This information I have had from eye-witnesses.

[Page 56] It has not fallen in my way to hear any account of the three Carolina companies; these are trifles. The substantial question is, what material expence have you been at in the periods alluded to, for the peace establishment of North-America? Ransack your journals, search your public offices for army or ordnance expences. Make out your bill, and let us see what it is. No one yet knows it. Had there been any such, I believe the administration would have produced it before now, with aggravation; as was the case a few years ago with the East-India Company, who had their effects arrested for a long bill, when they little expected it, and that bill too not very scrupulously charged; but when money is in the case, whether from the East or from the West, mi­nisters can make as long bills as other people.

But is not the peace establishment of North-America now very high, and very expensive? I would answer that by another question; Why would the peace establishment since the late war, and the total expulsion of the French interest, be higher than it was before the late war, and when the French possessed above half the American continent? If it be so, there must be some singular reason.

I cannot suppose that you mean, under the general term of North-America, to saddle all the expences of Canada, Nova-Scotia, Cape-Breton, Newfoundland, Florida, and the West-Indies, upon the old colonies of North-America. You cannot mean to keep the sovereignty, the property, the pos­session (these are the terms of the cession in the treaty of 1763) to yourselves, and lay the expence of the military establishment, which you think proper to keep up, upon the old colonies.

Sir, the colonies never thought of interfering in the prero­gative of making war or peace; but if this nation can be so unjust as to meditate the settling the expence of your new conquests separately upon them, they ought to have had a voice in settling the terms of peace. It is you, on this side of the water, who have first brought out the idea of separate interests, by planning separate and distinct charges. It was their men, and their money, which had conquered North-America and the West Indies, as well as yours, though you [Page 57] seized all the spoils; but they never thought of dictating to you what you should keep, or what you should give up, little dreaming that you reserved the expence of your mili­tary governments for them. Who gave up the Havannah? Who gave up Martinique? Who gave up Guadaloupe, with Mariegalante? Who gave up Santa Lucia? Who gave up the Newfoundland fishery? Who gave up all these, without their consent, without their participation, without their consultation, and after all without equivalents? Sir, if your colonies had but been permitted to have ga­thered up the crumbs which have fallen from your [...]table, they would gladly have supported the whole establishment of North-America.

Your colonies have now shewn you the value of lands in North-America; and therefore you have vested in the crown the sovereignty, property, and possession of infinite tracts of land, perhaps as extensive as all Europe, which the crown may dispose of at its own price, as the land rises in America, and grants become invaluable; and to enable the crown to support an arbitrary military, nay, even a Romish govern­ment, till these lands rise to their future immense value, you are casting about to saddle the expence either upon the Ame­rican or the British supplies. The Americans must, indeed, be in a state of insanity, if they do not see the tendency of all this; and we ourselves must be more insane and blind even than the Americans: We, who have already seen the patronage of the East-Indies put into the hands of the crown, and who now see the sovereignty, property, and possession of North-America, with every military and des­potic power, vested solely in the King's hands; we, who are made to learn every hour, by precept and example, the charters, being but the breath of Kings, are to be annihilated by the breath of pliable Parliaments; we must be, Sir, I say, more insane than them, if we do not see the tendency of all this; and if we do not provide in time for our own security, as well as for that of America. I will not sup­pose, that we can be so improvident as not to attend to these important and perhaps not very distant events; nor, with respect to the present question, will, I suppose, that Parlia­ment [Page 58] can meditate so great an injustice, as to require your old colonies to support the charge of all your new con­quests, and of all the rest of America.

This country is very liberal in its boasting of its pro­tection and parental kindness to America. Is it for that purpose that we have converted the province of Canada into an absolute and military government, and have established the Romish bigotry dominant, as a terror upon all our an­cient and protestant colonies? What security, what pro­tection do they derive? In what sort are they the better for the conquest of the French dominions, if we take that op­portunity to establish a government, civil, military, and ecclesiastical, in the utmost degree hostile to the govern­ment of our own provinces, and with the intent to set a thorn in their sides: Is this affection and parental kindness? Surely you do not expect that they should be taxed and talliaged to pay for this rod of iron which you are prepar­ing for them!

Now, Sir, I come to a point, in which I think you may be said to have given some protection. I mean the protec­tion of your fleet to the American commerce. And even here I am at a loss by what terms to call it; whether you are protecting yourselves or them. They are your cargoes, your manufactures, your commerce, your navigation. Every ship from America is bound to Great-Britain. None enter an American port, but British ships and men. While you are defending the American commerce, you are defending Leeds and Halifax, Sheffield and Birmingham, Manchester and Hull, Bristol and Liverpool, London, Dublin, and Glasgow. However, as our fleet does protect whatever commerce does belong to them, let that be set to the ac­count. It is an argument to them, as well as to us. As it has been the sole policy of this kingdom, for ages, by the operation of every commercial act of parliament, to make the American commerce totally subservient to our own convenience, the least we owe to them in return is protection.

Sir, I have now stated my sentiments upon the prelimi­nary matters. I have endeavoured to state the services, in [Page 59] war, of the Americans, with ours, and their mutual pro­portions; in which, by our own confession, the Americans have taken more than their share. I have stated the ex­pence of your military establishment for them, such as it has been, or such as it need to be, always protesting against the imposition of the charge of the conquered provinces upon them; and I have stated the necessity and convenien­cy of your fleet to their commerce. Let this line of di­viding the question, be pursued to what minuteness you will, in order that we may come to a fundamental judgment; let debtor or creditor fall on which side it w [...]ll, I have no bias to either side of the argument; but to have perfect and liberal justice done, and reconcilement, if possible effected, upon sound and equitable principles. I will beg leave to read to the House a draught of a letter of requisition, which I have drawn up after the manner of former requisitions to the colonies, and which I have endeavoured to adapt to the present circumstances.

[Here he read a letter of requisition to the colonies.]

This is the plan, and the terms, or to the effect, that, according to the best of my judgment, a requisition on the present subject should be drawn. I have endeavoured to state the case in such a manner as may open a way to recon­cilement on both sides. Make your requisitions free, and let them be founded on reason and justice; and there are no sub­jects in any kingdom that will be deaf to reason, justice, common interest, and mutual obligations: And I am sure, from the repeated liberality and zeal of our colonies, we, of all the kingdoms in the world, have the least reason to dis­trust those of our own consanguinity.

I cannot think it a possible thing in our constitution, that any one seriously, upon a moment's reflection, can admit the thought of denying the Americans their judgment upon the necessity or application of money required. That is the right of all free subjects, without which they have nothing they can call their own. Let your requisitions be free, for reasonable and substantial services, and faithfully performed, and there is no example of a refusal in such a case, in any state. That consents are withheld, and ought so to be, in [Page 60] case of grievances unredressed, our own history abounds with examples. Our rights and liberties would have long ago been trampled under foot but for that reserved power in the commons. But a refusal, in a reasonable case, is as yet with­out example. Absurdity and caprice are not the principles which govern men, in the great concerns of state; but rea­son over-rules all little caprices. In Holland, the consent not only of the States-general, but of the provincial states, and in many instances, I believe, of every town in each province, is necessary for great acts of state; and yet that negative never stands in the way against reason. Where measures have common sense, and common reason, for their founda­tion, they will never be obstructed; where they have not, they ought to be defeated.

But it is [...]aid, that we can hear of no terms with the Ame­ricans, who have been in a state of resistance to our authori­ty. Sir, I wish to cast no retrospect, but only to look for­ward to reconciliation, and to prevent the shedding of blood. The resolution of the noble Lord has confessed, and the House has adopted the truth of it, that requisition is the proper way. Your colonies have been calling our to you incessantly, for ten years, to make your demands by consti­tutional requisitions. This House, after a ten years mis­understanding, has confirmed that to be, in their opinion too, the right way. Then why not close now at least upon that ground, without retrospect. The colonies have been driven to resistance against their wills, lest they should have nothing they could surely call their own. The right to take any nation's money indefinitely, without their consent, with­out measure, without account, without any enquiry into the application, is not to be conceded or compromised by any nation upon the earth. Resistance or ruin must infallibly be the consequence; and those who are compelled to resist­ence, by your having persevered in the principle of taking by force, till the noble Lord's proposition, which has at last condemned it, have been forced to deny that authority, which they always had, and always would have wished to ac­knowledge and support. It was that unconquerable and irre­sistable impulse of nature, self-defence, which cut off all retreat: then let us cast no retrospect. If the grounds of [Page 61] this unhappy dispute can be settled, all may be peace yet. If the Americans could be assured, that you would not again make resistance absolutely necessary to their security and very being as a people, they are ready enough to ac­knowledge their subordination, and all the rights of Great-Britain. Let them know that peace and security to their rights and properties shall be the certain condition of ac­knowledging the supreme legislation of this country, and the matter is ended.

Sir, after I shall have received the determination of the House upon the motion for requisitions, I shall take the liberty to offer three other motions, for a suspension of the three vindictive American bills of the last session. The con­nection of those motions with the preceeding, is too obvi­ous to require any explanation or debate. I would only take leave to say, that I should not have moved for a mere suspension of these bills, if a motion for their repeal had not already been rejected by this House. Having given an unavailing vote for thir repeal, I now come to entreat for the next degree, at least for suspension. You have excom­municated Boston, and proscribed the whole province of New-England unheard: then recollect your justice, and whether you send the noble Lord's compulsory requisition to America, or this motion of mine for a free requisition; suspend your vindictive hand, and, whilst you treat for peace, arrest the sword.

Sir, I have now offered what I have to say upon this im­portant subject. I have given it my most serious, I may say my only attention, ever since I have been in a situation to give a responsible vote upon it; and I heartily wish that some means or other may be found in time to stop the effu­sion of civil blood. And here, Sir, I offer my poor sentiments to the House, and to the noble Lord, as in the place of minister. It is a great responsibility that will lie at his door, who is to have the recommendation. I might say the decision of the measures to be adopted. We on this side the House, who have opposed the whole system of American measures, have not done it merely for the sake of opposition. We have not sheltered ourselves under— [Page 62] No, no,—But we have declared our principles, we have offered our plans; and they must now remain with Great-Britain and America at large, to discuss and weigh their merits, to accept or reject them. The noble Lord has a great ascendant in this House. Perhaps his plan, if he has any thing to be called a plan, may find advocates and voices here. But our country at large, Great-Britain and America, must finally decide. My honourable friend near me (Mr. Burker has, with unrivalled ability, opened to you his principles and plan. The Earl of Chatham has, in the other House, offered his provisional bill for concilia­tion, to the ministry there: and for myself, Sir, it is with the greatest deference and humility that I presume to offer any thing of mine, in conjunction with such great names and abilities. I can only plead the sincerity of my intenti­ons, as an apology for my presumption. All our plans tend to one centre, and to one point of reconciliation, to save the effusion of blood between those who ought to be re­ciprocally good and useful friends. If the noble Lord has any secret feelings of relenting, as many of his friends, and many more who would be his friends, most sincerely wish, let him stand our, and do justice to his own feelings. His country calls upon him, not to give way to sangumary and impatient councils, contrary to his own better judgment. This is the decisive hour; the fate of Great-Britain and America are depending.

The eyes of all this country, and America too, are turned towards the noble Lord, as the ostensible and responsible minister, to receive his find determination, as to the mea­sures which are to decide the safety or ruin of this empire. The ways of peace are still before him. If war is to be the measure with America, let him consider, that it is not a ma­jority of this House that can conquer America. The support of reason and justice to his measures will stand him better in stead, than the noisy tumult of a majority; in which majori­ty, there may be [...]rking treacherous councellors, and pre­tended friends, secretly urging him to his ruin, even against his own judgment. The important responsibility is out of measure. When the debates and measures of this year are [Page 63] transmitted to America, they may, perhaps, tell the noble Lord, had you pursued a plan of equity and justice, all had been peace. At home, one plan of conciliation has already been proposed, for which the city of London, foreseeing the certain ruin of other measures, has given thanks to its great and noble author, as an earnest for the rest of the kingdom. If Great-Britain and America should come to one mind of peace, they may unite to crush those men who keep them asunder.

He moved, That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give orders, that letters of requisition be written to the several provinces of his Majesty's colonies and plantations in America, to make provision for the purp [...]ses of defending, protecting and securing the said colonies and pl [...]ations; and that his Majesty will be pleased to order all [...] addresses as he shall receive, in answer to the aforesaid letters of requisition, to be laid before this House.

This motion passed in the negative.

[The Printer having been applied to by several Gentlemen for Mr. Burke's Speech, in favour of the Protestant Dissenters; it is at their request added to this collection, and preceded by that of Sir William Bagot, to which it has immediate allusion.]

SIR WILLIAM BAGOT.

I Rise, Sir, consistent with the principles I have hitherto professed, to enter my protest against the bill now before us. I shall not, Sir, commence a war with particles, nor shall I contend with any Gentleman about the propriety of this or that expression, as whether the House 'might,' 'should,' or 'ought,' to agree to the passing of the bill: I shall not take up the time of this House about such fri­volous trifles, though I have been, and do again expect to be, attacked on this head by an ingenious Gentleman [Mr. [Page 64] Edmund Burke] whose critical sagacity well qualifies him for the task of adjusting sentences, and rectifying the viola­tions of grammatical niceties. I shall request the attention of the House to matters of infinitely greater importance, and, whilst I relate the reasons which induce me to oppose the bill, I shall hope my deficiency in point of elocution may be in some degree atoned for by that sincerity and sense of duty which, conspiring together, thus prompt me to submit my sentiments to the candour of this respectable Assembly.

To proceed, Sir, with as much regularity as possible, I shall arrange my arguments under a few general heads: I shall shew that the very thing these Dissenters pray for is the very thing they now enjoy; that the general toleration soli­cited would be detrimental to Christianity, the established religion in this country; that, in the time of Heathenism, the toleration allowed was the occasion of Atheists of every denomination over-running the state; and in like manner, if we remove subscription to the articles (it not being them alone, but the doctrines contained in them, which give offence) that therefore, Sir, if we set aside subscription to these articles, we throw the best barrier of Christianity, and open a door for the admission of infidels of every species into the pale of the church.

To begin, Sir, by tracing this bill step by step.—Last year an attempt was made to obtrude a petition on this House, which, I am sorry to say, was a disgrace to every party concerned in the measure. I mean Sir, an indelible disgrace on those persons without doors who set on foot the project; the petition to which I allude is that manufactured at the Feathers Tavern; to the shame of some of the epis­copal clergy be it spoken, they were the first who agitated the matter of subscription, and prayed to be released from making the profession of a belief in those articles which contain doctrines clearly revealed in the scriptures. This petition, Sir, meeting with the fate in richly deserved, the presenting it answered no other end than that of paving the way for the application this House has since been troubled with. Whilst the tavern petition was under consideration, [Page 65] the promoters were no less busy in publishing a variety of pieces addressed to some particular Bishops, others to men of eminence in the church, resident in one or both of our Universities. The stile of these publications was various; sometimes intimidations were used, at others the heads of the church were beseeched with all humility to relieve those conscientious priests, who, sooner than not enjoy the tem­poralities of the church, would conscientiously turn occasi­onal conformists to her doctrines, though they wished to be exempted from the necessity of declaring their conformity to any doctrines containing the sum and substance of Chris­tianity. About this time, Sir, another reverend author, willing to promote the pious work of reformation, and to declare his own abhorrence of articles which he had sub­scribed, and doctrines he had professed to believe, published a pamphlet called, THE CONFESSIONAL, a work full of sophistry, abounding in language without sentiment, and argument without reason. This also served the cause; the Dissenters seized the lucky opportunity, the indignant pe­titioners joined them, and thus formidable the present bill was framed, was brought in, and though opposed by the truly orthodox amongst the Dissenters, yet council was re­fused to be heard, at least sufficient time was not given them to prepare for arguing the merits of the various petitions which have been presented against it. Now, Sir, I consider this bill in the same light as the petition from the club at the Feathers; the form indeed differs, the end is the same; and both are detrimental to the doctrinal parts of Christianity.

Nor is the thing prayed for by this bill wanting. The Dissenters pray to be exempted from the necessity of sub­scription to the articles; this is required as a qualification from those who commence teachers, or even schoolmasters; and penal laws are now in force against such as omit thus to qualify themselves. But, Sir, are these penal laws ever put in execution? Is it not notorious, that the far greatest part of the Dissenters do neglect subscription? And are they ever called upon? And are they ever punished? What then would they have? They desire liberty; they enjoy it [Page 66] by connivance, and are now in as actual possession of the very liberty they solicit for, as if their favourite bill was actually passed; it is absurd, therefore, to pray for that they already possess; nor can any thing account for the ab­surdity of the request, but a supposition that some latent views, some het [...]rodox tenets, are at the bottom of this ap­plication. I will speak out, Sir, I will "cry aloud and spare not" in a case of religious importance; I scorn to dissemble. I say then, Sir, that I verily believe this at­tempt to set aside the articles is agitated with a design un­favourable to Christianity. Instead of the articles, [...] [...]est is proposed, drawn up in such a vague manner, and couched in such general terms that a Mahometan might sign it. The Dissenters, Sir, are to declare that they "believe the Holy Scriptures." Pray, Sir, do not Papists in their sense believe the Holy Scriptures? Have not Mahometans a very high opinion of Jesus Christ? and do they not believe many things recorded of him in the Scriptures? They, therefore, Sir, might subscribe the test proposed by the bill; and what­ever opinion I may have, the Dissenters are good subjects, yet as to those who declare that they can conscientiously subscribe only such a test as Mah [...]metans might assent to, I must be pardoned for saying, I think them not very good Christians. To tolerate, therefore, such men, Sir, is to injure the established religion of our country; they are dis­satisfied with the articles, so they are with the doctrines which constitute the most essential parts of Christianity. The sacrifice of Christ, the oeconomy of our redemption; and in particular the divinity of our Saviour; these, Sir, are the stumbling blocks in the way of our conscientious gentry! Yet these are doctrines maintained in scripture, and inculcated by the articles; who then can wonder, that an effort to set aside the articles should be made? Arians are numerous amongst us; too many deny the divinity of him who created all things, and "without whom nothing was made that is made." A test requiring subscription to this truth must be obnoxious to such as disavow it; there­fore, Sir, under the notion of toleration, we must lend our aid to an attack upon Christianity, and by passing this bill, [Page 67] open a passage for heresies the most abominable, which threaten the ruin of our religious establishment.

Sir, in times of Heathenism, toleration, because carried too far, became detrimental to the state; Lucretius, a poe [...] of considerable genius, was permitted to broach the Athe­ism of Epicurus: his followers were as numerous as those of any of our modern sceptics; like them, Sir, he made converts; they were the wits, the beaux esprit, the macaro­nies of that time. [A laugh through the House.] Yes, Sir, Gentlemen may laugh, but the Atheists of old, were like the sceptics of modern times; they were occasional confor­mists, and, by being tolerated, they gained proselytes to in­fidelity, and tore up the foundations of morality by the roots; they broached their cursed opinions, and infected the minds of the people.

In remoter times, Sir, we find, indeed, atheistical sceptics, though from not being tolerated they were restrained from doing the mischief they intended. Epicurus was not the first sceptic; in the times of David and Solomon the sect prevailed. The former King, who was a poet also, tel [...]s us, that the fool said in his heart, what the wits of our time scruple not openly to assert, viz. that there is no God. In David's days, Sir, though persecution prevailed not., yet the sceptics were not allowed to debauch the minds of their fellow creatures, by obliging the world with their [...]efarious opinions. Yet a toleration of this kind is now solicited. But whether we are to shew ourselves so unmindful of our duty as to grant the request, this day's debate will discover. I, Sir, have borne my testimony against the bill; I do it conscienciously; I do it with serious reverence; my sincerity has, during the course of the debate on this subject, been called in question; and I could, perhaps, with much greater propriety, retort, by questioning the sincerity of the pro­moters of this bill; I have a right, Sir, so to do; and I will say, that the sincerity of the advocates for this bill stands in need of strong positive proofs; the presumptive is against them.

I am sure, Sir, I ought to ask pardon of this House for detaining in thus long, and I cannot sufficiently express my [Page 68] thankfulness for the indulgence which has been shewn me. I shall trespass no longer upon your time than to say, Sir, that I am against your quitting the chair.

Mr. PAGE.

I THINK, Sir, after the learned manner in which my honourable friend has argued the matter, little remains to be said. I entirely coincide with him in opinion; and the division amongst the Dissenters themselves shews that in numbers the advocates for the bill are as inconsiderable as they are far from being unanimous. The Chatham petiti­on may convince us of the want of unanimity which pre­vails, and I am glad to find that we are indebted to the lines of Chatham for a support of orthodox Christianity.

MR. EDMUND BURKE.

THE Honourable Gentleman who favoured us last but one with his favourite harangue, had little reason to apprehend that I should engage him in a war about parti­cles. Whether the House might, could, should, or ought, to interfere, I leave to be discussed by more grammatical heads. Neither, Sir, shall I rejoice, with the honourable gentle­man who spoke last, at the "support the lines of Chat­ham have afforded to orthodox Christianity." "Whether the walls have defended the lines, or the lines have afforded defence to the walls, is altogether foreign to the debate in question; but this, Sir, I shall take upon me peremptorily to assert, that if the objections to the bill are founded upon those two contemptible petitions [that from Chatham and another] which now lie on the table, if they are to furnish the opposers with weapons wherewith to attack the measure, I fear the combatants must take the field accoutred by no means in a martial manner.

I propose, Sir, taking notice of what fell from the ho­nourable gentleman's lips [Sir William Bagot's] considered in a twofold view. He advanced the following positions, [Page 69] "that the Dissenters now enjoyed liberty by connivance." and "that toleration was an attack upon Christianity." The honourable gentleman to be sure has treated his sub­ject in a masterly manner, and hath displayed a profusion of learning; but whether he hath not been too lavish of his erudition, considering the absurdity of the positions, will appear by more fully considering the subject. The Dissenters enjoy liberty by connivance! My God, Sir, what sort of liberty is this? A writer [Mr. Hume] whose name hath lately been made free with in this House, he, Sir, compares tyranny to a thunder storm or volcano, each moment gathering, and certain at some period to burst forth and scatter destruction on all within its reach. What, Sir, is liberty by connivance, but a temporary relaxation of slavery? is this a sort of liberty calculated for the meredian of England? Montesquieu places liberty in an exemption from fear: Are persons who enjoy it by connivance only, are they exempt from fears and divested of apprehensions? the very bill before us demonstrates the contrary. Grant­ing that the Dissenters do now enjoy a fort of liberty by connivance, a liberty which hath this for its dependence is precarious, may exist to day and be annihilated to-morrow; it therefore creates alarms in the minds of men, and makes them apply, as in the case before us, for a confirmation and establishment of that, the precarious tenure of which renders the continuance of the possession uncertain.

To talk then, Sir, of a connivance, is to talk only of a temporary suspension of tyranny. You are desirous to keep the rod hanging over the Dissenters heads at the very instant that you assure them they shall never smart under its stripes. Why then, at once not set their hearts at rest by removing the impending danger? Why not release them from the dread of these penal statutes, the cruelty of which so shocks your generous natures, that you think it incumbent on you to declare they never should be put into execution? The question, Sir answers itself; and to cavil at it's propriety, is to carp at truth and elude conviction.

Much has been urged respecting the want of unanimity among the Dissenters; but I, Sir, should apprehend, that [Page 70] the reasonableness of a request, and not the numbers who prefer it, is the thing which ought to determine this House in its proceedings and resolves: For, my God! Sir, how can the opinions of those who petition militate with any sort of propriety against the bill? Two bodies of men approach the House, and prostrate themselves at your bar; we cannot in conscience, say the one, agree to the test im­posed; we ask not honours; we have no aspiring wishes; no views upon the purple; the Mitre has no charms for us; [...] aim we at the chief cathedral seats; content to pass our days in an humble state, we pray for the sake of him, who is the Lord of conscience, that our consciences may be relieved from what at present is a burthen; nor that, assum­ing the garb of hypocrites, we may be the longer forced to [...] this burthen, or be treated as vagrants for acting agree­able to the dictates of sincerity and internal rectitude. We on the contrary, say the men who petition against the Dis­senters, we enjoy every species of indulgence we can wish for; and as we are content, we pray that others, who are not content, may meet with no relief! What, Sir, shall we say to these reptiles? what but arangez-vous, canaille!

Great pains, Sir, have been taken to make us believe that the clergy of the established church are alarmed; but what signs of such alarm have appeared? hath either of the Universities opposed this bill? have the church dignitaries petitioned against it? no, Sir; as men, they hold the rights of humanity too dear; and, as Christians, they breathe a spirit too tolerant, not to wish a total abolition of the reli [...]s of ecclesiastic tyranny. Are we then to be dissuaded from granting relief, because a petition comes dated from the lines of Chatham? I should blush to see such a production quoted as authority by which British Senators were guided in their decisions.

As to what the honourable gentleman [Sir William Bagot] let fail concerning "Toleration being an attack upon Christianity." it is an assertion so contrary to truth and history, that it scarcely stands in need of refutation. By toleration Christianity flourished: whilst the eastern and western churches were tolerant they were illustrious; they [Page 71] were venerated; they were held in sacred estimation. When the Romish church cast aside its toleration, and betook itself to threatnings, slaughter, and persecution, commotions ensued; ecclesiastical anarchy prevailed; and the kingdom of darkness was erected on the ruins of Christian Charity and mutual forbearance: instead of com­bating the common foe, Christians fought and combated each other; instead of taking arms against the grand de­ceiver, they strove, by every deceptious [...]t, to harrass and torment those whom they ought to have lived as brethren. In short, Sir, the want of toleration has lessened the num­ber of believers; I would have them all united: that they might be the better enabled to make a common cause, and put infidels to a total rout. These, Sir, are the men; these scepti [...]s are the persons against whom your penal laws should be directed; they are monsters actually destructive; yet you let them escape; you clip no [...] their broad pinions, whilst you tear piece-meal the silken wings of some feeble, harmless insect who falls into your clutches! Away, Sir, with such absurdity! the sceptics, who labour to degrade us below brutes: the sceptics who would fain persuade us that we are inferior to those animals that wallow in a stye; the sceptics, who sap the foundation of all morality and social virtue; who daringly attempt to plunder us of the dearest privilege annexed to manhood, that of being of reli­gious animal; the sceptics, who, by rediculing revelation, set at nought the various dispensations of the godhead to his creature man. These, Sir, are the Pythons against whom Christians should be armed; but amongst themselves toleration cannot be carried to too great a length; nor is there any danger that Christianity should suffer by such a toleration. Ask you what is lest to defend it? I answer, the strongest defence imaginable; the learning, the wit, and the genius of its advocates. To whom has christianity been most indebted for the completest victory it ever gained over the whole body of deistical writers? to a man who never did nor I am sure never would have subscribed the articles. The learned writer I allude to is Dr. Leland, who, in his "view of the D [...]istical writers," had rendered [Page 72] christianity an essential service (if so divine a system could receive assistance from mortal hands.)

As to the toleration afforded by Heathenism, I am yet to learn that it went so far as the honourable gentleman seems to think, for those who were admitted within the pale of the Heathen church were at least required to assist in the performance of the religious rites, those to Bacchus and some others. Such a conformity was necessary, and, perhaps, in every establishment it is the only conformity the Magistrate has a right to exact, for I take the reverse of our mode of proceeding to be the just one; the constraint should be put not so much upon the doctrinal as the ritual part of the religion, a conformity in the latter being the chief thing requisite for the support of a religious establish­ment connected with the state. But, Sir, the toleration the learned gentleman speaks of as exercised towards the Epi­cureans, proves nothing to the purpose; for being athe [...]sts and believing nothing, they would have subscribed to any and every thing; persecution therefore would not have reached them; nor would any articles, any human tests, how well soever contrived, have kept them as they ought to have been kept, distinct from the believing part of their species. I trust, Sir, I am penetrated with as deep a sense of the benefits derived to us by the birth of a Saviour, as any man within these walls; I trust, I would go as far as any man in maintaining the essential articles of christani­ty; I also fancy, Sir, the church of England has not a firmer friend than myself. I wish her illustrious; I wish her head may reach that heaven to which she would conduct us! but I would also wish her family as numerous as possi­ble; I would wish a brotherly affection to prevail amongst her offspring; I would have Christians united; I would have them join in every attempt to crush the powers of darkness, and trample under foot the foe to God and man; like a mother tender of her children; I would have the church, with wide extended arms, clasp to her bosom her believing sons; nor by unnatural au [...]rity repudiate her offspring, and tempt them to seek for ease, for pleasure, and for comfort, in the harlot lap of Infidelity.