dependency of America should become a right measure, I doubt whether this House could declare them independent. Can this House take upon it to dismember the empire? I say it cannot. Although I can never agree to the idea of the independency of America, in the sense that gentlemen have taken it up; yet I would not be thought to entertain a hope of a dependence, such as others expect. Something, perhaps, of an union between two unequal parties, on terms suited to the condition of each, may be had with America. Yet, if the Americans think that France has really supported them, and if they have made a reciprocal treaty with France, it cannot be expected that they should make peace with us without including France. But if France, by false pretences, has drawn them into all the miseries they suffer, and if we can convince them of that, they ought to thank us for getting them out of the hands of France, and conclude a peace with us without thinking of those false friends. Mr. Henry Dundas (Lord Advocate) spurned with indignation at a proposition which, while it endeavoured to secure independence to America, stamped indelible disgrace on Great Britain, by declaring to the world that she was unable to subdue the creatures of her own raising. Every Briton should feel his bosom glow with ardour to destroy the ground-work of such a disgraceful idea: every reasonable provision had been made for the freedom of America in the late Acts; every reason able proposition had been made to them: every offer which a great people could make, without dishonour to their own children, had been made. If all this would not do if nothing less than independence would satisfy a people who wantonly began, and obstinately persevered in the most unnatural rebellion, he was proud to say that this country was of such a temper that it would not be dictated to by the most powerful state in Christendom: accustomed to give laws and to humble the proud ambition of her foes, Great Britain needed only to be roused: such a refusal on the part of the Americans to treat but as an independent people, would, he hoped, be sufficient to rouse her: her great spirit was equal to every effort, to every obstacle: the spirit of this country laughed at despondency; and never made a greater figure in the eyes of the world, than when reduced to such a state as would have made any other country than herself sink beneath the weight of misfortune and despair. He felt his pride hurt, his spirit roused, his rage kindled, by the very insinuation that this country was unable to assert her just rights and support her pretensions to empire. After this, he thought it unnecessary to say that he was averse to the motion, and would give it every opposition in his power. Mr. Burke inveighed bitterly against those who had reduced the nation to the painful necessity of submitting to such terms as the Americans should think proper to insist on. He displayed great clearness of understanding and ingenuity in pointing out the weak side of the arguments advanced by the gentlemen who opposed the motion, and concluded with expressing his hearty approbation of the motion. Mr. T. Townshend thought the motion premature, and moved that the chairman do leave the chair. Lord North was against making any further concessions. He said he had reason to believe the treaty with France was not ratified by the Congress; and as it was certain that France had all along cajoled and abused them, they were not under obligation to give them either assistance or preference. He believed, still, that the minds of the people were inclined to conciliation, and he trusted that the measures already adopted would effect it. He reverted to the expression of an hon. gentleman, that he was obliged to repair to those who despised him, when he wanted service or advice. He declared that it was his invariable pursuit to seek for capable men, without regard to their situations or political opinions. As to a war with France he thought it unavoidable; at least, very probable. Mr. Dunning was against the motion. There was no limit in it, nor could it be construed to what it extended. He wished to preserve the dependency of America. Sir G. Savile said we had been at law with America, that America had gained the trial, and would demand costs. The chairman left the chair, and there was no division. cheap as any merchant in London: another would not engage to furnish coals; another would not engage to provide shoes. He never heard that there were auy taylors or shoe-makers in that House. It was impossible not to perceive, that giving these contracts to members was an arrant job, and created a dangerous influence in that House, which must operate much to the injury of the nation; for the more money was raised on the public, the greater was the profit to these gentlemen: they throve upon the spoil of their fellow subjects. America would not submit to be taxed by the parliament of England, because the more money she levied upon them, the more she exonerated her own burden. We seemed to be something in their situation; the more money these gentlemen voted to be raised, the greater would be their profit: to grant away the money of others to enrich themselves, was improper. Many more arguments might be offered, but he would only observe, that from a series of mismanagement, the situation of this country was become very perilous. We were at the edge of a precipice, and, without more public virtue, we must inevitably sink. The very being of this country was hazarded, and unless a total alteration of men and measures took place, we were devoted to every species of calamity, slavery itself, perhaps, not excepted. He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill, for restraining any person, being a member of the House of Commons, from being concerned himself, or any person in trust for him, in any Contract made by the commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury, the commissioners of the Navy, the board of Ordnance, or by any other person or persons, for the public service, unless the said contract shall be made at a public bidding." people of this country, in all dangers and difficulties, were accustomed to look up to parliament for protection. Our ancestors had maintained many glorious struggles to obtain parliaments; and our brethren in America had profusely lavished their blood to procure a parliamentary representation. When king William delivered this country from the tyranny and oppression of the Stuarts, the first thing he did, was to promise a parliament; but one word was also added it was "free" without which it would have been of no value. He not only granted a free parliament, but many Acts passed in that reign to preserve and keep them independent. By the 5th and 6th of William and Mary, all commissioners of customs, excise, salt duties, &c. as being concerned in public money, were excluded from sitting as members in the House. He desired those Acts might be read: which being done, he said, that a new species of placemen had arisen since that time, more dangerous to the constitution, and more prejudicial to the interest of the people, than any excluded by those Acts. These were people who held lucrative contracts under the government. He wished to avoid personalities as much as possible, but he could not help taking some notice of the gold contract. The noble lord (North) had said, that 2 per cent. had been given originally on that contract; but finding some time after, that it extended itself farther than was at first expected, he lowered the bargain to 1 per cent. If, then, it would bear a deduction of one per cent. it must appear to the conviction of every man, that 2 per cent. would have afforded a sufficient profit on the first bargain. He said, he had shewn the agreement to a great merchant in the city, and read his opinion, which was, that computing the whole at the average price of 2 per cent. the profit amounted to 46,000l. That the established commission among merchants, for remitting money, even in small sums, was no more than per cent. which on the sum remitted would amount to 11,500/., so that 34,500l. had been given more than the accustomed price. He could name many other instances, where very disadvantageous bargains had been made for the public; but Mr. Harley wished the contracts to his remark, on the whole, was, that mem- be strictly enquired into, as he was conbers of parliament would not be contrac-scious that, upon the most rigid investiga tors, if extraordinary and improper advantages were not given them. We should not hear, he said, a member rise up, and assure the House, he sold his coals as [VOL. XIX.] Sir G. Yonge seconded the motion, and said it was full time that the House should take the expenditure of the public money, and the several modes of corruption, devised to seduce members from their duty, into consideration. Sir J. Mawbey was severe upon contractors in general; and particularly such as had seats in that House. tion, his would bear the test. He had been all along consistent, both before and since the war; he had always acted upon principle, and had even risked his person [4A] and life in support of government. He differed widely from the three worthy baronets; for he could solemnly affirm, that his vote in parliament was never influenced by any consideration but the merit of the several questions as they arose. Mr. Turner said, the present question would prove the test of ministers and their friends in that House; for it steered a middle path. It did not merely exclude contractors for being contractors in a fair, open, equitable manner; but for being closet contractors, for being private plunderers; for entering into a conspiracy with a corrupt administration to plunder their country; and either share the spoil with the rest of the public conspirators, or Iwith some others more remote from national observation. Mr. A. Bacon said, he was a merchant, and had honestly served an apprenticeship for seven long years to an eminent merchant; and when he had contracts, he fulfilled them fairly and honestly. He had often voted' against ministers, and voted for the repeal of the Stamp Act; he could not conceive why contractors should be treated in so unbecoming, nay, contemptuous a manner-as if they were monsters, and not fit for human society. Sir Cecil Wray said, he always disliked private contracts. The present motion was not against the persons or characters of contractors, but to prevent the foul deeds imputed to ministers, and men supposed to be leagued together to rob the public. The minister, if he considered properly his own reputation and personal satisfaction, ought to support the motion. Those who wished to contract, on the other hand, would be relieved from all that obloquy, which necessarily follows the present mode of serving the public, in a private manner. Colonel Barré said, contracts ought to be open, and offered to the highest bidder. The gentlemen rise one by one, and say, "I am not influenced; I have voted sometimes one way, sometimes another." This, however, must be taken upon the bare credit of the hon. gentlemen. I have indeed observed, that gentlemen of this description, when Bills for laying duties on ships going out or coming into harbours, or to build or repair piers, or for passing light-houses, sometimes differ from administration, but upon no other, that I can recollect, during a very long knowledge of this House. The colonel next observed, that he remembered a gentleman in that House who rose in a very haughty tone, and avowed his independence; yet, upon further enquiry, this same independent gentleman turned out to be in possession of a private contract, which brought him in 30,000l. a year. He owned he suspected it at the time; and it was that suspicion which led him to the discovery of the fact. He said, he was himself a contractor with the public; and was actually entered into a contract with twenty persons; [The Select Committee on the Public Expenditure of the public money.] He did not know how he should get out of it, or rather, how he should die in it; not for fear of any personal violence, but how he should get his dinner. He then made several severe allusions to contracts and contractors, and insisted that the public money had been shamefully and traitorously lavished. He said, sup pose a minister, during the recess of the Treasury board, should send for a contractor, and give him a large contract, in which the nation was to be plundered of 30 or 40,000l. or more; and suppose the Treasury board should meet after the said recess; and that after this closet arrangement the minister should, through neglect, forget, or purposely omit, to mention a syllable of this closet contract-suppose, I say, not a single iota of the contract should be mentioned; surely this must be a private contract with a witness; and the minister must be entitled to the public thanks of his country. Lord North replied, that the facts alluded to would come before the House properly authenticated, from the Select Committee. He therefore wished gentlemen would suspend their opinions. He said, if he had made any contracts, he had made them for the public benefit; and if they had turned out otherwise, it was not his fault; at least, whatever he had done, he did for the best. Lord George Gordon said, that he * Lord George Gordon, son of CosmoGeorge, duke of Gordon, was born in London, Dec. 19, 1750, and George the Second was his godfather. He early entered into the navy, but quitted it during the American war, in consequence of an altercation with the earl of Sandwich about promotion. In 1774 he was elected member for Luggersball. An alarm having been excited by the repeal of certain penal statutes against the Roman Catholics in 1779, lord George was chosen president of the Protestant Association at London; and on the was sorry to differ in opinion with the noble contractor in the blue ribbon, the right honourable privy counsellor contractor, and the rest of the honourable contractors on the other side the House, who had delivered their sentiments in opposition to the motion. He took the liberty of rising to declare his hearty concurrence with the very respectable and eloquent members near him, who, with so much power and persuasion, had delivered to the House unanswerable arguments for giving their assent to bring in the Bill. That, having mentioned the noble lord as the head of the contractors, he would take the liberty of instancing one example of it in very few words to the House. He said, that noble lord was the greatest of all contractors; he was a contractor for men; a contractor for your flock, Mr. Speaker, [addressing himself to the Chair] a contractor for the representatives of the people; that noble lord proposed to give a place of 1,000l. a year, provided a noble duke would prevail on the most insignificant member in that House to vacate his seat in parliament. The noble duke behaved like a man upon the occasion; like a friend, like a brother; he rejected the villainous proposition that noble lord had the assurance to make. He then told the House, he was not acquainted with 2nd of June 1780 went to the House of Commons, to present their petition, attended by about 60,000 of the petitioners. The dreadful consequences of this ineasure are well known. Lord George was imprisoned in the Tower, on the 9th June, and tried for High Treason, but acquitted on the 4th Feb. 1781. On the 4th May 1786 he was excommunicated by the archbishop of Canterbury, for not appearing in court as a witness in a cause. In Feb. and June 1787 he was tried before the court of King's-bench, for publishing libels on the queen of France, the French embassador, and the empress of Russia; and also for a seditious pamphlet. Being convicted of these charges, he, on the 25th of June, went over to Holland, where he turned Jew, and was circumcised; but, returning to England in August, he was apprehended on the 7th Dec. at Birmingham; and on the 28th Jan. 1788 was sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and to continue in gaol till he should find bail for his good behaviour in 10,000. Not being able to find bail at the end of that period to the extent re quired, this operated as a sentence of imprisonment for life. In July 1789, he presented a petition to the national assembly of France, and was visited by several eminent revolutionists. He died 1st Nov. 1793 of a fever, attended with delirium, in the 43rd year of his age. the noble lord; he had never spoke to him; he had never the honour of being introduced to him; but he sincerely wished him to save his country and his own life. He desired him to call off his butchers and ravagers from the colonies; to retire with the rest of his Majesty's evil advisers from the public government, and make way for honest and wiser counsellors; to turn from his wickedness and live; it was not yet too late to repent; the public clamour for revenge was not yet raised against him; his Majesty's troops were not yet totally defeated in America. Lord North denied that the proposition the noble lord had alluded to was a villainous proposition; and objected to the word villainous, as highly unparliamentary and improper. Lord George Gordon replied, that he retracted the epithet villainous, as an unparliamentary expression; but defied the noble lord, or any man, to deny the veracity of what he had related, and left it to the breast of every member to apply an epithet more suitable to a treaty of that nature, with brother for brother. The House divided: auction, and yet government were not bound by it to accept the offer of the lowest bidder; therefore, he thought the Act would be nugatory. Contracts had been in usage for many years, and were considered by the wisest administration as the wisest way of serving the public; it was, therefore, unfair that members of that House should be excluded from their share in a fair mercantile practice till it had been proved upon them that they had made an unworthy use of the indulgence. A committee was sitting, employed in the examination of the contracts now in existence. It would be prejudicing the contractors to do any thing against them before the report from that committee was made. He could not suppose that contracts created any undue influence in the House any more than sinecure places (which, by the bye, he supposed no man on either side of the House would agree to exclude); and the legislature, by tolerating the latter, had determined it to be no prejudice. made of the public money. The noble lord in the blue ribbon had declared, that he did not wish to see contracts given to members of parliament: but his words and actions had not corresponded, as he had shewn an extraordinary avidity to get contracts into his hands, particularly one for hiring ships; when he had stepped out of his own department into that of the Navy-board, which was somewhat hurtful to the public, as the business had been always carried on there by public bidding, and no complaint had ever been made. The noble lord told the House, that the Navy-board had excused themselves from this contract, as being too full of business. It was true they did refuse it; it was put to them in a way to insure their refusal; the noble lord wished them to refuse it, and put the question to them as an old man puts a question to a fine woman, in making her to say yes, and wishing nothing so much as to have her say no. The noble lord's wishes prevailed; and how did it answer to the public? Why, one of these ships carried out to America 100 wheelbarrows, one smith's forge, and a pair of bellows, for which the nation paid 1,300. The object of the Bill was to take care that the public should not be defrauded out of that money which they so liberally granted to defend the nation; and he could not conceive that any member could be so regardless of the interest of his constituents as to say they should be. He therefore hoped that, for the honour and credit of the House, the Bill would pass. Sir P. J. Clerke said, the noble lord had very justly stated the principle of the Bill, which was to prevent any undue influence in that House by members holding beneficial contracts under government, and also to guard against an improper expenditure of the public money. If the conduct of the majority of that House for the two preceding years was adverted to, there would appear to be too much reason to apprehend, that some improper influence had prevailed; how else could it be accounted for, that a great number of gentlemen should uniformly pursue measures of force and violence, should declare they would never consent to a peace with America while there was a ship that could swim, or a soldier carry a musket? Others declare they would bring them on their knees; others talk of starvation; and every one of those gentlemen, above two hundred, in one morning, in one half hour, all change their opinions, confess themselves to have been in an error, and all adopt a new conduct, and submit to become sup-seats. pliants for that favour which, when they had the power, they with so much haughtiness refused to grant. Such a versatility of conduct could not possibly be ascribed to a sudden general conviction; no man with a grain of sease could imagine it was. When it has been already proved, that one man got more than 35,000l. above the ordinary profit on one contract, it was unnecessary to say that an ill use had been Sir Edward Astley observed to the noble lord (Nugent), that though he might call it prejudging the contractors to enter on the business before the House, till the report from the select committee was made, he assured him, as he was one of that committee, that the report would sufficiently prove the necessity of the Bill. The noble lord had thrown out a kind of reflection on the House at large, by saying they would not wish on either side to preclude pensioners and placemen from He declared he, for his own part, wished such a motion was made, as he would be happy if every placeman and pensioner was shut out, and he would zealously espouse such a motion. Mr. Wombwell objected to the motion, because he believed putting up contracts to sale, would be prejudicial to the public service. Men inadequate to the accomplishment of the contracts, would at all times bid lower than men of ability and |