I regret, Sir, the indecent rage, the extravagant madness, with which every measure, and in particular the Bill in question, has been carried on against the Americans. It precludes every possibility of a reconciliation, so ardently to be wished. Let us advert, Sir, for a moment to the difference of two cases in point, the suspicion only of high treason in America, and the actual charge of it here. A man only suspected of high treason in America, for instance, the giving aid or assistance to the Congress, or to any of the King's enemies, on coming over to England may be committed to prison, and by this Bill continue there without bail or mainprize, or being able to bring on his trial, for near a year, till Jan. 1, 1778, to which time this Bill is to continue in force. In this kingdom a man suspected, or even actually charged with high treason in conspiring the death of the king, or levying war in the realm, may have a Habeas Corpus, and be bailed by the court of King's-bench. The suspicion therefore of American treason seems a deeper crime, in the judgment of our present ministers, than an overt act of English, or more properly Scottish, treason and rebellion against his Majesty's person, title, crown, or dignity. I suppose it is thought, Sir, a deeper crime, because it is more grievously punished. Do we imagine the Americans will not retaliate, or do we vainly hope to intimidate them? Their cause is good, and after all the idle tales of our late visionary successes, the justice of it must in the end prevail. They are nobly struggling under the sharpest sufferings, but I trust they have zeal and perseverance. In all events the first moment of a foreign war necessarily obliges us to withdraw our fleets and armies, and every part of North America must then be free and independent. This Bill will probably be answered by a spirited resolution of the Congress. Would to God, Sir, our parliament equalled that Congress of heroes in wisdom, in love of their country, in uncorruptedness, in public virtue!

The second enacting clause of the Bill, Sir, empowers" his Majesty, by warrant under his sign manual, to appoint one or more places of confinement, within the realm, for the custody of such prisoners, and all and every magistrate or magistrates, having competent authority in that behalf, are hereby authorized to commit such persons as aforesaid to such place or places of confinement, so to be appointed, instead of the common gaol." This clause

may operate, Sir, in a manner more to be dreaded than any banishment, or confinement out of the realm, and a power, which may be grossly abused, ought not to be trusted to any man. A person only suspected, or pretended to be so, may be doomed to the dampest, most noxious dungeon, on the most swampy coast. He may be stifled in a vault, in whose foul mouth no healthsome air breathes. I, Sir, perhaps may at last be suspected, and possibly it will not be a slight suspicion. I have formerly experienced an illegal, close, and rigorous imprisonment, but by this Bill I may be sent to the barbarous highlands of Scotland, or among the savages in the dreary isle of Bute, from whose bourn I am sure I should never return, even as a traveller, much less as a prisoner. Is it ingeniously meant, Sir, as a new mode of repeopling that ancient kingdom?

Much has been said, Sir, both in the committee and in the House, about a dictator, and his extensive powers. Many periods of the Roman history have been retailed out to us minutely enough. Comparisons between that virtuous republic, and this corrupt monarchy, are generally more brilliant than solid, more beautiful than just. A right hon. gentleman, (Mr. Conway) under the gallery, has observed that our glorious deliverer, king William the third, was a dictator here after the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in his reign. Should the present Bill for the suspension of that Act, pass into a law, I shall regard the noble lord with the blue ribbon as the modern dictator of this great empire, as possessed of the most ample and despotic powers. The first act of business in an ancient dictator, I remember, was to make his coadjutor in office, his magister equitum, his general of horse. If public gratitude has any weight with him, I am sure for such an office he will turn his eyes to the noble lord, (George Germain) now so near him, who, to his immortal honour, with great and invincible courage, advanced and charged the enemies of our country at the head of the British horse. In one particular respecting the dictator of ancient times, I beg to set right a very high law-officer (the Attorney General) among us. All the Roman magistrates were not, as he says, superseded by that creation. The tribunes of the people, but they alone, preserved their authority, even under a dictator.

the generous and free Roman people, and an English senate I am sure will adopt against every measure of oppression and cruelty, "Homo sum, humani nihil à me alienum puto."

Mr. Rigby said, he sincerely wished for the general suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, which, in his opinion, was necessary to be extended to Great Britain, and that too as fully as in 1745. At the latter period, the rebels in this country avowed their principles; they appeared in arms, and conducted themselves as honest, though mistaken men. Now, the secret enemies' of government conducted themselves in a different manner. They gave their assistance covertly. They feared the open day, and skulked behind quibbles in law, and all the insidious arts of concealed faction and sedition. He observed, that it had been frequently objected to the present administration, by the gentlemen in opposition, that they had not employed a force against America sufficiently powerful; at other times that they had put the nation to an unnecessary expence. What attention such men deserved, might be easily gathered from this wavering disposition. He trusted that administration would not give way on the present occasion. He did not think that the Bill wanted any amendment, and he should be sorry to see his friends assent to any proposition coming from that quarter, because he could never discover any one principle of action in the supporters of the present clause, but that of a fixed indiscriminate opposition, right or wrong, to every measure proposed by the King's servants.

It has been said, Sir, by another gentleman, who is likewise in a great lawoffice (the Solicitor General), that in this House a discontented party had ridiculously given into a tone of prophecy, which has never been accomplished, and that particularly about a year ago it was the case of the right hon. gentleman who spoke lately under the gallery. It is not, I believe, very parliamentary to quote words spoken in a former debate: but if that member's memory goes to a prophecy of one year, which has not been fulfilled, he will permit mine a fair excursion to another prophecy of that very member's, six years ago, which has been exactly verified. His prophecy in this House was, that if the same violent measures against the Americans were persisted in, the colonies, which formed so great a strength to this kingdom in the reign of George 2, would be dissevered from the British empire in the reign of George 3. No prophecy, Sir, ever received a more perfect accomplishment. He wonderfully possesses the second sight of his native country. How deeply criminal he and others have been in the bringing this prophecy to pass, I hope this House will one day enquire. A very extraordinary observation of the same gentleman in the present debate, amid a variety of heterogeneous matter, it is im possible for me not to mention. He has laughed at universal benevolence, and endeavoured to demonstrate the impossibility of its existence. But, Sir, he has only given us the narrow, contracted, selfish ideas of his own heart, and his own country. His sentiments and his feelings are confined to a very small insignificant circle indeed. They are merely clannish and Scottish. His remarks I saw excited a general indignation among us. An Englishman has ideas infinitely more liberal and enlarged. His heart expands itself, and takes in the general good and prosperity of all mankind. It feels not the rancour, and disdains the injustice of such a cruel persecuting Bill, as that now before us, but forms the warmest wishes for the liberty and happiness of every individual of this late flourishing empire. Universal benevolence, and a generous spirit of humanity, have been no less the characteristics of the inhabitants of the southern parts of this island, than that good-nature, for which foreigners have not even a name. I will only add, Sir, that I think the most beautiful sentence of all antiquity is that, which was received with such applause by [VOL. XIX.]

Mr. Fox, after reprobating the principle of the Bill, and declaring that he thought if even the clause were agreed to, as first moved, he should be called on to give the Bill a most hearty negative; said he must desire to draw the attention of the House, to the conduct of the court of France, respecting our disputes with America. He affirmed, from his own knowledge, that we were on the eve of a war with France, immediately preceding the meeting of the present session, in the month of October. He was of opinion, that administration were extremely negligent, in respect ot home-security and national defence, particularly in not calling out and embodying the militia, when it was well known in what a defenceless state we were at the time; and still he was sorry to say, continued to be. At present the disposition of France, he allowed, was much changed. [D]

The courts of Versailles and Madrid, whatever their latent or remote intentions may be, take care to carefully conceal one, or have prudently postponed the other, which was the most probable supposition, till they were sufficiently prepared to strike a decisive, perhaps a fatal blow, which was certainly not the case at present. Their peaceable demeanor, their promises and appearances, were most assuredly the consequence of necessity, not choice. The disposition of the French nation in general; the sentiments of such as turned their thoughts to foreign politics, respecting the civil war in America, bear testimony, how much they engrossed, what they look upon, as a matter that promises to be extremely favourable to their interests, in the final event. He had other proofs, which shewed the conclusion now made, in a much more clear manner; that was the disposition of the French cabinet, which daily manifested itself in a variety of circumstances. He did not mean to enter into details: but the facts he was about to mention, were important, and such, too, as would not leave a doubt of their apparent tendency; that was the conduct of the French ministry to two of the members of the American Congress, now resident at Paris, Dr. Franklin and Mr. Silas Deane. He was warranted in affirming, from his own knowledge, that they both appeared publicly at Paris and Versailles; they were known to hold conferences with the king's ministers, to treat and negociate with them, and to be received by them substantially on the same footing, as if the representatives of any independent power in Christendom. The correspondence held between them, was of the same nature, with that usually carried on between two powers, where one of them seeks for assistance, and the other, from motives of policy, listens, deliberates, and determines, upon the propriety or impropriety of adopting the schemes, or entering into the measures of the power, which thus applies for succour. Sometimes Franklin and Deane received greater encouragement, at other times less, according to the tone of the court, and the prevailing sentiments, and opinions at the time. But however these might vary, one important truth might be gathered from the whole, that France was secretly hostile to Great Britain; that she publicly or privately received, treated, and negotiated with the members of the American Congress, or with persons authorised and de

|

puted for them. He next attacked what he called the shameful, disgraceful, and improbable falshoods that the only paper, published by authority in this country, is filled with, upon every occasion, given in the accounts received from America. He said, he had been in company, at Paris, with an American lately arrived in that capital, who informed him that our London Gazette gave long details, from time to time, of successes gained by our troops, which never had any existence but on paper. He assured him in particular, that the lists of the killed, wounded, and prisoners, since the commencement of the campaign, amounted to nearly as many as the Congress had enlisted, mustered, or arrayed; but as the nation were to have something in return for the blood and treasure so shamefully lavished on our side, something to balance against new debts, accompanied with new taxes, he could not say but he much approved of the device, as he was infinitely better pleased to see men killed upon paper, than be convinced that they fell in battle. He then took a general view of the situation of affairs in America, the state of the respective armies, their number, &c. and contended, from the present appearance of affairs in that country, we were no nearer conquering America now, than we were three years ago. If it could ever be effected, he was satisfied it would be the work of time, perhaps of many campaigns. Though France had altered her intention of taking an early and decided part, and would not venture to break with us, till her navy should be put upon a respectable footing, yet a peace resting on so precarious a foundation, was in fact no peace, and was more hurtful, in its remote consequences, than war actually declared. The Dutch were nearly twenty years struggling against their tyrannic oppressors, before they procured any assistance from foreign states; our strength would be therefore gradually decreasing, and we might probably find ourselves engaged in a bloody and expensive war, when we least expected it, and were least prepared for it.

Mr. Dunning said, he should give one proof of his sincerity, by agreeing with the amendment moved by Mr. Cornwall, though he was far from approving of it entirely; yet it was better than nothing; and though the general expression, "out of the realm," might be interpreted in such a manner as just to mean what mi

nisters pleased, he was glad to have the extreme rigour of the clause qualified in

any manner.

Mr. Wilmot lamented the present horrid situation of America; said, he thought this war might have been prevented on the outset, and hoped might still be put an end to, without any derogation of the honour, dignity, or even interest of Great Britain: but that whatever were the causes, the sword was now drawn by America, and therefore, whilst that sword remained unsheathed, he sincerely wished success to his own country, though he could not think it free from error. That he felt upon the occasion as he should do if a dagger was held to his father's breast; that in that moment he should forget his parent's blame, defend him from its attack, and reflect only on the greater blame of the person who held it. That the situation we are in towards America could not have been foreseen, and therefore no provision was made for it by the laws at present in force. That this Bill answered the purpose, and being freed from the objection to it, had his hearty concurrence. The Attorney General observed, that he had been described as the framer of the Bill, with some little assistance however from his friend near him; and, on that ground, made responsible for its contents. Be that as it may, he still retained his former opinion; he never had a second on the subject. He was aware of the great talents and professional knowledge of his learned friend who moved the clause, and who had entertained the House so ably on the supposed contradiction between the title and the Bill itself. With all his industry and attention, both of which in the present case he was by no means sparing of, he could not discover any such contradiction. The Bill was meant to punish, or prevent crimes committed in America or on the high seas. Does the Bill hold a different language? Is it because a person is not personally present in either of the places described, that he may not be guilty of treason? Certainly not. If that was the case, no accomplice in treason, who was now in open arms, or concerned in the scene then passing, could be brought to punishment. He begged leave to repeat what he had given so frequently as his opinion since the introduction of the Bill into the House, that it was formed on the purest principles of constitutional law; that he was convinced it would stand the test of time and observation; and that if

it was defective in any respect, it was because it did not go far enough. He then quoted several instances, in which the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act had taken place; and referred to the celebrated case of sir William Wyndham, who was denied the benefit of the Habeas Corpus Act on bare suspicion; and after solemn argument in the court of King'sbench, the judges were unanimously of opinion, that he should be remanded to the Tower; and that the ground of commitment was good. He contended, that the idea was a legal and constitutional one; and that the claim to exercise it, on the present occasion, was sound law, and perfectly consonant to the principles of the constitution. He added, that it had been a prevailing custom, since the introduction of the present measure into the House, to blend in every debate and conversation which arose on it, personal allusions, personal charges, and certain political doctrines, little connected with the subject matter. Whatever portion of them were intended for him, he was totally indifferent about. He was conscious of his own motives. He flattered himself, he had always acted an uniform, consistent part. He was determined to pursue the same line of conduct to the end and on the whole, he did not think it a very fair mode of procedure, to discredit a measure merely on personal considerations, applying, or supposed to apply to some of those who most warmly supported it.

Mr. Dunning observed, that he must be very ignorant indeed of the laws and constitution of this country, and of the real purport of the Bill, who could resort to personal allusions, to the framers of it, instead of drawing arguments against it from the Bill itself. No man questioned the personal integrity, uniformity of conduct, or immaculate intentions of its friends. It was the Bill, the uses that might be made of it, the unprecedented powers it delegated, without a single proof, or colour of proof, of the necessity of such a delegation, that called forth his opposition. He applauded the learned gentleman's firmness; he had a very high opinion of his professional knowledge: yet however firm and knowing he was, there was still some of his friends, who thought the Bill went too far; the very amendment made to the clause now offered, was the clearest testimony that there existed such a description of men among his friends; and

the sentiments of a great lawyer (Mr. Morton) in the committee, proved, that there were, even among his learned brethren, some odd kind of men, who differed from him, independent of any personal allusion to his integrity, uniformity of conduct, or political principles.

The Attorney General said he intended no particular application of what had fallen from him. That his friends or adversaries might think as they pleased; every man was free to think for himself; of course he was at liberty to hold his first opinion, and to avow it, which was, that the Bill was necessary, and that it was unobjectionable in its first formation, as well as amended state.

Mr. Temple Luttrell thought the Bill extremely necessary at this time, and its operations in this kingdom and Ireland much wanted. He informed the House, that a ship, loaded with fire-arms, and warlike stores, and ammunition of all kinds, intended for America, was seized in the port of Dublin. The merchants who were the owners of the stores, and the actors in this treasonable transaction, were apprehended, and yet, for want of a law of this kind, the traitors were bailed, and permitted to escape with impunity. He wished sincerely, if they had not escaped beyond the reach of justice, that this Bill might take cognizance of their crimes, and that they might meet that exemplary and condign punishment which they manifestly merited.

Mr. James Luttrell replied, that strong facts made easy to the humblest comprehension, taught him to differ so widely in opinion from his honourable relation, and made him feel such contrary sentiments to those which that hon. member had expressed, that he was necessitated to persevere in voting in opposition to him. That there is an act of parliament to prevent the shipping of warlike stores to America; that if the law is not clear in pointing out the means of punishing such offenders, it may be necessary to make one for that purpose: but that there is great difference between making laws to punish the guilty, and breaking laws, which our excellent constitution has provided for the protection of the innocent. That if the proposed clause was agreed to by the noble lord (North) it would reprieve the liberty of the subject on this side the Atlantic, and perhaps check, for a while, the arbitrary spirit of those who wished the Bill to pass without the clause. But that as he could

conceive no state of perfection in a Bill of that despotic nature to recommend it to the representatives of the people, he should not enter into refinements of the law, nor cavil upon words, but object to the whole of the Bill, as an iniquitous and daring attack upon the palladium of English liberty; and observed that if this was the first-fruits of victories in America, we must expect to recover our colonies, at the expence of Magna Charta. He proceeded to observe, that after the very strong censure passed by a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rigby) on the members of opposition, who had contended for the constitutional freedom of the subject in every part of the British empire; he must consider such declamation as meant to open an extensive field of American debate, and therefore thought it his duty to say a few words in behalf of an injured people, whom he conceived never yet to have had it in their power to return to their allegiance without either submitting themselves to vassalage, or being condemned to death. He then entered into the origin and pursuit of the war, as the great object of parliamentary consideration. Praised the valour of the British forces and their leaders, but lamented that the House continued to meet for little else than to frame bills of hatred, instead of restoring laws which were for the mutual advantage of Great Britain and America. That he had often thought the loss of empire would not be more disgraceful to British subjects, than the loss of freedom; but that he neither wished to establish a republican, nor an arbitrary system of government. The question of the times he comprehended to imply; whether it can possibly be for the advantage of America to relieve her from one species of calamity, only to subject her to another? And whether it is wise in us to rejoice at an increase of power to tyrannize, when it sets a dangerous precedent to bring home to ourselves the same military enforcement, of ministerial injustice, as that which marks the despotic principles, the rise, and progress, of the whole American war. That he certainly should not rejoice at any victory, till government prove they mean to end the war with more justice than they began it. He then proceeded as follows:

If I were to join in claiming a right of taxation over the Americans, consistently with those Acts which occasioned the civil war, it is plain to every capacity that it must be unlimited, and unconditional; for