were hired by administration, he thought it extremely unfair, to lay their calumnies at the door of those, who were totally in nocent of the charge. It had been said, that those calumnies were propagated by persons, who dined and conversed with ministers. He could answer, so far as the charge could be supposed to affect him, it was false; and if he knew of any person who frequented his table, and repeated what he heard, much more, what he did not hear there, he would take care he should never again be furnished with a like pretence.

Mr. For insisted, that the resources of the nation, however great, could never an. swer the vast expences we must always undergo, if we are obliged to follow the example of France, and fit out fleets when ever she thinks proper to arm. There was a time, when a British ministry would insist, that the enemies of their country should first disarm, before they laid up their ships; that time, however, was no more; and the faithful page of history would hand down to posterity, the pusillanimity of a minister, who consented to set Spain the example of disarming; though the honour of the navy, and consequently of the nation, had been violated, when the rudder of an English man of war was forcibly taken from her at Port Egmont. He said, the minister, by not bringing the printers of the abuse against the Howes to justice, gave reason to think that he approved of it; that the publisher of an advertisement relative to a charity, was pursued with the utmost rigour, whilst the defamers of our generals and commanders were suffered to go unpunished.

The Resolution was then agreed to.

Debate in the Commons on the Bill for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act.] Nov. 26. The Attorney General observed, that an Act passed in the last session, intitled, "An Act to impower his Majesty to secure and detain persons charged with, or suspected of, the crime of high treason, committed in any of his Majesty's colonies or plantations in America, or on the high seas, or the crime of piracy," would expire on the 1st of January, 1778: that the same cause which made the law at first necessary still continued; namely, the rebellion in America; and that he therefore meant now to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the further continuance of the said Act for a limited time.

Mr. Baker said, that the law now proposed to be further continued must have had some object in view when it was passed. It was with great reluctance he would at any time consent to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, that great security of public freedom and personal liberty. There were circumstances, however, in seasons of great national danger, which had called for the particular inter ference of the legislature, and might again justify such suspension. He never thought the proposed Bill intitled to any such public, or parliamentary sanction; yet, if it were, experience must be the best proof whether those appearances were well founded. On this ground, therefore, he should be glad to know from the hon. and learned mover, in what instances the powers, which had now for full nine months been delegated, were exercised, and what were the evils they prevented or remedied? If none could be stated, in his opinion, it would be equally wanton and unnecessary to continue them, and be a dangerous precedent in time to come.

Mr. Burke coincided with his hon. friend in his general reasoning, and further observed, that the Bill was of the most extraordinary texture; nor were its operations, if they could be called by that appellation, less so. Here is a Bill, which is to operate in every part of the British empire, against pirates, or persons suspected of treason. Your generals on the other side of the Atlantic have established a public cartel, such as is agreed to, with an alien enemy, for the exchange of prisoners. It is no general light surmise or loose assertion; we find your commanders actually pressing Mr. Washington to a faithful performance of this cartel: we are informed of a correspondence between a Mr. Hutchinson, lord Cornwallis, Mr. Washington, &c. in which the true spirit of the cartel is controverted; but not its existence, nor a professed unwillingness on either side, to comply with it. What do we behold on the other? I do not wish to state facts from general reports, if I am wrong, I trust the learned gentleman will set me right. Why, a direct contrary conduct in Europe; lord Stormont, his Majesty's minister at the French court, giving a very lofty answer to the American delegates residing there. He tells them, when they propose a similar cartel to that settled in America, in Europe, and an exchange of prisoners in consequence of it, "I never treat with rebels, unless to re

ceive submission." I do not find fault with this answer; it was becoming the representative of a great nation; but I mention it only to shew the inconsistency of administration; or at least their divided opinions and conduct upon the same subject. Is rebellion in Europe different in its nature from what it is in America? Are our subjects in America, taken with arms in their hands, the last stage of resistance to the civil power, to be treated as fair, open, alien enemies? and is the mere suspicion of the same crime in Europe to be treated with all the rigour due to acts of the most deliberate and inveterate treason? I suspect this Bill is only to save appearances. Has any man been brought to judgment? Has any man been convicted or discharged? I have heard of none. The conduct of administration is, in my opinion, preposterous and absurd. The Bill is unnecessary. It creates a power to confine people, who in the end, must come in under the faith of a cartel. Either, therefore, let the Bill expire, or preserve something like uniformity of conduct, by dissolving the cartel.

The Attorney General replied, that when the Bill was passed, a necessity existed. The same motives still continued. It was to hold persons in certain situations, or prevent mischiefs arising from acts, which in most cases must, from their nature, be otherwise accompanied with impunity. This, however, was not the time to dispute the propriety of the proposed law: the motion was only for leave; when it came in the form of a Bill, that would be the proper time to make objections.

Mr. Baker said, that the crown had asked for powers, and obtained them; but he had not learned, that they were exercised in any one instance; but in confining persons, and obliging them to suffer a species of imprisonment, no less cruel and unprecedented, than disgraceful to the character of the English nation. The miseries those people, now shut up in the several gaols of the kingdom, suffered, he had heard, were intolerable. He emphatically desired to know the reason, why they had not been brought to their trials, bailed, or discharged? and observed, there was a passage in the speech, of the last session, which promised, that the laws should be faithfully carried into execution; but that, in the answer to the speech from that House, no notice was taken of that passage.

Leave was given to bring in the Bill.
$

Nov. 27. Sir Grey Cooper brought in the said Bill, which was read a first time. Mr. Baker said, he intended to have made his opposition to the introduction of the Bill, but was prevented by the hurry in which it was brought into the House. As that was no longer in his power, he would oppose it in its present stage, and accordingly moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying him to order a correct return and full description of all the prisoners, with an account of the prisons in which they are confined in America as well as Great Britain, together with copies of their several commitments, and the bail, &c. offered for their enlargement, and all other proceedings of his Majesty's privy council, in consequence of the power vested in them by the late Bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, to be laid before this House."

Mr. Cornwall wished to know what were the consequences the hon. gentleman wanted to draw from the desired information.

Mr. Baker replied, that having reason to imagine that there were few or none taken up by virtue of the suspension of that Act, his object was to prove, from official information, that the Act had not had any effect; that no reason existed which could demonstrate that there is any greater cause now to renew it, than there had been at first to enact it; and that consequently it would be an unjustifiable measure to suspend the operation of so important an Act as the Habeas Corpus.

Sir Grey Cooper replied, that such an enquiry was unnecessary, and indeed nugatory, for it was impossible for administration to force the Bill into operation, if the parties, who might think themselves aggrieved in the first instance, declined to avail themselves of that mode of redress which the Bill held out. There was nothing new in the suspension of the Habeas Corpus law; it had been frequently suspended since the Revolution when the exigencies of public affairs required, first in king William's time, and afterwards in 1715 and 1745; but if the hon. gentleman wished to know the names, numbers, and other particulars stated in his motion relative to those unhappy persons, he for his part had no objection.

Mr. Baker answered, that the object of his motion was simply this; that the enquiry of the House should be co-extensive with the exercise of powers it had dele

shilling in the pound was laid upon land, the whole was raised on some estates agreeably to the old assessment, and some to the new, by which estates in general were most unfairly and unequally taxed. As an instance of this, he declared, that he had one estate in Middlesex, of 180l. yearly value, for which he paid no more than 16. a year land-tax; and another estate in Bedfordshire, for which he paid 50%. yearly, though the rental of both were nearly equal. This great difference arose from the one estate paying to the rate of the old assessment, and the other to the new he would, therefore, move as an amendment to the vote for the present year's supply, and as an equal, fair, and impartial inode of taxing the landed property of the kingdom, that the Bill should pass for 3s. in the pound, to be raised on every estate agreeably to the old assess ment, and that a new assessment be made throughout the kingdom for the additional shilling.

The Chairman observed, that the motion before the House was not about the mode of assessing, but whether 4s. and no more shall be the land-tax for the ensuing year.

Mr. Baker said, the hon. member's observation was worthy of the attention of the committee; it was not against the proposed resolution, but against the mode of assessing. His intentions were, plainly, when the tax demanded an additional shilling, that a sum of money should be raised on the lands under-rated, till the assessments were equal throughout the kingdom, and the deficiency, if any should remain, to be fairly and proportionably levied on all the lands in the kingdom. For his part, he should go farther, for whether the land-tax were laid at above or under 3s., he was of opinion, that justice would never be done, till an equitable mode of rating all property subject to the land-tax was adopted.

Lord Ongley said, the fact was true, but the conclusion called for a further explanation. Those who derived titles from their ancestors, were most certainly bound by their acts; and such as purchased gave a price proportioned to the mode which prevailed in the country or place where the lands or estate lay. The hon. member who spoke first furnished him with an argument against what he advanced; for if he was to purchase in either of the shires mentioned, he should be glad to know from that gentleman, whether he would

give as great a price in a county where the tax was collected to the full extent, as where it did not pay perhaps above half or a third of the real value? certainly not: the burden on the land was always estimated and allowed for out of the full purchase.

Colonel Barré. I rise to trouble the committee with a few sentiments on the question of the day. Not a single country gentleman has risen to speak of peace, or to complain of war. Their supineness, or their acquiescence, deserves the severest reprehension. If they are blind to the distresses of their country, they ought to be awakened; if they are ignorant, they ought to be informed; if indolent, they ought be aroused. In a few words, I will shew them the magnitude of the present calamitous war, the effects it has produced, and the expectations we are led to enter. tain of it. No less a sum than 13 million of money was voted by this House for the service of the war for last year; a sum equal to any ever necessary, ever requested, ever granted for the service of any foreign war from the Conquest up to this day, excepting alone, the grants for the four last years of the late war with the House of Bourbon, and the grants for one single year more, 1711, in the reign of queen Anne, when a very large sum of the national debt was paid off, and many considerable public services performed. This year we have already voted more than 3 million for the navy. On Wednesday we shall vote 3 million more for the army; and in due course, the other votes will pass for a sum equal to that of last year. Such are the effects of this American war. us view the expectations; are we, by conquest, to be relieved from this immense burden of taxation? No; there is no conquest aimed at; we wish not to subdue the Americans for the purpose of drawing a revenue from the country: our administrators say that is not the object of the contest; they own that the Americans will not be able to bring a revenue into our Exchequer. We mean alone, it seems, to reduce them to obedience, for the sake of national honour. We exercise every effort of warlike oppression against them, because they will not crouch at our feet, and make the first submission. This is a war of punctilio, not of profit; and we may fairly conclude, that even after its adjustment, we shall be nearly as much taxed to prevent, as we are now to maintain war. It has of old been the custom

Let

that may be advanced on that supposition; in such an event the worst that can then happen, will be to withdraw our troops and fleets from North America, and attack our foreign enemies.

of this House to enquire for, and to require such papers as were deemed of consequence. On this day, in particular, it was usual of old to call for particular accounts of the arrears of the land-tax; of the net receipts, of the names of the receivers; of what part they had paid into the Exchequer, and of what part was remaining in their hands. But of late, I am sorry to say it, we have made no such requisitions. Necessary as they are to the security of our constituents, we have either neglected or not dared to do it. Such requisition, however, shall be made. If no worthier person rises to demand them, I will whenever the Speaker resumes the chair; and in the mean time shall with sorrow repeat, that no country gentleman has risen this day to ask or to wish for peace.

Lord Ongley went into a relation of the motion made the first day of the session for a cessation of hostilities. He laughed at its absurdity, and said, should any such measure be adopted, it would most certainly be imputed to a consciousness of our inability to support the war, or of the injustice of its commencement; and he hoped no gentleman would wish for either. He observed, that the country gentlemen had been called upon by the last hon. gentleman who spoke, and who had taken such pains to exaggerate the expence of the American war, and compare it with that of former wars. This, in his opinion, was wide of the question, and proved nothing. We were contending for a right, which if relinquished in the manner wished by those who opposed the present measure, would most certainly terminate in the loss of America, and end in the ruin of this country. The hon. gentleman took it for granted, that though we should establish the right, all expectations of revenue were no more. To persist therefore, is only to contend for a point of honour; to fight for a punctilio, without the least prospect of profit. I beg leave to differ from him: I contend a right established, and not meant to be exercised, is no right. We are heavily taxed ourselves, and it is but reasonable that when we shall compel the colonies to return to their duty, they should contribute in common with the rest of their fellow subjects, in support of that government whose protection they will equally partake of. The hon. gentleman says, that a war with France and Spain is inevitable. I doubt it much, if for no other reason, but because we are so well prepared to defeat their designs. But granting every thing

What more

Sir Herbert Mackworth minutely elucidated the motives which gave rise to the American war, enumerated the still stronger motives for its progress, and expatiated on the conduct of those members whose opposition to the present measures had irritated the Americans. He was convinced there was not a member but wished for peace with America; but then, how was peace to be obtained? It has been said, by persuasion; but by what arguments can you persuade people who say," "we will kill you, or you shall kill us ;" in such a case we are entirely on the defensive. Government have left every opening for a conciliation. can be done? Terms of peace would be gladly accepted, and as far as consistent we met them, but what can be said of those people who enlarge a breach of loyalty; as such undoubtedly was the fact. It is well known, that America waited with the utmost impatience for every argument made use of here by her advocates, and with eagerness embraced every suggestion started in her favour: to this, and to this above every thing, was owing the proclaiming independency, as they were taught to believe that they had the sanction of men who could defend, by argument, the cause they believed they could defend by the sword. I cannot enough express the horror I feel in thinking that any man of humanity should urge the unsheathing of the sword, and still more am I shocked to find any one so unfeeling as to aggravate the arm which holds it. He concluded with observing, that it was America continued the war with us, because were they to return to their duty, England would receive them with open arms.

Sir George Savile said, he rose from the desire of speaking a few words, perhaps for the last time on the subject of the American war. He thought himself well intitled to speak on this day. He was member for a body of freeholders, possessed of a large tract of landed property, and when he gave his vote for the supply called for, he appointed a large sum to government; it was his business, therefore, to enquire into the purposes for which it was intended; it was his duty to examine the uses to which it would be ap