Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

into convulsions. The Stamp Act ought, | moment I should hope the rude clamours in my idea, to have been repealed on the of war would cease, and the gentle voice first great principles of justice, not on the of peace be heard. I trust therefore in narrow ground of political expediency, or this time of general consternation, in this from any commercial motives. I was day of distress and disgrace to our counabroad at the time, and may have been try, that there will be a perfect unison of misinformed; but if I am not, the repeal sentiment among us, an universal concurwas absolutely necessary to lay the storm, rence in this first preliminary of peace. which raged with the greatest fury, both here among the merchants, and in North America, after the passing of the Stamp Act. The repeal was warmly opposed by some of the royal family, and the favourite in the House of Lords, by his family and friends in both Houses, by the whole cabinet, the lords of the bed-chamber, and almost all the King's and Queen's households. Perhaps the repeal had not been carried, but by the compromise of this Declaratory Act. I am satisfied, that the administration, which passed that Act, never intended to inforce it at least by taxation. The new ministry however in the succeeding year built on this solid foundation of a right to taxation, which they saw was established for them. They laid duties on tea, glass, red and white lead, painter's colours, and other things. The right had been ascertained by their predecessors. The only objections, which could now be made, were the inexpediency and impolicy of the exercise in those instances, and at that period. If I had been in England, Sir, at that time, and in parliament, I should strenuously have opposed the principle of the Declaratory Act; but I was forced into a cruel exile and outlawry by the wickedness and injustice of one administration, and kept abroad by the tameness and timidity of another. I was persecuted with extreme rage and violence by a set of men who thought themselves injured, and abandoned by those I had essentially served, who before encouraged me, and approved my conduct. I was made their scape goat, doomed to bear into the wilderness the sins and iniquities of a great political party, when in opposition. Surely, Sir, their sins and iniquities must have been of a deep dye, and remain still unexpiated, for ipse aries etiam nunc vellera siccat.' I would, Sir, in this important business of the repeal of the Declaratory Act, persuade myself that there is not an obstinacy of opinion, a tenaciousness of adhering to what we have once done, merely because we have done it. It seems very clear, that we can have no peace, till the accursed thing is removed from our camp." From that happy

I have only mentioned, Sir, the repeal of the Declaratory Act, but I mean afterwards to submit to the House another motion for the repeal of the whole system of new statutes and regulations respecting America since 1763. I fix on that period, because the Congress complain of nothing prior to that æra. They have never hinted at the repeal of the Navigation Act, nor any other Acts before that year. In the petition of the Congress to the King, in October 1774, they say, "from this destructive system of colony administration, adopted since the conclusion of the last war, have flowed those distresses, dangers, fears, and jealousies, that overwhelm your Majesty's dutiful colonies with afflic tion; and we defy our most subtle and inveterate enemies to trace the unhappy differences between Great Britain and these colonies from an early period, or from other causes than we have assigned, &c. &c. We present this petition only to obtain redress of grievances, and relief from fears and jealousies, occasioned by the system of statutes and regulations adopted since the close of the last war." In the same year the Congress declared to the people of Great Britain, "place us in the same situation that we were at the close of the last war, and our former harmony will be restored." It is an explicit offer of a compact between the two countries. Their language was exactly the same in the following year, in their last petition to the throne. They were alarmed by a new system of statutes and regulations, adopted for the administration of the colonies, that filled their minds with the most painful fears and jealousies." Here then, Sir, Great Britain is at issue with the colonies. Repeal these unjust and injurious Acts, and our former harmony will be restored. We shall hear no more of the sword and bayonet on one side, nor the scalpingknife and tomahawk on the other. There will be no more effusion of human blood, no heart-piercing cries of whole families most cruelly butchered, or expiring under tortures.

[ocr errors]

I fear, Sir, that I have intruded too long on the patience of the House. I wish not

to tire gentlemen. I am sure, I had rather hear any voice than my own within these walls; but I must beg, on a business of this moment, a little farther indulgence to give, as briefly as I can, a general account of the other Acts, which I hope will be repealed. I begin with the 4th of the King, From that period of this inauspicious and inglorious reign, a regular and uniform system of attack on the rights and privileges, both of America and Great Britain, has been, except during a short interval, invariably pursued, under the direction, I believe, of the real minister. We shall now see how this system has operated in a variety of Acts against our brethren in the colonies of North America. The 4th of the King, ch. 15, is, "An Act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America, &c." Another Act of the same year is ch. 34. "An Act to prevent paper bills of credit, hereafter to be issued in any of his Majesty's colonies or plantations in America, from being declared to be a legal fender in payments of money, &c." In the following year the "Act to alter certain rates of postage, &c." In the 6th of the King, "An Act for repealing certain duties in the British colonies and plantations, &c. and for granting other duties instead thereof, &c. &c." The subsequent year teemed with two births fatal to American liberty. I mean the "Act to enable his Majesty to put the customs and other duties in the British dominions in America, &c. under the management of commissioners, &c." I must, however, declare, that I believe the hope of providing for the numberless hungry dependents and sycophants, who daily and hourly beseech and besiege the minister, gave rise to this statute. The other Act of the same year, intitled, " An Act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America, &c. &c." I shall move to be only in part repealed; for so much of it as relates to the duties on glass, red and white lead, painters' colours, paste-boards, mill-boards, and scale-boards, is already repealed by the 10th of the King, ch. 17. Then, Sir, follows the Act in the 8th of the King, intituled, "An Act for the more easy and effectual recovery of the penalties and forfeitures inflicted by the acts of parliament relating to the trade or revenues of the British colonies and plantations in America." These Acts are objected to, because duties are imposed by them for the purpose of raising a revenue in America. They take away the trial by

jury, and extend the powers of the Admiralty courts beyond their ancient and legal jurisdiction. The 12th of his Majesty, ch. 24, I propose to repeal, because persons committing a variety of offences specified in that Act, out of this realm, may be tried in any county within this realm. This is directly contrary to the first principles of the constitution, which gives a right to a trial by a jury of the vicinage, who are justly supposed best to know the party accused. The same objection holds in full force against the Act in 1774, intituled, "An Act for the impartial adminis tration of justice in the cases of persons questioned for any acts done by them in the execution of the law, or for the suppres sion of riots and tumults in the province of the Massachuset's Bay in New Eng land." Another Act, in the same year, ch. 45, takes away the charter granted to the inhabitants of the province of Massa chuset's Bay by the glorious William 3. The Quebec Act followed, which totally annihilated the mild and equal system of English laws, and established French tyranny and the Romish religion in their most abhorred extent. The Romish clergy by the said Act may claim "to hold, receive, and enjoy, their accustomed dues and rights; and no person professing the Romish religion is obliged to take the oath required by the statute in the 1st year of queen Elizabeth." The ministers of the established church of England were, as usual, totally neglected by the Scottish father of this Act, and even those of his own kirk in this instance. Then comes the sweeping Act against the whole thirteen provinces, intituled, "An Act to prohibit all trade and intercourse with the colonies of New Hampshire, Massachuset's Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the three lower counties on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, &c. &c." which trade and intercourse brought into Great Britain, communibus annis,' near two millions an nually. The last Act I shall mention is worthy of completing the black catalogue. It is the Act of the last session, " to im power 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," which is now continued another year. It is sufficient to say of this Act, that it suspends the Habeas Corpus Act,

[ocr errors]

hint or two? I think that they need not quarrel yet, for hitherto I observe no vacancy on the Treasury bench. Another thing I would just mention. Perhaps it might be prudent for both the parties to attend a little to the opinion of our common master.. Lord Hillsborough's Circular Letter to all our governors on the continent and islands has been brought into this House for various purposes. I shall now make use of it to convince both parties, all parties, every gentleman, of the necessity of a speedy reconciliation with the colonies, from the declared sentiments of our sovereign. The conclusion of that famous Letter is in the following words; "His Majesty relies upon your prudence and fidelity for such an expla nation of his measures, as may tend to remove the prejudices which have been excited by the misrepresentations of those who are enemies to the peace and prosperity of Great Britain and her colonies, and to re-establish that mutual confidence and affection, upon which the glory and safety of the British empire depend."

which judge Blackstone declares to be "a second Magna Charta, and stable bulwark of our liberties;" not very stable however, Sir, in this reign, no more than our liberties. There are, besides those which I have mentioned, three other Acts complained of by our brethren in America. The first is the Boston Port Act, which passed in 1774. It was repealed in 1776; but the substance of it was re-enacted in the same general Act, the 16th of the King, ch. 5. The Act likewise to restrain the trade and commerce of the provinces of Massachuset's Bay and New Hampshire, &c. &c." is exactly in the same predicament. It was repealed and re-enacted in the same moment. The 3d Act alluded to is "for providing suitable quarters for officers and soldiers in his Majesty's service in North America." It passed in 1774, and expired at Lady-day, 1776. These three Acts I therefore omit. Perhaps I may have ed over some other obnoxious statutes since 1763; but I mean, Sir, to propose the repeal of the whole system of the late American statutes and regulations, without which it is my fixed opinion you can have I believe, Sir, that I have demonstrated no permanent tranquillity, nor shall we to the House, how absolutely impossible see the dawn of peace in our time. I it is that mutual confidence and affection believe the repeal of the Declaratory Act, can return between Great Britain and her and the other statutes, to be the necessary colonies, till this Declaratory Act, the foundation for a negociation, if we are foundation of the contest, the root of the really in earnest to save a sinking state, if evil, is done away. We are evidently in we hope to regain our colonies, not to ruin a declining, and shall soon be in a despeor abandon them, nor to exterminate their rate, state, if this remedy is not immediately inhabitants. I would treat America as the applied. I therefore think it my clear duty, sister, not the subject, of England. Bo- not only for the glory, but the very safety of logna in Italy is styled the sister, not the the British empire, to move, “That leave subject, of Rome. I remember the city be given to bring in a Bill to repeal an Act, of Bologna has the word 'libertas' in the passed in the 6th year of his present Mafirst quarter of her arms. I wish that god-jesty, intituled, An Act for the better dess all-powerful in every quarter of Italy, of America, of the world.

pass

I was not present, Sir, in the House last Friday evening, but I have heard of the curious political race here at that time between two distinguished parties in the opposition, as if the ministers were now fairly run down, and all that remained was to divide the spoil. I was told of very dextrous management, of much cutting and shuffling, of a variety of propositions hinted at, on one side of abandoning the colonies on certain terms of advantage, on the other of giving up some rights, and enforcing others with vigour. I have no connection with either party, nor with any party of the state. Provoco ad populum will ever continue my motto. But may I venture, Sir, to give both these parties a

[ocr errors]

securing the dependency of his Majesty's dominions in America upon the crown and parliament of Great Britain."

Lord Beauchamp said, the Declaratory law became necessary, when the Stamp Act was repealed. He would not pretend to decide, whether the repeal was a wise measure; but certainly the sovereignty of this country would have been abandoned, if the Declaratory Act had not maintained it. The law was no new law; it was only a declaration of what the law had been, and was, previous to its being passed. The law was disputed; the true constitutional connection between both countries controverted or denied; Great Britain was therefore called upon to make a declarative assertion of its ancient indubitable claim, which was the supremacy of its legislature,

and the dependency and civil subordina- | tion of our colonies. His lordship added, that if any such proposition as that before the House should become necessary, now was not the proper time, the 2nd of February being appointed for general enquiry; he should therefore move the previous question.

Lord North observed, that the motion went only to a repeal of all the laws passed respecting America, since 1763. Why confine it to so short a period? Why does not the hon. gentleman's motion go back to 1662? Why does it not go to the repeal of the Navigation Act, the Postoffice Act, the Slitting-mill and Hat-manufactory Acts, the Act for restraining the paper currency of the colonies, and to some others of a like sort, which assert, as strongly and as roundly as any subsequent law, the supreme power of this country, to bind America in all cases whatsoever, and our power to tax them, at least so far as may be necessary to the regulation of their commerce, and the securing to us the monopoly of their trade. I can assure the hon. gentleman, that he is mistaken, if he thinks a partial repeal will content America: the Navigation, and every other restrictive Act, must first give way to their unreasonable demands; and, with them, the sovereignty of this country. He said, the motion was unseasonable, nor would he ever consent to a similar one, if there were not strong reasons to believe, that a repeal of those laws were the only impediment in the way of a return of our colonies to their constitutional obedience and dependency. He denied, that James the 2nd's conduct was justified on Tory principles. The moderate Tories were lovers of law and legal liberty; they proved it; for when that infatuated monarch endeavoured to trample on the laws of the land, they deserted him. That prince, having broke the laws, justly forfeited his crown. He replied to some other parts of Mr. Wilkes's speech, and asked him if he had not one tear to shed for that ill-fated general, Mr. Burgoyne? His lordship begged, however, not to be understood that no motion of concession, on similar ground to that now before the House, could be made with propriety, at any future period. He meant no such thing; propositions for treaty and conciliation might become necessary. The moment for making them would depend upon circumstances; those circum[VOL. XIX.]

stances must arise out of the state of the war; from domestic situation; from the disposition of both countries. That moment was not yet arrived; when it should, it would come accompanied by its own reasons; it would present itself in a different form from the present. When it did arrive, he should most cheerfully co-operate in the desirable work of peace. On these grounds, he must however, for the present, vote for the previous question.

Mr. Temple Luttrell. Much has been said upon the employing of savage Indians in the present unhappy contest; and very opposite ideas on that subject have arisen among gentlemen of exalted character in either House of Parliament. That every excess and violence is justifiable in carrying on a war, I can never admit; it is contrary to the maxims of the soundest writers on war and peace; contrary to the principles and practice of the most renowned and enterprizing commanders throughout all ages of the world. What desperate extirpator of the human race since the days of Hercules and Theseus, has waged war with the dead? or flead the skin from the temples of innocent women and children? or ripped open their bodies to banquet on their entrails? Such acts of brutal ferocity have been reserved for the allies of modern Englishmen and Christians, against their fellow-subjects on the other side of the Atlantic. Recollect, Sir, one of the greatest generals that ever lived nobly refused to avail himself of the treachery of the king of Epirus's physician, though he might thereby have taken off the most powerful enemy his country had ever contended with. And the following observation of that illustrious dictator, Camillus, is given us by a celebrated Greek historian, who with just and animated encomiums has recorded his splendid series of victories and public triumphs. "War," says Camillus, "is at best of a savage nature, and wades through seas of violence and blood; yet, even war has its laws, from which men of honour and true martial gallantry will never depart; nor will they pursue the paths of conquest through deeds of horror or perfidiousness." I confess it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to draw a precise line how far certain instruments or modes of war are, in the general acceptation of the term, allowable. In every contest much must depend upon the nature, circumstances, and object of the quarrel. Sir, if a band of ruffians should break open your [2 P]

dwelling-house, with intent to steal your effects, perhaps deprive you of life, and you could arrest their purpose by tempting them with a deadly chalice in their way, would you, even upon the strictest rules of Christianity, scruple to avail yourself of such preventive artifice? But, were you called upon to stake your life against an adversary for mere matter of punctilio, do you not conceive, that the same spirit and principle of honour which urged you forth into the field of combat, would restrain you from the plots of a dark assassin, and cause the feelings of your soul to revolt against any vindictive barbarity? We, Sir, avowedly fight against equity and truth. We, Sir, avowedly fight for false dignity, and a mere feather. The colonists wage defensive war against the invaders of their country; against the violaters of their undoubted constitutional rights; they fight pro aris et focis. The Indian savage opposed to the German savage, the envenomed arrow or poisoned springs, might in them be deemed justifiable expedients for self-preservation, that paramount law of nature. But the hon. mover has proved, that the Congress attempted only to negociate a neutrality with the Indians. Sir, the Congress abhorred the thought of those savages being made parties in our unhappy dispute. How, then, are these sanguinary proclamations issued in Canada, and the use of the tomahawk and the scalping-knife, which indiscriminately butcher the innocent with the guilty, to be justified before God or man? These excruciating instruments vie with the wheel for such lingering tortures as the milder laws of tender hearted Englishmen have hitherto always considered as too horrible for the guilt even of our most atrocious convicts-beyond the crimes of a Gardell, or John the Painter. What can be said, Sir, to extenuate the guilt of the ministers facing me; who, viewing the dreadful effects of their tyrannical mandates through the perspective of their political systems, were determined nevertheless to plunge their country in all this misery, and still madly persevere, without deigning to hold forth to the much injured colonists, any explicit and rational conditions of peace.

With permission of the House, I will now say a few words as to the employing of Indian savages during the last war with France, and shall state positive facts only, leaving all moral comments thereupon to the reflections of those who hear me. So long ago as 1725, the French instigated

the Canada Indians, and those of the eastern provinces in general, to murder and scalp the British settlers in New England. One Father Rallé and other bigotted Popish missionaries, were found among the leaders of these inhuman tribes; and France constantly supplied them with arms and ammunition. In 1754, previously to the breaking out of the war, the Indians of the Delaware were instigated by the French to commit a variety of barbarities. They destroyed, at one time, a whole settlement of Moravians, who said, " they trusted to the Lamb of God;" and with the true patience and submission of lambs, were mercilessly butchered, after their women and infants had been scalped before their eyes. In consequence of the unfortunate catastrophe of general Braddock, in the summer of 1755, many of our people were slaughtered by the French Indians. The year following, on the taking of Oswego by the French, our sick and wounded soldiers, while they lay in the hospitals, were likewise slain or scalped. Some months after which, subsequently to the capitulation of Fort William-Henry, the troops of that garrison, who had laid down their arms, underwent a like unhappy fate. Sir, the inhabitants of British America, considering that nothing was more just than that the necis artifices should perish by their own expedients, did, very shortly after Braddock's defeat, in the Massachuset's Bay and colony of Virginia, by authority of provincial assemblies, enter into an alliance with many of the Indian chieftains, endeavouring to gain over, by treaties and presents, their old allies, the Six Nations. Sir William Johnson was the principal manager and negociator on those services. Before this step of retaliation was acceded to by the British provinces in general, several Indian Sachems had fairly represented that, unless the English colonies would employ them, and afford proper support, they must necessarily unite themselves with the enemy. The colony of Massachuset's Bay then offered a premium of 50%. currency for every male Indian above 12 years old, belonging to France, taken prisoner, and 401. for every scalp. The Virginia colony gave similar rewards; so that all this work of blood was begun (though perhaps in such a case indispensably necessary on our part) before the noble earl of Chatham came into office; for he was first appointed Secretary of State in Dec. 1756; and the continental

« ElőzőTovább »