peace and reconciliation? Was a reconciliation really intended, or have ministers only in view to delude the nation, and to incense them against the Americans, with the absurd hope of at last compelling them to an unconditional submission? ther; and since we had forced them into Administration, Sir, thought the game desperate, and had only in view their own safety, the preservation of their power, and perhaps a facility in the ensuing loan. They knew the solemn declarations of the Congress to some of the greatest powers of Europe so early as December 1776, and confirmed last November, the basis of which rested solely on their independence. They possess it de facto. I fear we shall be obliged to give it them de jure. If the present propositions are rejected, we cannot hesitate in preferring the acknow ledgment of their independence to an expensive and bloody war, in which at last conquest is admitted to be an impossible and frantic attempt. We ought to enter into a foederal union with them, and endeavour to secure the advantages of the most important trade with America by a commercial treaty, which would be reciprocally advantageous to both countries-unless, indeed, the eloquence of our commissioners can effect what the force of our arms has in vain attempted, their relinquishing the claim of independence. The administration are perfectly acquainted with the various commercial engagements of the colonists, from which they cannot recede. It appeared likewise that the military as well as the civil have concurred in reprobating every idea of a dependance on this country. The sceptre of America is departed from Britain. Three months after the British army had taken their capital, the seat of the The hon. gentleman, Sir, who made you Congress, Philadelphia, Washington gave the motion for the third reading of the it out in general orders from head quarters, Bill, says, the Americans will see, "that Dec. 17, 1777. "We may on the best we do not mean to tax them." They have grounds conclude, that by a spirited con- no confidence, Sir, in any of our profestinuance in the measures necessary for sions or promises. The act of parliament our defence, we shall finally obtain the of the session, or the secretary's official end of our warfare, independence, liberty, letter, they hold in equal contempt. In and peace." In October 1774, the Con- 1765, there was so great a stagnation of gress humbly supplicated his Majesty for our commerce in consequence of the Stamp peace, liberty, and safety. Since that Act, that in the following year that unjust, period, safety had been secured to them as well as uncommercial Act, was repealed, by their own prowess, except indeed on and all the sources of trade between Great some parts of their very extensive coast. Britain and her colonies were again opened, They had since been driven into inde- and flowed in abundance. Notwithstandpendence, and began to taste its sweets. ing this, in the very next year, duties to We had cancelled all the ties by which be paid in America were imposed on tea, the two countries were long held toge-glass, paper, and other articles, which threw the whole empire again into convulsions. America saw that we were not to be confided in during the short period of a single year, and that no tie, even of our own interest, could bind us to any terms of future security for them. It is impossible, without the highest indignation, to reflect from what a height of prosperity we are now in consequence fallen into an abyss of misery and ruin. The dispositions of America in 1766 were most friendly and affectionate. The wise measure of the repeal of the Stamp Act diffused universal joy through the thirteen, now revolted, colonies. At Philadelphia in May 1766, they unanimously came to the following resolutions: "That to demonstrate our zeal to Great Britain, and our gratitude for the repeal of the Stamp Act, each of us will, on the 4th of June next, being the birth day of our most gracious sovereign George the 3rd, dress ourselves in a new suit of the manufactures of England, and give what homespun we have to the poor." What were the unanimous resolutions of the Congress not ten years after, in the very same town? Our enemies have published them to the world with mockery and triumph. With what perfidy has the province of the Jerseys been treated! When that province returned to its allegiance, was it restored to the free exercise of its trade and commerce, and to the same protection and security as if it had never revolted? Or did that province continue under the ban of the empire, as a lucrative job to the friends of the minister? Yet the minister, in the King's name, at the opening of the session of parliament in Oct. 1775, solemnly held out such promises to the Americans. It is impossible that the colonists can have any confidence in such ministers, or their agents, or commissioners; and unless men, as well as measures, are changed, no permanent reconciliation can be effected. Our perfidy may, indeed, possibly be retaliated upon us in a mock treaty and a delusive negociation; but no stable, solid peace can be obtained with the Americans by the authors of their grievances. pendence? Have not the Americans expressed the utmost abhorrence of the ministers, who are to nominate the commissioners, instead of a disposition to treat with them? and will they entertain a more favourable idea of their creatures? I must declare that I see nothing in the intended negociation, but disgrace and humiliation on our part after our repeated injuries, except indeed a lucrative job for five bold, hungry dependents of the minister. Would to God, Sir, I may be mistaken, and that the commissioners may return to Europe with unenvied wealth and bloodless laurels ! Their grateful country will honour them to its latest posterity, and their fame will be immortal. An hon. gentleman (Mr. Burke) one of the greatest ornaments of this House, says, that he "observes great benevolence among us towards the Americans." I heartily wish that I could discover it. Among three sets of gentlemen, mentioned by him, I fear the Americans have very few friends. All the dependents of administration, the large majority in this House, who have voted all the cruel and oppressive Acts now to be suspended, have certainly no great benevolence towards the Americans. Those, who are accustomed to pace in the trammels of a despotic minister, and to be obedient to his sovereign nod, naturally abhor the enthusiastic love of liberty, the uncontrouled spirit of the sons of freedom in America. I suspect likewise that there is not much good-will towards our fellow-subjects in the colonies, among the inhabitants in the northern parts of our own island. It would be a curious speculation to investigate the causes of the marked hatred of the Scots in general to the Americans. Is it, Sir, that although some small parts of America are almost over-run with Tories, as others are with different destructive animals, yet there scarcely ever was found a single Jacobite in all our colonies? Are the Scots in despair, because they have not been able to find any thing in North America congenial with them? They cannot there mingle treason with treason. Is it that, The ear of England, Sir, is rankly believing the present resistance in the coabused by ministers who pretend to as- lonies to partake of the nature of a true sure us of pacific dispositions in the colo- rebellion, they are jealous of such an usurnies, and a desire to return to their depen-pation of the Americans on their peculiar dence on the parent state, when not the least symptom of such a nature has appeared. Has the Congress, or any one colony, made the least overture to a reconiliation, since their deelaration of inde prerogative? Scotland seems, indeed, the natural foyer of rebellion, as Egypt is of the plague; but, Sir, no monopolies in this commercial country are permitted. Manchester and Liverpool would oppose such a monopoly, and justly claim no small share in it, from their vigorous efforts in favour of the Pretender in 1745. It will, Sir, be a new and curious spectacle in 1778, to mark the North pouring forth her hardy sons to quell an American, not to aid a native, rebellion, carefully nursed in our frozen bosom, and afterwards in a tainted part of England kindly tendered and fostered in its progress to the South. The third set of persons, lately mentioned, are the country gentlemen. I respect the character, but I fear many of them are hostile to America and American rights. They are for the most part steady, not burthened or perplexed with many ideas, and perhaps with few of a very liberal nature. A single principle appears of late to have governed them. They hoped to throw off from their shoulders on the poor Americans a considerable part of the enormous burdens, under which they groan, of the debts of their late adopted German, and the present American, war. The noble lord with the blue ribbon had assured them of a solid and substantial revenue from America. On this plan of private economy to them the minister bargained for their support. Their disappointment, and the sense of his jockeyship, has undoubtedly much chagrined them--but I will not dwell on this subject. Their eyes seem to be opening, just as they are drowning. Another hon. gentleman (Mr. Gilbert) complains, "that every thing respecting the public is in a great degree neglected, and that some of our most important concerns are scarcely regarded." He has accordingly, with much good sense, held out to the House the idea of a committee to examine into the expenditure of the public money during this war. I agree with him, that nothing is now secure, or indeed properly taken care of except the Protestant succession. His proposals meet my full and warm approbation. Another committee, however, seems to me still more immediately necessary, a committee to enquire into the nature and causes of the failure of the Canadian expedition, for we cannot hide the nation's scar. sorry to be informed that the House is to be prorogued at Easter, for I fear we cannot in this session undertake both these important concerns. The enquiry into the Canadian expedition, the loss of a British army, and the horrid cruelties said to be committed on our fellow-subjects, are of the first importance, both to vindicate I am the honour of our sovereign, and the humanity of the nation. I am shocked, Sir, at the false rumours daily spread, and the foul reproaches cast on the common father of all his people. It is circulated in print, Sir, that on the 17th of October, after Burgoyne's capitulation, in which Gates demonstrated a refined sense of honour, unparalleled in European armies, the British general was received with respect, and dined with the American hero; that nothing unkind was said to him, except asking "how he could find in his heart to burn the poor country people's houses wherever he passed;" and that he answered, " that it was the King's orders." From all the letters of Burgoyne it has been repeatedly asserted, that the project of the Canadian expedition originated from the closet of the King, and the office of the American Secretary; and that the employing the savages against our fellowsubjects was among the primary ideas adopted on that occasion. The American Secretary, in a letter to general Carleton, dated Whitehall, March 26, 1777, says, "As this plan cannot be advantageously executed without the assistance of Canadians and Indians, his Majesty strongly recommends it to your care to furnish both expeditions with good and sufficient bodies of those men. And I am happy in knowing that your influence among them is so great, that there can be no room to apprehend you will find it difficult to fulfil his Majesty's intentions." In the "Thoughts for conducting the war from the side of Canada, by general Burgoyne,” which were approved by the King, Burgoyne desires a thousand or more savages. Colonel Butler was directed to distribute the King's bounty-money among such of the savages as would join the army; and, after the delivery of the presents, he asks for 4,011. York currency more, before he left Niagara. He adds, in a letter on our table, "I flatter myself that you will not think the expence, however high, to be useless, or given with too lavish a handI waited seven days, to deliver them the presents, and give them the hatchet, which they accepted, and promised to make use of it." This letter is dated Ontario, July 28, 1777. In another from the same officer it is said, "The Indians threw in a heavy fire on the rebels, and made a shocking slaughter with their spears and hatchets The success of this day will plainly shew the utility of your excellency's constant support of my un wearied endeavours to conciliate to his Majesty so serviceable à body of allies." This is a letter from colonel Butler to sir Guy Carleton, dated " Camp before Fort Stanwix, Aug. 15, 1777." Burgoyne's barbarous proclamation appears to be only a consequence of his sanguinary instructions. "I humbly laid myself at his Majesty's feet for such active employment as he might think me worthy of. This was the substance of my audience on my part. I undertook it, and I now report to your lordship, in the hope of your patronage in this pursuit; a hope, my lord, founded not only upon a just sense of the honour your lordship's friendship must reflect upon me, but also upon a feeling that I deserve it, in as much as a solid respect, and sincere personal attachment can constitute such a claim." In his letter of June 22, 1777, he seems to have fully entered into the ideas of his principal; for he says, "that he met the Indians yesterday in congress, and gave them a war-feast according to their custom," of which warfeast we know the most solemn ceremony to be drinking human blood out of the skulls of their enemies. In the same conference he consents to the mangling of the dead, for he says that he "allowed the Indians to take the scalps of the dead." Surely, Sir, an enquiry into those horrors, and the failure of an expedition which has not only disgraced our arms, but degraded the name of Englishmen, and fixed a foul stain on our national character, is still more worthy of our enquiry than even the waste of public treasure, although we are, fear, if the war continues, too near the brink of a general bankruptcy. General Gates's letters have informed the world with what savage ferocity and cruelty the Indians carried on a war, to which they were so strongly invited. An Indian campaign is known to be productive of every species of torture, to which the human frame is subject. In the last campaign scarcely fewer women and children in some parts where the war raged with the greatest fury, expired under the torture of the tomahawk and scalpingknife, than were killed by the sword or bayonet among those who bore arms. Colonel Butler's letter to sir Guy Carleton of July 28th says, "many of the prisoners were, conformable to the Indian custom, afterwards killed." Has the Secretary at War, (lord Barrington), yet thanked the savages in the King's name for their alacrity? I have not had time fully to examine the numerous papers on our table, and therefore I am ignorant whether we have any letter from his lordship similar to that from the War-of-I fice, of the 12th of May, 1768, "that having had the honour of mentioning to I observe, Sir, that gentlemen have this the King the behaviour of the detach- day been very fond of giving advice to ments from the several tribes of Indians, ministers. I am not fond at any time of which have lately been employed in scalp-giving advice, but I will for once follow ing and tomahawking his American subjects, he has great pleasure in informing the general, that his Majesty highly approves of the conduct both of the Indian chiefs and the men, and means that his royal approbation should be communicated to them through the general. Employing Indians in such a service gives him [the Secretary at War] pain, but it is necessary. He hopes they will continue to perform their duty with alacrity. Every possible regard shall be shewn to their zeal, and they shall have the protection of the law, and this office, under every disagreeable circumstance." the example. My advice then, Sir, to administration is, to supplicate his Majesty to order an immediate cessation of arms in North America, and to recall his forces. Humanity and justice call aloud for this measure. The minister has at last confessed, we cannot conquer America. To what purpose then are more torrents of blood to be shed? The Americans will accept, or they will reject, your propositions. If they are accepted, the war is at an end by concession. If they are rejected, the end of the war, conquest, has been found, and is now acknowledged to be, impracticable. The shedding of the Mr. Burgoyne held himself out as an blood therefore of a single man for an obactive agent on this occasion, not by theject, which confessedly cannot be obtained, slightest mention of any supposed military talents, but by such abject flattery of the American Secretary, as I hope no other man in Europe could commit. He declares in a letter to lord George Germaine, dated from Hertford-street, Jan. 1, 1777, is not only unjustifiable, but highly criminal. Many of the measures of opposition have been at length adopted by ministers. I hope this, the most important of all, will have the same success. An immediate cessation of arms was proposed the very first day of this session, by an excellent young nobleman on this side the House (the marquis of Granby). It will do more than all your commissioners can without it. Perhaps it may save Howe from the fate of Burgoyne. It will give time for cooling on both sides, and at least shew that you are relenting towards your brethren, and eager for that peace and reconciliation, which alone can form the solid happiness of both countries, and must be devoutly wished by every friend to their mutual prosperity. It may save the fragments of this dismembered empire, for I own I shall tremble for the fate of Canada, nearly lost three years ago, as well as for Nova Scotia, the Two Floridas, and even the West Indian islands, if the powerful confederacy of the Thirteen United Colonies continues. men. Sir, I heartily wish success to these Conciliatory Bills, and that we may regain by treaty what we have lost by tyranny and arms. I would agree to almost any treaty rather than continue this ruinous war, which has cost already above thirty millions sterling, and the loss of 20,000 I entirely approve the effort, although I have my fears that it is made too late. Still, sat benè, si sat citò. Let the experiment however be tried, and may both Britain and America again form one powerful empire on the principles of equal liberty, just, mild, commercial, and tolerant! We shall then be able to stand the shock of all the adverse powers of the world, again feared and respected abroad, and at home a great, united, and happy people. The Bill was then passed. Debate in the Lords on a Motion for the Attendance of the Surveyor of the Navy.] Feb. 25. The Duke of Bolton moved, "That the Surveyor of his Majesty's Navy do attend this House on the 2d of March." The Earl of Sandwich said, that the enquiry into the State of the Nation had already been pushed further than was warranted either by prudence or policy; that with regard to the State of the Navy, for his own part, he cared not how closely the subject was investigated; but viewing the matter as a statesman, he could not withhold his objections to the present motion. It was not possible for it to answer any good purpose, and if carried, might do much mischief. The Duke of Bolton replied that, from what the first lord of the Admiralty had so often said respecting the flourishing state of the navy, he little expected to see him rise and impede that inquiry which tended to prove what the noble earl declared he wished all the world knew. All he aimed at was to obtain authentic information, and at this critical period to convince the nation of the real state of the navy. No person was, surely, so proper to throw light upon the subject as the Surveyor of the Navy; the propriety or impropriety of the questions might be determined at the time of putting them. He meant not to inquire into the state of the ordinary, or to press upon any tender ground; but merely to interrogate as to the condition of the ships in commission, which he conceived to be a fair object of inquiry. The Lord Chancellor said, that to examine the Surveyor of the Navy, who, of course, was in every secret respecting the state of the ships in actual service, or preparing for service, was, in his opinion, highly impolitic. The first lord of the Admiralty had repeatedly declared the navy to be in a flourishing condition, and he did not doubt but it was so. To what end, then, examine an officer at the bar, whose examination, most probably, would tend to divulge matters which ought to be kept secret? Two hundred questions or more might be put to him, for nobody could foretell either their number or their nature. It was no justification, therefore, of the present motion, for the noble duke singly to declare, that he would not press upon tender ground, much less was it a justification of it for his grace to remind their lordships that it was in their power to prevent any improper questions being. put; such a prevention or refusal would have a worse effect than a compliance with every question that could be proposed; for men without doors would naturally imagine, that the answer must necessarily have been more alarming than possibly it would have turned out. The Duke of Richmond said, he hardly knew in what manner to reply to the strange objection which he had just heard made to the noble duke's motion; the lords in office were determined to preclude parliament from reaping any benefit from the enquiry. There had not been a single proposition, tending to obtain information as to the real state of the nation, which had not been objected to, and denied since the enquiry was begun. To what end, then, pursue the enquiry? Let their |