mised them a revenue, and unconditional submission formerly. By the present Bills he promised them peace; and by what he could judge from their texture, he would disappoint them in this, as he had done uniformly from the beginning.

The Earl of Bristol said, he wished for pence with America, but these Bills, so far from being likely to obtain it, would sound the trumpet of war to all the neighbouring nations. In short, the measure was impotent, ignominious and ineffectual.

had ventured a step farther. Instead of calling the war, the war of parliament, or of the people, it was called the King's war, his Majesty's favourite war. The public prints teemed with assertions of this kind. Persons were employed on purpose to write books, pamphlets, and daily publications, in order to disseminate these notions, and make them universal. This, he said, was most insolent and unconstitutional conduct. The King can have no interests, no dignity, no views whatever, distinct from those of his people. The scheme was full of art and perfidy. It was to persuade the body of the people, that the rights of the crown were staked on the issue of the war, which consequently called forth all the friends of monarchy who were ignorant of the deception. The perfidy of this conduct was not more glaring, than the management and address was evident; for, should the war miscarry, ministers had two methods of shifting the odium off their own shoulders. In print and out of doors, the measures were the King's, measures. In that House, and the other, they were the measures of parliament. But, he trusted, the day of reckoning would come, when those subterfuges would avail nothing; when, as they could not be the King's measures, it would be proved they were not the measures of parliament, but of ministers. He hoped they had made no improper impression upon the royal mind; but when such men declared themselves the King's friends, and when their services were accepted of, he trembled for the consequences. His lordship then reminded ministers of their uniform language of supremacy, conquest, or unconditional submission; their frequent predictions; their boastings of our internal and naval strength, and great resources; their assurances of not only the pacific but friendly dispositions of France and Spain; against which he brought, in a strong point of counterview, our defeats, our loss of men, waste of treasure, and threatened war with France; America independent, national weakness, divided councils, sinking credit, ruined finances, and exhausted nation, and, in case of a war with the House of Bourbon, a total inability either to make peace with the colonies, or defend ourselves against the attacks of our foreign enemies. The country gentlemen had been deceived and abused; and they were now, when too late, ready to catch at any thing which might promise peace. The minister pro

Viscount Townshend. My lords, as the noble earl has risen to give his dissent to the Bills before you, I shall request your lordships' attention for a short time, rather to justify my own consistency, than from any utility I can propose by dividing the House upon them. Alas, my lords, the calamity has already prevailed, and the humility and degradation of the British empire has already reached those nations, who have so long revered her reputation and power. It appears useless, therefore, for us to give a negative to the present Bills; introduced by government, and passed by the other House, what can any of us propose afterwards? Who but the House of Commons can support the war? And therefore, my lords, were I to dwell upon this melancholy and degrading subject, it would be more like making a funeral oration over a much-honoured parent, than assisting the desponding family. If I knew any measure, after what has passed, that I could wish to propose, I would join the noble earl in rejecting these ignominious, and I fear ineffectual Bills; but if nothing better can be offered, and our national honour is lost, I own I would rather abide by these puny efforts at conciliation, than that an experiment should be made which could only gratify the purposes of party. And now, my lords, allow me to say a few words upon the subject of ministers, who have been so frequently blamed for this war. It was certainly no war of their seeking; it could be neither their wish to provoke it, nor interest to continue it. It was a melancholy legacy left them by their predecessors in office. What minister would have dared to abandon the constitutional rights of this country? They descended to them by the example of former times, by the statutes and council books, and by the opinion of the greatest lawyers; and, as much use has been made of the names of Whig and Tory, give me leave on this occasion to say, by the firmest Whig lawyers that ever graced this

kingdom, from lord Somers down to lord Hardwicke: upon their decisions and authority, and not upon any presumptuous opinion of my own, I conceived we had right to tax the colonies. How we lost it, I will not enter upon: but I will venture to say, that the fluctuations of councils, the repealing in parliament in one session what you had enacted the preceding, and your own inconsistence, have contributed more to our present disgraceful situation, than all the indiscretion of the ministers, or the disappointments of the war. With respect to the war, it is not a time to enter upon any discussions of it; but I cannot help adverting to what was dropped by a noble earl in the last debate, that if these Bills should prove ineffectual, you might yet contract and improve the powers of this country, as in former times, when this nation made a great figure. I agree with the noble earl, that by this plan, our situation is by no means so desperate as seems to be conceived, although I believe the present humiliating measures must have been derived from some circumstances of dire necessity. I will not ask what this circumstance is, because I wish not to publish it to our enemies. But, my lords, I must observe, that it is the first time I ever heard that a great state, or indeed any small one, suspended its efforts, or despaired of success, because it had lost a corps of 3 or 4,000; or that, because it could not reduce a vast continent in one campaign, gave up the whole object of the Many have advanced, that American affairs were in a worse situation than ever. Let me recall your lordships' attention to that period, when sir William Howe was cooped up in Boston, and brought off his army on short allowance, and no one knew where the winds would carry them, to Halifax, to the West Indies, or perhaps to Ireland! You then gave up Quebec as lost, you trembled for Halifax. You now possess not only Canada, but Halifax, Rhode Island (an admirable post and place of arms): You have gained New York and Long Island, and are in possession of Philadelphia, which perhaps is no more than a second Boston, except its not being commanded by heights. Yet what country is to be reduced by operations in front? what enemy is to be brought to a decisive action he chooses to avoid, having an extent of country behind him, unless you can turn his flanks, or get between him and his magazines? I speak on known principles; I arrogate not the character of

war.

a great officer; I appeal to those who have had greater commands, and know the country better than myself.

Let me ask you then, can you send 20,000 men more to your general, or land them behind Mr. Washington in Virginia, between him and his magazines? If not, let your general there advise you how to change the plan of the war; it is by no means a desperate task: you have still a resource; I will not enter upon it at present; I believe the noble earl who suggested it the other day is well informed upon this point, and I will drop it. I was likewise happy in hearing a noble earl in high office say, we had still resources left. But, my lords, the use I would wish to make of this subject, is, to engage your attention to a part of the British empire, which has seldom offended you, never deserted you, nay, always supported you; to a nation whose utmost efforts in point of produce, inhabitants, and personal exertion, hath been freely and generously devoted to the British empire: it remains, my lords, with your justice and prudence, and that of the government, to consider and cherish at an early hour this great support of your declining empire: your lordships must anticipate the country I allude to. My lords, consider in God's name in time what you owe to that gallant and impoverished country; suffer not your humiliating proposals and offerings to be laid at the feet of the Congress, in whose front of battle, if I am not misinformed, the poor Irish emigrants perform the hardiest service: let us consider that country as a part of ourselves; open the Irish channel to your best service; avail yourselves of her excellent ports; cramp not their industry for purposes I will not mention; shew you can cherish your affectionate, if you cannot reclaim your ungrateful children.

Lord Camden concurred in the sentiments of the noble lord who spoke last, respecting Ireland. He said, Ireland deserved every possible encouragement. We were compelled to it by every motive of interest; we were bound to it by duty; and ought to have been urged to it by gratitude. He hoped to see those narrow short-sighted prejudices, which prevailed in our public counsels respecting Ireland, at length give way to a more wise and liberal system of policy. Ireland, when she experienced the advantages of a mild and wise government, would be impressed with additional reasons to strengthen that

spirit of loyalty and obedience, which had so characteristically distinguished her, under a dominion, he was free to say, far from being gracious or kind. If, therefore, the noble viscount, or any other noble lord, should think proper to move a committee to examine into the nature and extent of the hardships that country suffered, he would most gladly give every assistance in his power to forward an enquiry which must, in his opinion, tend so much to the respective interests, strength, and riches of the two kingdoms. He said, he never heard one solid objection to the taking off the restrictions on the trade of Ireland. He knew, even in a partial, contracted view, they were of real disservice to this country; but upon a more liberal scale, they were actually pernicious. Leave the trade of Ireland open, that kingdom will increase in wealth and population. That wealth will ultimately be yours. Like the blood returning to the heart, the health and vigour of the dependent parts will add new vigour to the whole body. The riches of Ireland, after fructifying that country, will finally rest here; and Ireland, in return, will profit by the opulence, as she will be protected by the power and greatness of the parent state.

His lordship then gave his sentiments on the Bills. He said, in the solemn silence which had been observed by the authors of the present measures, so contrary to all their former declarations, no reason had been assigned for so sudden a change of opinion, but necessity. What have ministers done? They have founded their justification on necessity, without giving you the least intimation what the necessity is, in order that the House may be enabled to judge, whether it is well or ill founded. No, you must trust them in this as in every thing else; they think there is a necessity, and that is sufficient. If you ask them what the necessity is, they are silent, or tell you they do not know. Is it the treaty entered into by the American delegates with France? They know of no such treaty. Is it inability in point of men and money to prosecute the war? Not at all; the resources of this country are great, says a noble lord high in office, and equal to the task of compelling the colonies to agree to reasonable terms of accommodation. Is it that our claims of supremacy and taxation were unjust? Not that neither. Ministers, though they have changed their measures, have not changed their principles. Is it

the want of men? No, the spirit of the nation is high, the war is popular: it is the war undertaken purely to assert the supremacy of parliament and the rights of the people; it is a war of popular rights. What then, is it, in God's name? It is neither a want of men, money, justice, popularity, spirit, nor a fear of being involved in a war with France; but it is necessity; and who can dispute about its existence with the noble lords, who, from their exalted official situations, ought to know best, and have told you? The declaratory Bill, relative to the taxation of America, reserved the right, while it professed to give it up. The purport of it was rather, he said, to express the reluctance with which the claim of taxation was given up in part, than to shew fairly and openly, that America should not be taxed in future. Why not renounce the right at once? Ministers knew the inexpediency of exercising it; they knew they dared not attempt it. Would it not, therefore, be more noble to give it up, explicitly and directly? The mode of meeting the wishes of America in this manner, afforded strong ground of suspicion to the people of that country. Itbespoke a shyness, a dislike to do justice, and agreed with those terms, which the ministers themselves acknowledged, had only originated in the most pressing necessity. Again, the same Bill declares, that the troubles arose on account of misrepresentations relative to the exercise of this right. Then, either we had the right, and are yet competent to exercise it, or we never had it, and grant by the Bill what was never in our power to give. But the right of taxation is still more than implied; it is in fact asserted; for it declares, we will never lay any taxes upon America but to regulate their trade. Is not this an assertion of not only the right, but our intention to exercise that right? Oh, but the monies levied under this authority are to be applied to the uses of the respective colonies where such monies shall be raised. To whom, my lords, is this extraordinary language held? To people who know you act from motives of necessity, and who are wise, sagacious, and penetrating enough to descry, under this pretended candour, concession and good will, the same principles directed towards the attainment of the same objects, though by a different mode. What does the next Bill say? (that for repealing the Act for altering the charter of the province of Massachuset's Bay!) Precisely

the same thing. Instead of condemning the Act, and disavowing the principle on which it was framed, it talks of uneasinesses and misapprehensions. And what more does it contain? Nothing, but a simple repeal, on the same grounds of concealed necessity. Instead of ministers acknowledging themselves the aggressors, or that they proceeded upon misinformation; instead of pledging themselves under the sanction of parliament, that the charters of the respective provinces shall be preserved inviolate, they tell the party aggrieved, that it was their own fault: they assert, by implication at least, that they were right, and justify their present concession on the ground of necessity; a circumstance which would serve to inflame, and not tend to heal the breach between the two countries. When ministers consented to repeal the Charter Act (for he understood the proposition for a repeal did not originate with them) why not declare at once, that this kingdom would never again meddle with a tittle of any of the American charters? Why not in the moment of remedying one grievance, give assurance to the colonies, that they should never have cause for a second complaint of a similar nature.

His lordship came next to the most material of his objections against the Bill for sending out commissioners. This, he said, meant nothing, or worse than nothing; it seemed much better calculated to divide than conciliate. It empowered to do, what? To treat with America, and then return to Europe to consult parliament. This wears a very suspicious appearance. Why not, instead of arming commissioners with powers, not to be regulated, nor of course properly exercised, why not repeal the obnoxious Acts at once? Such a conduct would shew that you were in earnest. The commissioners are charged and restricted by the Bill, to take care of the rights of the crown, and the liberties of the subject; the most vague, indefinite words imaginable. What are those rights? And what are the privileges alluded to? How can men act under such powers? And if they should act under them, what possible security is there, that either the crown or parliament will consent to abide by them? No; blundering as ministers are, ignorant as they have proved themselves, they seem to have taken care, by the terms of this Bill, to disavow its ostensive purposes, whenever they shall get rid of this necessity, which

they seem so desirous to conceal. His lordship asked, why administration could not at the outset have proposed the repeal of the obnoxious Acts all together, previous to the sending out the commissioners? They could not be ignorant, that if America consented to treat at all, she would make that the sine qua non of every species of treaty. The truth is, they want to rest on their arms, and to draw breath; to keep their places in the mean time, and wait for some favourable event, either by dividing America, or when they have got clear of this accursed necessity, return to their old principles, which they have been honest enough to give but nominally up. As a matter of constitutional import, distinct from the Bill, his lordship reprobated in the strongest terms the suspending power vested in the commissioners.

It was a clause of dangerous precedent; and, if he let it pass without à particular opposition on the present occasion, he wished to be understood, that it was not without a high degree of disapprobation; and hereafter, if a similar measure should be repeated, he should most certainly give it a separate and distinct opposition. He added, that if the necessity which the ministry. assigned as a cause for their at this moment adopting a measure repeatedly suggested by opposition, and which a little time since might have been put in practice, with a moral certainty of success, and with a colour of more honour than at present, if that necessity arose from a knowledge of a treaty, offensive and defensive, having been agitated, or signed, between France and America, which had been mentioned, it was the duty of ministers explicitly to tell their lordships how that matter stood. The King's servants could not be ignorant of the truth of the business. It had come out in the lower house of parliament three weeks since; there had been time and time enough for them to have ascertained the fact; nay, report said, that they not only knew it, but that they had sent emissaries to tamper with Dr. Franklin and Mr. Deane, tlie Congress's deputies to the court of France, to whom they had offered the terms which these Bills on the table went to authorize, and the terms had been rejected with contempt. Report, indeed, went further; report said, that they had even applied to the Congress in America: that they had stated every proposition they meant to offer, and that they had been rejected. If the fact were so, his