America, and the vital principle of freedom, which now pervades and animates this ifland, except perhaps a few clans very far north, must have been extinguifhed. Every friend of the conftitution faw early in the fupport of the American caufe a vindication of the rights of Englishmen against an old exploded ufurpation of the Stuarts, revived under the third prince of the Houfe of Brunswick.

Sir, I hope to be forgiven, if I repeat at the beginning of this new Parliament the fentiments, which I more than once fubmitted to the laft, and even in the firft feffion of 1774. I am ftill convinced that the war with America originated in tyranny and ufurpation, in the unjust attempt of taking money from the fubject of the colonies without his concurrence, in levying taxes on the people there against their conHent. This has ever been the favourite maxim of defpotifm. In oppofition to this illegal claim the immortal Hamden hed his blood. Such an attempt against the fundamental rights of the people fully warranted our virtuous and free ancestors to begin the civil war, which brought the tyrant Charles to the fcaffold. The American caufe, therefore, I mean the primary caufe of this deftructive civil war, is the caufe of every Englishman, who values our excellent conftitution; a conftitution for feveral years in a decline, which has of late received many ftabs in its vital parts. This right of the people, to withhold or grant their own money, this power of the purfe, which includes that of the fword, alone fecures the existence of Parliament, our annual meeting within thefe walls. This marks the difference between the limited monarch of our island, in a mixed government, and the eaftern defpot, or the arbitrary fovereigns of France and Spain. We then in a particular manner, with a fingular propriety, ought to stand forth the guardians of this right to all the fubjects of this ftate.

The fentiments, Sir, on the rights of our brethren in the colonies, which I have now the honour of delivering here, I imbibed from Lord Cornwallis, who enforced them with great energy a few years ago in another House of ParliaHis Lordfhip, in a folemn argument in the Houfe of Peers, in conjunction with four other refpectable characters*,

ment.

The Earls Tankerville, Cornwallis, and Shelburne, Viscount Torrington, and Lord Canden.

ftrenuously

ftrenuously denied any right we had to tax the Americans, while they continued unreprefented in the British fenate. It was in the debate on the motion for the commitment of the declaratory act. His Lordship's opinion likewife of the wifdom of the measure, after condemning the theory, may be gathered from his words in his examination before this House in May 1779: I never faw a ftronger country, or one better calculated for the defenfive. Mr. Pitt, in this Houfe, with a boldness of imagery, and glow of colouring, which his eloquence always gave, did juftice to the diftinguished patriotifm of the band of the five illuftrious heroes, as he named the fmall number of peers who on occafion of the oppofition to the declaratory act approved themselves the friends of freedom, He did not foresee the flaughter of our fellow-fubjects in the fame caufe by one of that band of illuftrious heroes at the glorious victory at Camden. If there is any change of fentiment on this important queftion in his Lordship's mind, we have no parliamentary evidence, on which it can be founded. It can only be furmifed from his Lordfhip's eagerly foliciting a command against the Americans at the firft breaking out of a war, which originated from the unworthy purposes of paffion and party, and fince endeavouring by fire and fword to enforce a taxation of the colonies, although as a member of the legiflative body he formerly did not hesitate to pronounce it equally impolitic and iniquitous. If arguments of great and irrefifible weight have been urged for fo total and wonderful a change, they are carefully concealed. The motives of conviction, or rather of thi, miraculous converfion, are easier gueffed than with delicacy explained. As a Peer, his LordThip fupports American freedom, and votes against an ignominious badge of bondage on the colonifts; as an officer, the fame Earl folicits a command in America to enforce that injuftice of which he complains, and is active to rivet the chains of flavery on the free-born inhabitants of the new world, and the defcendants of Englishmen.-In fuch a caufe I will not give thanks to genius and courage united, but ill directed, productive of no good, but infinite mifchief.I will never fail, Sir, to exprefs my concern and anguifh, when I fee great military talents thus triumph over the fuperior civil virtues of the citizen, when I obferve mere lawless force and violence receive the aid of valour and diftinguished ability to overturn a fabric of freedom and juftice, cemented by the best blood of our ancestors. Such military glory is purchafed too dear. It is a kind of wretched anti-civic crown, which muft difVOL. XVIII.

grace

grace the fanguinary brow of every unfeeling, unprincipled conqueror. A good man will indignant turn his eyes from laurels and palms of victory ftained with the blood of deferving fellow fubjects facrificed to fordid views, to the luft of power, to the rage of a tyrannical adminiftration. The palm of confiftency, at least, the honourable gentleman who made the motion will at all events fcarcely think of offering to Lord Cornwallis. That will be worn, and I hope long, with the applaufe of his grateful country, by another nobleEarl, who rofe fuperior to the falfe glory to be acquired from his profeffion, when called upon in an unjustifiable cause, and honourably preferred the line of duty to his country and its conftitution, to the fame and renown of military atchievments, which his natural ardour panted after. Lord Cornwallis, Sir Henry Clinton, and Admiral Arbuthnot, I will not confent to thank, for I confider them as having drawn their fwords against their innocent American fellow-fubjects, and without provocation bathed them in their blood.

The noble Lord who spoke laft, fays, that our thanks would come with great propriety to Lord Cornwallis, and the other two officers, because the thanks of this House were voted on the taking of Quebec, and the late fuccets of the gallant Rodney. Does not the noble Lord observe a striking difference in the three cafes? The furrender of Quebec was, perhaps, the moft important and brilliant triumph over France of all the fplendid victories of the laft glorious war. It was the conqueft of the capital of the perfidious Gaul in the new world. Sir George Rodney's late defeat and capture of the Spanish men of war at that critical moment merited the warmeft thanks, and moft efteemed rewards of this country. In both cafes we were deftroying the overgrown power of the House of Bourbon, the inveterate, avowed enemy of this nation. I think with Hannibal, bofiem qui feriet mihi erit Carthaginienfis. I hold that man to be the beft Englishman whofe efforts fhall be the boldeft, the moft fpirited and fuccefsful against France and Spain, efpecially against their naval power, which by the criminal negligence of our minifters has risen to fuch an alarming greatnels. I will from my heart thank that man. I will vote to decree him every honour of

The Earl of Effingham.

§ Lord Beauchamp, member for Orford, cofferer of his Majesty's houthold.

the

the fenate and people. On the Houfe of Bourbon fhould we call down all the thunder of the war. We ought, Sir, to blufh at the cruel ravaging and defolation of the country, and the merciless flaughter of the inhabitants of our colonies, in a foolish, angry quarrel, carefully fomented at laft to a bloody war, raifed on a bafelefs fabric, which perhaps in the end may fcarcely leave a wreck behind. Our generals and admirals have already totally ruined fome of the moft flourishing parts of this convulfed empire, and deftroyed numberless induftrious brave fellow-fubjects, equally intitled with themfelves to the protection of the laws, and executive power. Are thefe, Sir, the eminent and very important fervices to his Majefty and this country, for which the honourable gentleman flattered himfelf with obtaining for our commanders the unanimous thanks of this Houfe, of the reprefentatives of the people of England?

It has been faid, Sir, by the honourable gentleman who made this motion, that the Americans are now actually leagued with France and Spain against this country. I do not doubt the existence of a triple league between America, Spain and France, but I know the provocation, and I have good reason to believe the alliance is only defenfive and temporary. I do not allude to commercial treaties. France and Spain now appear to the world as auxiliaries to the United States of North America. The firft alliance with France. was made with great reluctance by America on the fpur of the prefent neceffity. It was not thought of until in our domeftic quarrel we called in foreign forces to cut their throats, until the mercenary German, or rather Cappadocian, princes, fold their fubjects, like cattle, to an adminiftration expert in every fpecies of bribery and ruinous contrac, until long after our negociation for Ruffian troops to be fent to North America had been rejected in terms of contempt and horror. The late union between America and France is fo unnatural, that I am fatisfied, whenever you offer, with fincerity and cordiality, honourable terms, accompani ed with the fecurity America will expect, it will be diffolved. Your conduct hitherto has drawn clofer every tic between them. If you improve the late moft glorious victory at Camden, to bring about this neceffary peace with America, then will be the moment to rejoice, to join in thanksgiving for the falvation of Great Britain as well as America.

Sir, I will not thank for victories, which only tend to protract a destructive war. I fhould rather have faid for fome tranfitory,

Z 2

tranfitory, delufive gleams of fuccefs in this unjuft, and providentially unfortunate American conteft, this bellum fine hofte, as fuch a ftate of arms was defined by the ancients. Not a fingle Frenchman or Spaniard in arms against us fell at this moft glorious victory at Camden, but Romanæ mifcent acies. Is it probable that this most glorious victory will lead to an honourable peace? If it does not, but is the cause of continuing the war, I fhall deem it à public calamity. Peace, peace with America, only can fave this finking state, and give us permanent profperity. We are already nearly exhaufted, yet continue bleeding at every vein. Peace ought to be had on almost any terms, for from the estimates on our table the expence of this war, continued a few years longer, will bankrupt this nation, the population, commerce, and navigation of which are vifibly decreafing. I confider peace as of abfolute neceflity for ourfelves, for the internal ftate and independence of our own ifland, in the prefent crifis of horror and almost despair. I would fubfcribe to almoft any conditions to obtain it, because I believe the NorthAmericans would then readily quit an unnatural alliance, into which they have been driven by our more unnatural conduct. Neceffity brought forward the new idea, formed, figned, and has hitherto obferved that ftrange treaty. America, detached from her prefent connections, and in a real union of interefts and ftrength with Great Britain, is more than a match for the confederate Houfe of Bourbon. In fuch a fituation the Family Compact would not dare to be avowed. The laft war gives us the proof in point. We had then an able and enterprizing minifter, in full poffeffion of the most active genius and vigour of mind, feconded by the whole ftrength of the British nation and America. What is our prefent profpect? America is at this moment thrown into the fcale of the Houfe of Bourbon, Muft it not then weigh us down? It furely, Sir, becomes minifters to lay afide all paffions and prejudices, and endeavour to heal this unhappy breach between two powerful friends, when every conceffion to America, either as a fubject or an ally, may win her to us, reftore the balance of power in our favour, and compenfate the lofs of all our other allies.

The independence, Sir, of the colonies has been frequently mentioned in this debate, but with a pofitive declaration that it is a point never to be conceded. Whether it is granted, or not, by a British Parliament, de jure, feems to me of little moment and avail. It is merely an amufing, curious

theme