be regulated by circumstances and events, was always necessarily implied and understood. The question being at length put, the first resolution was rejected upon a division, by 164 to 44. The event of this division was resented by Mr. Fox, with an unusual degree of warmth, and an appearance of the highest indignation. He not only declared that he would not propose another motion, but, taking the resolution of censure out of his pocket, tore it in pieces, and immediately quitted the House. As soon as Mr. Fox was gone, the Solicitor General moved, "That it does not appear to this Committee, that the failure of the Expedition from Canada arose from any neglect in the Secretary of State." The resolution was agreed to by the Committee, but was never reported to the House."

MR. POWYS's MOTION FOR DECLARING THE AMERICANS INDEPENDENT.

April 10.

IN the Committee on the State of the Nation, Mr. Powys, after

exhausted state of the finances of the country, and the great expence into which the American war had plunged it, nothing could be more necessary to us than peace with America, moved, "That the powers of the Commissioners appointed to treat with America be enlarged; and that they be authorized to declare the Americans absolutely, and for ever independent."

Mr. Fox said, he had formed a decided opinion upon the present question, and if he should happen to differ in his sentiments from a venerable character, whom he honoured and revered, (Lord Chatham,) the committee would give him credit that no early prejudice, no infant pique, directed his judgment, or influenced his mind. He had considered this matter, abstracted from every other object, and his judgment was formed upon logical, as well as natural reasoning and deduction. The dependency of America he thought it impossible, from our situation, as well as from the nature of the object, for us to regain. She had joined with France in an amicable and commercial treaty. The latter had recognized her independency, and both were bound in gratitude to defend one another, against our resentment on the one hand, or our attempt to break it on the other. If by concession or coercion we attempted to recover the dependency of America, we should have the powers of France and Ame rica, and perhaps Spain, to encounter with. If we attempted

to punish France for recognizing the independency of America, America would join her, and we should have, in either case, two, if not three powers to combat with. It was probable, that the greatest part of Europe would join in the recognizance. Gratitude on the one hand, and obligation on the other, would unite them in one bond, and we should experience the joint efforts of all, if we attacked one. If, on the contrary, the committee agreed to the motion, and thereby recognized the independency of America, we should be no longer bound to punish the European powers, who had already, or who might do the same; and we should probably secure a larger share of the commerce of the Americans, by a perpetual alliance on a foederal foundation, than on a nominal dependence.

He could not avoid lamenting the language at present used in the House of Commons; namely, that the Americans were not generally inclined to independence. Now, could any thing be more distant from probability? Had we not seen proof upon proof exhibited to the contrary? Had not the provinces, one and all, entered into the most solemn bond not to depart from, or rescind their vote of independency; and had not even thousands of them, in the province of Carolina, as well as in others, taken an oath before Heaven to maintain it? The Congress and the people were the same. Distinct opinions, party distractions, and disunited interests, had not been formed in America, with regard to the great point in which, by their unanimity, they had succeeded. He laughed to hear the contrary asserted; but he hoped sincerely that the honourable gentleman near him, (Governor Johnstone,) and the other commissioners, had more solid grounds to go upon, and more rational hopes of success. He viewed the dependency of America as a matter of very little moment to any part of this country, other than the minister and his dependants. He understood that the appointment of governors, and other officers by the crown, was an object of their contemplation, and one which they esteemed of great consequence. It was meant, he supposed, as an addition to the weight in the scale of government, and this circumstance deserved the most serious attention of the House. The three estates of parliament could no longer be the security and defence of our constitution, than while they remained in an equipoise with regard to one another. If one preponderated, the executive over the legislative, or the legislative over the executive, the superstructure must fall. It was a melancholy, but a certain truth, that the power of the executive had been gradually exerting itself to a predominancy for some years past, and its growth was already dangerous to our constitu

tional existence. The further advantage that would be thrown into the scale, by the weight of America, would give maturity to its growth, and perpetual dominion to it over the legislative; because, by the exemption from taxation, no degree of weight whatever was added to the legislative state. Taxes were so far necessary to our constitution, seeing that they engaged the people narrowly to watch and resist the influence of the crown. Their lives and properties could only be in danger when the crown became despotic. A security against that danger destroyed their fears; and not being concerned in the advancement or depression of the crown, they did not regard its progress. Good God! then, could Britons with their eyes open, and, sensible of the danger arising from the predominancy of the executive power, wilfully throw so great an addition of strength into it, as the power of appointing the officers to the government of America must necessarily create? Had we not appointments, douceurs, sinecures, pensions, titles, baubles, and secretservice money enough already? Did not the creatures of government swarm in every department, and must we add to their number?

He could not see that American independency would so soon rise as the honourable gentleman imagined, to maritime pre-eminence. The Americans could have no inducement to hunt for territory abroad, when what they quietly possessed would be more than they could occupy and cultivate. They would find the advantages of conquest unequal to those of agriculture; and remembering that man had naturally a predilection for the enjoyment of landed property, they would find it impossible, in a country where land was to be had for nothing, to propagate a spirit of manufacture and commerce. Every American, more or less, would become the tiller and planter, and the country might, in some future and distant period, be the Arcadia, but it could never be the Britain of the world.

He reverted to the arguments of an honourable gentleman near him, (Mr. Pulteney,) in regard to the finances of this country. He never was more surprized than he was at hearing a man of sense introduce such a puerility. The internal opulence of the country might be introduced as a figure of shew, to delude the ignorant into an extravagant idea of our resources; but the people must know that it was a mere delusion. If we were reduced to such an emergency as to have reference to the fundamental opulence, so might our enemy; and comparing the one resource with the other, we must acknowledge that theirs, in that respect, was treble our own. Our natural resources, he knew, were superior to those

of our enemy, in proportion to the extent of country; but we ought to remember, that theirs were capable of more improvements without injuring the people than ours. Would ministers but abolish the extravagant method of collecting their revenues, the voluptuous manner of expending them, and the enormous extent of the royal expenditure, what a superiority, in point of revenue, might they not effect?

He condemned the Conciliatory Acts as totally inadequate to the object, and declared, that if they produced any good end, he should attribute it solely to the influence of the honourable and worthy gentleman (Governor Johnstone) who was last joined in the commission. He hoped the committee would consider seriously of the matter before them: there had been enough of treasure fruitlessly wasted; and that they might not waste more on an inadequate commission, he begged them to extend its powers, and thereby secure its success. He could not avoid adverting to the conduct of the ministry, in regard to the French "aggression." He knew not from whence the word came, but he supposed it meant "insult." Himself and others were termed pusillanimous, because they attempted to stem the torrent of rage, that rushed from the bosoms of the ministry on that occasion; - they were called pusillanimous, because they were calm; but could they not now, with double energy, send back the term on those men, who had confessed that the nation was insulted; who had made the King and the parliament of England confess that they were insulted; and who, for a whole month, had pocketed the insult, without preparing to punish it, or taking a single step, for the defence of the nation? He begged the committee to observe, that the ministry, conscious of their own inability, were obliged, when they wanted service to be performed, to call to their assistance the very men who had condemned their measures, and uniformly despised them. But if a peace was to be negociated, or a war to be undertaken, (meaning the appointment of Governor Johnstone in the one case, and Admiral Keppel and Lord Amherst in the other,) they were obliged to employ the men on his side of the House.

Mr. Burke supported the motion. Mr. Pulteney, Governor Johnstone, and Mr. Dundas, opposed it. Mr. T. Townshend thought the motion premature, and moved, that the chairman do leave the chair; which was agreed to without a division.

MR. HARTLEY'S MOTION AGAINST THE PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT, AND FOR PUTTING A STOP TO THE AMERICAN WAR.

May 28.

MR. HARTLEY moved, " That an humble Address be pre

sented to His Majesty, to intreat His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased not to prorogue the parliament, but that he will suffer them to continue sitting for the purpose of assisting and forwarding the measures already taken for the restoration of Peace in America; and that they may be in readiness, in the present critical situation and prospect of public affairs, to provide for every important event at the earliest notice." In a warm speech which General Burgoyne made in support of the motion, he advanced matters and opinions which could not fail of being exceedingly grating to the ministers, and which were resented accordingly. Particularly, his describing them as totally insufficient and unable to support the weight of public affairs in the present critical and dangerous emergency. To the general knowledge of this incapability, he attributed the diffidence, despondency, and consternation, which were evident among a great part of the people; and a still more fatal symptom, he said, that torpid indifference to our impending fate, which prevailed among a yet greater number.

The drift of the general's speech was to shew the necessity of complying with the motion, in order, besides other great objects, that the presence of parliament might restore the confidence, and renew the spirit of the nation; and, he said, that if the King's ministers should take the lead in opposition to the motion, and use their influence for its rejection, he should hold them to be the opposers of national spirit, opposers of public virtue, and opposers of the most efficacious means to save their country. Mr. Rigby said, that the honourable general being a prisoner, was in fact dead to all civil as well as military purposes, and, as such, had no right to speak, much less to vote in that House. He then threw some degree of ridicule, in his state of it, upon the general's application or wish for a trial. The honourable gentleman, he said, knew, when he desired a trial, that he could not be tried; he was upon parole; he was, as a prisoner under that parole, not at liberty to do any act in his personal capacity. The Solicitor General, Mr. Wedderburn, took the same ground of argument, and made it an object of serious discussion. In a speech, fraught with general knowledge and ancient learning, he endeavoured to establish from the example of Regulus, in the Roman history, and other precedents, that the general (the convention of Saratoga being now broken) was merely in the state of a common prisoner of war; and that, consequently, he was not sui juris, but the immediate property of another power. From whence he insisted, that the general, under his present obligations, was totally in