And

that his army were without clothing, that they had exhausted' their provisions, had neither powder nor ammunition, and were nearly reduced to nothing. But if they were asked what sort of troops Sir Henry Clinton had, the answer was uniformly the same. Oh! they were fine men every one of them; the very flower of the army; well fed and well clothed; furnished with magazines and all sorts of ammunition; in high spirits, flushed with the successes they had met with, and panting with a thirst of future glory. If they were to be asked too, what sort of generals the British army had, the answer would be, that they were the best in the world, deeply experienced, and enterprizing in their nature. were the Americans so? Oh no, their commanders were another sort of men, no military knowledge, no reputation, no skill to be found in any one of them! This was what the ministry would say; and yet, with all these facts, what had we done? Though the British army had been every thing that pride and valour could wish them, and though the American troops were every thing that could excite pity in an enemy, yet this very wretched army had not been subdued, but had withstood, and bid defiance to this fine, formidable, and spirited British army, which had also ninetenths of the people of America with them; so that it was really, at least, a matter of curiosity to know how it came about that the whole of the British troops, with nine-tenths of the people at their command, were awed and overpowered by only one-tenth of the people of America, and only a wretched and dispirited army support them. With such experience, then, before them, what could be the reason why the British parliament still persisted in this war, and were so credulous as to be duped by such wretches as Galloway? It might with justice be done with respect to this, as was often done in books, where, instead of giving a long explanation, there was a marginal note on particular passages, in which the reader was desired to " Vide such a book." So it might here be said, as a full and comprehensive explanation of all the servility and all the submission of parliament, "Vide the loan." Why have the House followed the minister through all his contradictions, and why do they still support him in this war? Vide the loan." Why do they stifle inquiry, prevent detection, and destroy the benefits of responsibility?" Vide the loan." It was a full answer to every thing that could be alleged against the parliament in point of their servility and acquiescence.

There were men surrounding the throne, who taught very pernicious doctrines; and anxious to insinuate that the power and prosperity of the crown were distinct and opposite to

those of the subject. Such men alleged, and it was indeed a truth, that in war the power of the crown was greater than in time of peace. But the power of the crown, if not so great, was more glorious when it rested in times of peace and prosperity in the constitution and on the affections of the people. It was the virtues of the sovereign, which, by conciliating the esteem and grateful affection of his subjects was the firmest foundation of his power. What cause had we now to hope that our arms would prove more successful in America hereafter that they had done formerly? Did ministers derive courage from the reports from Holland, of a second action between Lord Cornwallis and General Green, in which the former had been victorious? We had had abundance of victories last year; we had been covered with laurels. The thanks of the House had been voted to different generals and admirals, to I.ord Cornwallis, to Sir Henry Clinton, to Admiral Arbuthnot, to Rodney, and God knows whom ! But what did all our victories avail?

After all, he did not think it would be doing any good to carry the question before the House. It would, at best, be only adding more responsibility to the crown, and giving power where there was no will. The noble lord in the blue ribbon could not, in fact, make peace with America. He dared not do any thing of the kind. He had been a gentleman born, he had been bred a man of honour, and had lived in those habits of life that precluded him from shewing himself after he had violated his word. What was the situation in which the noble lord stood? In the year 1775, when the noble lord came to the House for the conciliatory bill, he explicitly and repeatedly declared, that farther than that he never would go. Yet this very same lord, this first lord of the treasury, this ostensible minister, had himself come down to the House in the year 1778, and moved for the bill which sent out Lord Carlisle and the other commissioners to America, to make an offer to her of taxing herself. This the noble lord had done; the very same minister that had, upon passing the conciliatory bill, affirmed, in order to get it passed, that he would never go beyond it. "Some gentlemen," said he, "may object to this conciliatory bill, under a notion that I may come afterwards and move for something more; but in order to remove their scruples upon that head, I am a gentleman born, a man of honour, a great minister, in whom parliament may confide; and I here pledge myself that I will not, upon the sacredness of my word, ever go farther than this conciliatory bill." This lord, however, did himself, in the year 1778, go farther, and appoint a commission to give up the dependency of America. As to a peace with that country, Mr.

Fox did not think it at all probable this year, or the next, or this time seven years, or even fifty years hence, if the present system continued. The noble lord did not dare to make peace; he had pledged himself to the House to bring the Americans upon their knees, and he had not candour enough to confess himself in a mistake.

Mr. Fox very finely pictured the different and contradictory situations in which the ministry had stood. In the outset of the American war, what was their argument? Shall we give up the trade of America? No, they could never think of that, the trade was too valuable to be lost; but when it was lost, their tone was changed, and then it was only taxation that we were fighting for. Soon, however, trade and taxes were given up, and then the whole contest was about the dependency of America, which we were told was on no account to be yielded. Yet, after all this, the independency of America must be granted. The honourable gentleman lamented that the war was to be prosecuted, that poor men were to be plundered of the earnings of their industry, and the rich abridged in the enjoyments of life. He looked upon every tax imposed in consequence of the war, as nothing less than a robbery of the public. Lord Dunmore at first was said to have talked of nothing but submission: by and by he altered his tone, and said that the continent of America would never be recovered without the affections of the people; but that these would soon return, for the child would be glad to return to the parent. But his return to his government looked as if there were an intention not to conquer the Americans, for that seemed impossible, (the whole almost of that people entertaining the most rooted aversion to the British government,) but to exterminate them: for, while there was a guinca in Britain, or a man to go for a soldier, there seemed to be a resolution to carry on the war, even until Britons and Americans should mutually fall by each other's swords. If the war, after all, was to be pursued, it would be a great satisfaction if either he, she, or they, (as his honourable friend, Mr. Dunning, had on a former occasion called the advisers of the war,) who recommended it, were to be sent to explain his, her, or their motives; for however admirable the noble lord in the blue ribbon might be in explaining things, it was as aukward with him as it was with other people, to explain a conduct that was not their own, but which they were obliged to adopt and pursue.'

He concluded a long and animated speech, with saying, that the American war would never end while the present system continued; but that the moment that system should be changed, the good of both countries would be consulted.

He pronounced the American war to be as unjust in its principle and as absurd in its prosecution, as it would be ruinous in its consequences, and he therefore should vote for the tion under consideration.

ques

After further debate, in which the motion was supported by Sir Philip Jennings Clerke, Sir George Savile, Mr. Thomas Townshend, and Mr. Burke, and opposed by Lord George Germain, Sir Henry Hoghton, and Mr. Welbore Ellis, the House divided:

Tellers.

YEAS Mr. Hartley

Clerke}

Sir P.J. Clerke

-NOES 72.

So it passed in the negative.

Tellers.

Sir H. Hoghton}

Mr. Jolliffe

ro6.

ON th

PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' BILL.

June 11.

N the order of the day for going into a committee upon the bill" to direct the payment into the exchequer of the respective balances remaining in the hands of the several persons therein named, for the use and benefit of the public; and for indemnifying the said respective persons and their representatives in respect of such payments, and against all future claims relating thereto," Mr. Thomas Townshend opposed the Speaker's leaving the chair. It might be imagined, he said, that being a public accountant himself, he was interested in the rejection of the bill. He assured the House he was not, and that for this reason; his balance amounted to the small sum of twelve or thirteen thousand pounds; and this sum he had deposited in the bank of England ong since, there to remain till he could get his accounts passed. He had never made the least advantage of the balance that remained in his hands, either by having it at interest or otherways, nor would he ever do so. He entered into the merits of the bill, and reprobated it as a violent measure of a negligent, indolent minister.

Mr. Fox said, his right honourable friend had gone so fully into the subject, and had touched upon so many of the points he meant to have spoken to, and which he should have argued in the same manner, that it would be needless for him go so much at large into the considerations of the bill as he had intended. Some things, however, concerning himself immediately, he must take that occasion of speaking to; but first, he could not help telling his right honourable friend,

to

that he appeared to him to have spoken rather thoughtlessly, when he had informed the House, that he was by no means personally concerned or interested in the present bill, because undoubtedly his right honourable friend, being like himself a public accountant, held his estate, his fortune, every shilling of property he had in the world, at the mercy of government; a predicament, in which, he conceived, no man could stand, and feel himself either unconcerned or contented. As one of the executors of the late Lord Holland, he was in some degree a public accountant; he felt therefore for himself, and he felt for his nephew, the present Lord Holland, and for others of his family, who, while the accounts of his father remained unpassed, could make no transfer of property of any kind; and whether they should ever be enabled so to do, must, if the bill passed, depend altogether on the kindness of government. Perhaps he had no more estates himself to sell, but he felt for those who had bought those estates of him, which he had enjoyed under his father's will; because the title to those estates was and must be a precarious one till the accounts to which he had alluded had passed, and he and the other executors and representatives of his father had obtained a quietus. He put the case of any person offering to sell an estate on the part of his nephew. Who would buy it? The person to whom it should be offered would naturally say, Why, Lord Holland was a public accountant, and his accounts are not yet passed?" "No matter, (the reply would be,) Lord Holland's balance is but 400,000l. and that is ready to be paid in whenever his accounts are passed, which it is expected will soon happen." Would it not be likely, that the person to whom the purchase should be proposed, would answer to this; "You talk of a balance of 400,000l.; Lord Holland had forty millions to account for, and how do I know, when the account comes to be settled and passed, but that the balance may turn out to be four millions, and that this estate, if I purchased it, may be seized by an extent?" In this way, said he, will men reason till the accounts are passed; in what light, then, ought the present bill to be regarded, but as an act of the greatest cruelty, of the greatest violence, of the greatest oppression? As the act of an indolent minister, who sleeps over the public concern; who is profuse and extravagant beyond all bounds in his corruption one day, rapacious and hungry after money the next; who cares not how much he wastes, provided he can by any means, no matter how unjustly, how unwarrantably, seize upon more to use to the same wicked and detestable purpose?

- 66