fential article of it; and that almoft every reftriction on our communication with our neighbours there, is a reftriction unfavourable to ourselves.

Such were the principles that guided, and the authority that fanctioned, these regulations. Νο man ever faid, that, in the multiplicity of regulations made in the adminiftration of their predeceffors, none were ufeful: fome certainly were fo; and I defy the author to fhew a commercial regulation of that period, which he can prove, from any authority except his own, to have a tendency beneficial to commerce, that has been repealed. So far were that miniftry from being guided by a fpirit of contradiction or of innovation.

The author's attack on that adminiftration, for their neglect of our claims on foreign powers, is by much the most aftonishing inftance he has given, ́or that, I believe, any man ever did give, of an intrepid effrontery. It relates to the Manilla ranfom; to the Canada bills; and to the Ruffian treaty. Could one imagine, that thefe very things, which he thus choofes to object to others, have been the principal fubject of charge against his favourite miniftry? Inftead of clearing them of thefe charges, he appears not fo much as to have heard of them; but throws them directly upon the administration which fucceeded to that of his friends.

It is not always very pleafant to be obliged to produce

N 3

produce the detail of this kind of tranfactions to the publick view. I will content myself therefore with giving a short state of facts, which, when the author chooses to contradict, he fhall fee proved, more, perhaps, to his conviction, than to his liking. The first fact then is, that the demand for the Manilla ranfom had been in the author's favourite administration, so neglected, as to appear to have been little less than tacitly abandoned. At home, no countenance was given to the claimants; and when it was mentioned in parliament, the then leader did not feem, at leaft, a very fanguine advocate in favour of the claim. These things made it a matter of no fmall difficulty to refume and prefs that negociation with Spain. However, fo clear was our right, that the then minifters refolved to revive it; and fo little time was loft, that though that administration was not compleated until the ninth of July 1765, on the 20th of the following Auguft, General Conway tranfmitted a strong and full remonftrance on that fubject to the Earl of Rochfort. The argument, on which the court of Madrid moft relied, was the dereliction of that claim by the preceding minifters. However, it was ftill pushed with fo much vigour, that the Spaniards, from a pofitive denial to pay, offered to refer the demand to arbitration. That propofition was rejected; and the demand being ftill preffed, there was all the reafon in the world to expect its

being brought to a favourable iffue; when it was thought proper to change the adminiftration. Whether under their circumftances, and in the time they continued in power, more could be done, the reader will judge; who will hear with aftonishment a charge of remiffnefs from thofe very men, whofe inactivity, to call it by no worfe à name, laid the chief difficulties in the way of the revived negociation.

As to the Canada bills, this author thinks proper to affert," that the proprietors found themfelves "under a neceffity of compounding their demands

upon the French court, and accepting terms "which they had often rejected, and which the "Earl of Halifax had declared he would fooner "forfeit his hand than fign." When I know that the Earl of Halifax fays fo, the Earl of Halifax shall have an answer; but I perfuade myself that his Lordship has given no authority for this ridiculous rant. In the mean time, I fhall only fpeak of it as a common concern of that miniftry.

In the firft place then I observe, that a convention, for the liquidation of the Canada bills, was concluded under the adminiftration of 1766; when nothing was concluded under that of the favourites of this author.

2. This tranfaction was, in every ftep of it, car

ried on in concert with the perfons interefted, and was terminated to their entire fatifaction. They would have acquiefced perhaps in terms fomewhat lower than thofe which were obtained. The author is indeed too kind to them. He will, however, let them fpeak for themfelves, and fhew what their own opinion was of the meafures purfued in their favour*. In what manner the execution of the convention has been fince provided for, it is not my prefent bufinefs to examine,

3. The proprietors had abfolutely defpaired of being paid, at any time, any proportion of their demand, until the change of that miniftry. The merchants were checked and difcountenanced; they had often been told, by fome in authority, of the cheap rate at which thefe Canada bills had. been procured; yet the author can talk of the

**

"They are happy in having found, in your zeal for the "dignity of this nation, the means of liquidating their claims, " and of concluding with the court of France a convention for "the final fatisfaction of their demands; and have given us "commiffion, in their names, and on their behalf, moft ear"neftly to entreat your acceptance of their grateful acknow"ledgments. Whether they confider themfelves as Britons,

or as men more particularly profiting by your generous and "fpirited interpofition, they fee great reafons to be thankful, " for having been fupported by a minifter, in whofe publick "affections, in whofe wifdom and activity, both the national "honour, and the intereft of individuals, have been at once "fo well fupported and fecured." Thanks of the Canada merchants to General Conway, London, April 28, 1766.

compofition

compofition of them as a neceffity induced by the change in adminiftration. They found themselves indeed, before that change, under a neceffity of hinting fomewhat of bringing the matter into parliament; but they were foon filenced, and put in mind of the fate which the Newfoundland bufinefs had there met with. Nothing ftruck them more than the ftrong contraft between the fpirit, and method of proceeding, of the two adminiftrations.

4. The Earl of Halifax never did, nor could, refufe to fign this convention; because this convention, as it ftands, never was before him.*

The author's laft charge on that miniftry, with regard to foreign affairs, is the Ruffian treaty of commerce, which the author thinks fit to affert, was concluded t" on terms the Earl of Bucking

66

hamshire had ́refufed to accept of, and which "had been deemed by former ministers disadvantageous to the nation, and by the merchants un"fafe and unprofitable."

66

Both the affertions in this paragraph are equally groundlefs. The treaty then concluded by Sir George Macartney was not on the terms which the Earl of Buckinghamshire had refufed. The Earl of Buckinghamshire never did refufe terms, be

* See the Convention itself, printed by Owen and Harrison, Warwick-lane, 1766; particularly the articles two and thirteen. + P. 23.

caufe

).