was not with the friends of Government in America? Ministers were so egregiously simple, perhaps, as to credit his report; but would any other man in his senses be of the same opinion? What! five-sixths of the people amicable, and yet not a blow struck in our behalf, not one visible symptom of loyalty throughout the continent? It was thus that the Government of this country was abused by a set of men who lived on its credulity. A list of American refugees, receiving pensions, had been lately called for and refused; it was politic in Ministers to keep the list concealed, and not to inform the public what men they were supporting; at the same time, however, he must confess, that there was a description of American sufferers to whom the bounty of Parliament was well applied; he meant those who really had been martyrs to their principle, and had been driven from the continent by an unfortunate attachment to the British Government. Any charitable donation to characters of this kind he should be the last to condemn; for, however much he might differ from them in political opinion, he felt them entitled to a large share of compassion and some honour; like those who, from similar misguided attachments, have been compelled to drag out their lives at St. Germain's or Rome. But too many of those who were now pensioners on British generosity, as sufferers in the colonies, were men who had once been most vehement in the American cause, and only left it when from some mistaken speculations they thought it on the decline. Renegadoes of this class were now the chief favourites of administration, and were employed to write libels on characters the most unimpeachable of any in the kingdom. One of them had the singular audacity to vilify a near and dear connexion of his-his own brother-a lieutenant-colonel in America, representing him as a traitor to his country, and directly charging him with using his rank in the army for the purpose of carrying on a correspondence with the enemy. Thus persons brought up in their country's service, and labouring unremittingly for the public good, were exposed to the venom of wretches paid by the Ministry for the calumny they circulated. It was in return for the part he had acted in Parliament, and his firm opposition to the American war, that the person alluded to was marked out, by the hireling pen of a refugee, as a proper object of detraction." He reprobated in most severe terms the authors of those calumnies, but said " they were not so despicable as the men who employed or who believed them.

"If any one had gone to the Pretender, after his retreat from this country, and had told him that nine-tenths, or even five-sixths, of the people of England were for him, with a powerful army on the spot, ready to co-operate with them, and the King of France had been applied to for assistance, the honourable gentleman could not suppose that Louis XIV. would have been so egregiously stupid as to have given any; but that he would have replied, 'If there are nine-tenths, or even five-sixths, of the people on the Pretender's side, and a numerous army to stand by them, there surely can be no occasion for me to send an army into England to put the Pretender on the throne.' This was the mode of reasoning that Louis would have used, and this was

the mode of reasoning that a majority of the House of Commons ought to have used upon considering Mr. Galloway's evidence.

"After all, what had been the case? Had the British army yet effected anything? If Ministers should be asked what sort of an army General Washington had, they would reply, that his army was without clothing, that it had exhausted its provisions, had neither powder nor ammunition, and was 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 enterprising in their nature. And 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 everything that pride and valour could wish them, and though the American troops were everything 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 nine-tenths 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 to support them. With such experience, then, before them, what could be the reason why the British Parliament still persisted in this war, and was 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 has the House followed the Minister through all his contradictions, and why does it still support him in this war? Vide the loan.' Why does it stifle inquiry, prevent detection, and destroy the benefits of responsibility? Vide the loan.' It was a full answer to everything that could be alleged against Parliament in point of its 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 than 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 Lord 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 anything 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 showing 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, he 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 guinea 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 awkward 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 question under consideration."

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, and it was rejected by a majority of 106 to 72.

MR. Fox's Amendment to the Address of Thanks on the King's Speech at the Opening of the Session.

November 27. The King opened the session with the following speech:

"MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN,

"When I last met you in parliament, I acquainted you with the arduous situation of public affairs at that time; and I represented to you the objects

which I had in view, and the resolution with which I was determined to persevere in the defence of my dominions against the combined power of my enemies, until such a pacification could be made as might consist with the honour of my crown, and the permanent interest and security of my people. The war is still unhappily prolonged by that restless ambition which first excited our enemies to commence it, and which still continues to disappoint my earnest desire and diligent exertion to restore the public tranquility: but I should not answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free people, nor make a suitable return to my subjects for their constant, zealous, and affectionate attachment to my person, family, and government, if I consented to sacrifice, either to my own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of which, the future strength and security of this country must ever principally depend. The favourable appearance of our affairs in the East Indies, and the safe and prosperous arrival of the numerous commercial fleets of my kingdoms, must have given you satisfaction; but in the course of this year, my assiduous endeavours to guard the extensive dominions of my crown have not been attended with success equal to the justice and uprightness of my views; and it is with great concern that I inform you, that the events of war have been very unfortunate to my arms in Virginia, having ended in the loss of my forces in that province. No endeavours have been wanting on my part to extinguish that spirit of rebellion which our enemies have found means to foment and maintain in the colonies, and to restore to my deluded subjects in America that happy and prosperous condition which they formerly derived from a due obedience to the laws; but the late misfortune in that quarter calls loudly for your firm concurrence and assistance, to frustrate the designs of our enemies, equally prejudicial to the real interests of America, and to those of Great Britain. In the last session you made considerable progress in your inquiries into the state and condition of our dominions and revenues in the East Indies :-You will, I am persuaded, resume the prosecution of that important deliberation with the same spirit and temper in which it was begun, and proceed with the same attention and anxiety to consider how those remote provinces may be held and governed with the greatest security and advantage to this country, and by what means the happiness of the native inhabitants may be best promoted.

"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,—I will order the estimates for the ensuing year to be laid before you. I rely on your wisdom and public spirit for such supplies as the circumstances of our affairs shall be found to require. Among the many ill consequences which attend the continuation of the present war, I most sincerely regret the additional burthens which it must unavoidably bring upon my faithful subjects.

"My Lords and Gentlemen,-In the prosecution of this great and important contest in which we are engaged, I retain a firm confidence in the protection of Divine Providence, and a perfect conviction of the justice