Slike strani
PDF
ePub

had always remarked the most rooted marks of affection, loyalty, and regard for this country. As an instance of it, he declared the first toast after dinner always was, "The King;" and the second, "The army and navy;" he could take his oath of this, and therefore those who had pretended that independence was their object from the beginning, had deceived parliament. He ridiculed lord Nugent for seconding the motion, after all his speeches formerly against America; "a fine motion truly (said he) and seconded by lord Nugent, with some embarrassment." This set the House in a roar. He then went through his commentary on his lordship's speech, and before he sat down, served Mr. Eden's in the same manner.

Mr. Cruger contended that the Bill by no means went far enough, that it would do no good in America, and would be of no more use than a piece of waste paper. He said, the American war, the real source of all our distresses and burthens, should be put an end to at all events; in order to do this, the independency must be allowed, and the thirteen provinces treated as free states. He made some remarks on lord Nugent's argument, and asserted that he had seen some letters written by that noble lord a few years since, in which he talked in a very different stile, and declared that we must have a revenue from America. He said he would not oppose the Bill, because the idea it was founded on, was an intention to open the door to a re-union with America, an object so much to be desired, that he had uniformly voted in favour of every proposition of that tendency, though he had been much blamed for voting for lord North's Conciliatory Bill. He should pursue the same line nevertheless, and since persons without doors could not be in his bosom and know what passed there, he should be satisfied with what he felt within him, and go on regardless of censure.

Mr. T. Pitt reprobated the Bill, as drawing a line much short of what America would expect, and without granting of which, all treaty would be vain.

General Conway said, he did not mean that nothing more should be done than his Bill laid down, and so far was he from designing to draw a line by it, that it by no means drew a line, but left room for any thing more to be done that was necessary. It only held out something certain to America, and opened the way to conciliation.

Mr. T. Pitt said, he was perfectly aware of the worthy general's intention; but he contended that the Bill would nevertheless have the effect in the eyes of America of drawing a line, as if Great Britain would go no further. He then proceeded, in an admirable speech, to point out the futility and danger of any such measure, and earnestly cautioned the House against adopting so fatal a proposition, admitting, at the same time, that the worthy general meant it well, and therefore deserved the thanks of the House. He said, he would tell ministry what was the proper step to be taken respecting America,-give her a pledge of the sincerity of this kingdom's wish to be reconciled; change the administration; and remove those ministers who had deluded America, and deceived parliament! He in express terms charged the late commission with being a deception, and said he was divided in opinion which to blame, the noble lord who was ambassador at Paris at the time the treaty with America was signed, or the noble lord in the blue ribbon. When he considered that an hon. friend of his (Mr. Fox) had assured that House long before the French rescript was delivered to lord Weymouth, that a treaty was actually signed between the court of France and America, he could not think the noble viscount had been guilty of such extreme criminal neglect, as not to have sent notice of it to ministers at home, and when he considered the high station the noble viscount now held, that he was one of the first officers of the crown, in the very bosom of the King's councils, he was convinced, the noble viscount had done his duty and given notice of the treaty in due time. On the other hand, when he considered the degree of guilt that would be imputable to the noble lord (North) could it be proved that he was aware of the treaty being signed, and of the terms of it; when he came down to that House and made his conciliatory propositions, he knew not how to suspect the noble lord, nor what to think. He surely never could have presumed to offer America so little, when he knew France offered her so much more. There was a degree of culpable folly in it, which he could not bring himself to believe the noble lord guilty of, he was therefore puzzled, and knew not how to solve the enigma. He repeated his declaration, that no good could be expected, unless those ministers who had made themselves so obnoxious to America, that she would not treat with them, were

dismissed, and again condemned the Bill, as likely to produce great mischief.

Mr. Powys did not approve the Bill. He was severe on lord Nugent, imagining that he had said, the prerogative had powers of legislation, equal to the granting AmeErica independence, without the authority of that House.

General Conway rose to explain, and flew into a vehement passion, on its being said that an idea similar to that charged against lord Nugent was defensible, declaring he wished any minister could dare to hold such a doctrine.

Lord George Germain rose on this, and said if any minister was mad and wicked enough to advise his Majesty, that his prerogative extended to the degree spoken of, he hoped to God, that minister would meet the just resentment and indignation of the House, and be pursued to condign punishment. He said he approved of the title of the Bill so highly, that he scarcely knew how to oppose a Bill so entitled. If the dismission of ministers could produce peace, he said it ought not to be the consideration of a moment; ministers ought to be instantly dismissed. But before that step was taken, it behoved the advisers of it to prove that those who would succeed the present ministers were more likely to make peace with America. Every good man must wish for peace with America, whenever it could be obtained on honourable terms. It was the chief wish of his heart, and he flattered himself the completion of that wish was not far off. The Bill he could not by any means approve; it seemed more likely to put peace at a distance, perhaps to prevent it for ever, than to bring it nearer. He verily believed that the moment of conciliation was near. He described the misery which the Americans felt at this time, and stated, that the majority of the people there, were ready to return to their allegiance, but that they were prevented by the tyranny of those who had got the power of government into their hands. He did not believe that the Congress would ever treat for peace, but from the condition of affairs in America, as stated by the right hon. mover. From the depreciation of their paper currency, from the poverty and distress of the country, from the great debt it groaned under, from the dissatisfaction which all ranks of people expressed at the alliance with France, from the little benefit America had derived from that alliance, from all

these considerations he did believe that the people of America, the assemblies of America, would soon come to terms. His lordship said, that America was not up at auction, as it were, between the mother country, and France and Spain, 'that we were to bid for her against them. The case was widely different.

Mr. Fox replied to lord G. Germain, and ridiculed his argument, and every position he had laid down. He also attacked the Attorney General, though absent, on his being about to receive emoluments and rewards, for what he termed those inflammatory speeches that had caused the loss of America. He might, he thought, have come, and taken his leave of that House, he might have said valete et plaudite before he was called to the upper region. He did not like the idea of sending out commissioners, but declared, as that might be altered hereafter, he would vote for the Bill.

Lord North defended the Attorney General from Mr. Fox's attack. His lordship disliked the Bill, and shewed that various of the acts it tended to repeal, were already repealed.

his

Governor Pownall said he had not meant to speak on this occasion, and that when he heard the propositions read, he had determined to be silent: but having been called upon from different sides of the House, he did not think it proper that he, upon this subject, should suppress sentiments. That believing as he did, as a matter of fact, not entering into any question of right, that America was an independent sovereign power, and would remain so, and be maintained and supported as such by other powers; the proposing to repeal any laws of ours which had respect to America, appeared to him like a proposition for repealing the laws which stood in our statute book respecting Gascony and Poictou. There was an act of navigation respecting Gascony. Would any one now seriously propose its repeal? But he said it consisted of two other parts, one declaratory, which he should consider, if the Bill passed, as a preliminary of treaty, and as such he should be for it. The other part, respecting the sending out commissioners to treat for peace, would be of no avail, would only expose, and still more humiliate the country, and would begin as the former mission did, in mockery, and end as that did, in disgrace. The noble lord knew, that even before his lordship had planned his scheme of com

missioners, he had told him that would be the consequence. He said, therefore, as the ground of his own idea of the state of America on his own information, he must think this Bill could have no effect. That he rather wished it had not been discussed; but that it would be dangerous to reject it. Whatever, therefore, were the opinions of its effects, he should simply, as an experiment, have voted for it as he did for the noble lord's Bill for commissioners, although he had at the same time said to a noble lord, and in the House, that the measures could not succeed.-He said, that two noble lords, both ministers, speaking from official information, had given him ground, whereon, standing by their authority, he must now be decidedly for the propositions of the Bill; the commissioners excepted. They told the House, that the Americans were coming back to those sentiments towards this country, that they would come to treaty as colonists, and on terms submitting to our government. That being the fact, these acts and laws which attached upon the Americans as subjects to this country, should be repealed, to clear the way to the grounds of peace. It was now, upon that state of the case, become absolutely necessary and he begged to remind the hon. general that there was one he had forgotten, that was the Declaratory Act; he turned then about to the general, and said, "I hope it is meant to repeal that Act," and turning to the House, said, "I find it is so meant.' Upon these grounds, and acting on these reasons, he should give his vote for the Bill, but hoped to see the clause about commissioners taken out.

| and will exempt ministers from all future examination of their conduct, by giving the previous sanction of parliament to their act; for it were idle to suppose the parliament could exercise a correct judgment on the subject. To form an opinion on the propriety of yielding independence to America, requires an accurate knowledge of the state of that country, of the temper of the people, of the resources of their government, of our own force, its destination and probable success: lastly, it requires a perfect knowledge of the force and resources of our enemies, of the views and engagements of the other states of Europe. Whence could this knowledge be derived, but from the executive magistrate, who has all the means of information in his hands? With his ministers, all ambassadors, and all other persons in a public employ, correspond. To him is confided the secret service money, with every other means of procuring intelligence. His ministers would, therefore, in effect, dictate the judgment of parlia ment, yet would an act thus procured operate as an act of indemnity to ministers. Let us not be wiser than our ancestors. Let us permit the executive power to proceed within its proper department, where the abuse of trust is not palpable and clear; and when time shall disclose all the circumstances under which ministers shall have acted, at present known only to themselves, let us judge their conduct with temper, and acquit or condemn, as their merits or demerits may require. The law proposed, in the first view, presumes a defect in the constitution, which I cannot admit; and in the latter view will operate as an indemnity to ministers, pernicious in its immediate effect, much more so in its example.The question has been proposed, Do you contend that the crown can give independence to Ireland, or yield Scotland to a foreign state? Were I disposed to employ the same fallacy, I would ask, Can parliament repeal the Habeas Corpus Act, abolish the trial by jury, or give the force of laws to the proclamations of the crown? All government is a trust. Plain and palpable abuses require extraordinary interposition. Should parliament forget its duty, the people; should the crown be tray its trust, parliament must interpose

Mr. Rous said- A law is proposed, giving authority to the crown to conclude finally with America, meaning on the terms of yielding their independence. If it be a mere delegation of a general power, leaving to the discretion of ministers to determine when or whether it is ever to be employed, such a law certainly admits that the crown ought to have this general unrestrained power. If it be intended as an intimation, that the time may probably soon arrive, when the exercise of this power will be proper, such a law may not only forward the event, but certainly les sens the responsibility of ministers. If, lastly, it be intended to prescribe the immediate exercise of this power, such a law-not, I hope, to confound the different will be a plain assumption of the executive authority by the legislature, an union of powers which ought ever to be distinct,

orders of the state, but to place the trust in more honest hands. In the present instance, either a cession of territory as the

dominion which she cannot uphold, than that the contest should cease before the interests of Great Britain demand a cessation of hostilities; or that the inclination of the sovereign to a disgraceful peace should precede the necessities of the state. The power of declaring war is a more dangerous trust, more liable to abuse: yet this trust is absolute in the sovereign. When the resolution is taken, the ambassador recalled, and war in effect commenced, messages are indeed sent to both Houses of Parliament, and general assurances of support returned in their addresses. Why? because the power of the purse, the grant of men, money, and ships, depend on the pleasure of parliament. This power operates in some degree as an antecedent restraint, but is not wholly effectual as a preventive. The war is in effect commenced, and defensive warfare at least becomes necessary to the public safety. Every man who has read our history, knows, that even this power of parliament was principally insisted upon with a view to a very different object, as a restraint in the internal government of the country. Could the sovereign raise money without the consent of parliament, parliaments were unnecessary: could the sovereign levy troops without the consent of parliament, he might by force overturn the laws. These grants of men and money are therefore made only for a year; nay, the military laws by which the troops are governed continued for no longer space, that without the concurrence of parlia ment by a new grant, by a renewal of those laws, the whole force entrusted to the sovereign may be actually dissolved. This restraint, though principally directed to the internal government, operates likewise as a considerable, but a very inadequate controul to the power of declaring war against foreign states.-Many gentlemen have been misled by the acts of parliament necessary in the conduct of this war. While the war is carried on against revolted subjects, not acknowledged as independent states by the proper authority (wherever that authority is vested) every American taken in war had a right by the laws of this country to be tried as a rebel, or to be released; every man had a right to reclaim his property, who had not forfeited that property by conviction. The interposition of the legislature, there fore, became necessary, but this necessity was derived from the forms of our internal government. From the same cause pro

means of peace is necessary, or it is not. In doubtful cases it is scarcely possible that parliament should antecedently possess the information, without which they cannot decide. The delays of their proceeding, and the public discussion of the information necessary, if such could be obtained, would destroy all the advantages which this country possesses, by placing the executive power in the crown. If the cession be obviously unnecessary, the breach of trust is apparent-parliament will interpose, by addressing the crown to remove the ministers, to break the convention, which, derived from fraud, would not bind the nation; would punish the ministers, or in cases of urgent necessity, where obstinate perseverance involved the ruin of the country, perhaps remove the sovereign and his family from the throne. Writers on the laws of nations have displayed great acuteness in discussing cases in which the nation at large, or the inhabitants of a ceded territory may resist the sovereign. Their principles apply equally, whether the people themselves or their representatives commence the resistance. I am not, however, reasoning on extraordinary cases; I reason, to use sir William Blackstone's expression," according to the forms of the constitution." Neither is the distinction worth much contention. Prevention would in most cases be impossible. The commander of a garrison may yield a fortress, and may deserve death for his conduct; yet to regain the fortress would be difficult. Should the crown at this time withdraw the garrisons of Fort St. Philip and Gibraltar, the breach of trust would be gross, yet most men in the present situation of affairs would despair of regaining the possession. Should the crown recall the fleets and armies of Great Britain from America, is there a man wild enough to re-commence the war from the hope of conquest? The truth is, that where the decision is referred to arms, he who has the direction of the national force always must have it in his power to betray the rights of the community. Fortunately, where the breach of trust is most easy, the temptation is least. All the affections of the sovereign, the love of glory, of power, and of dominion, all the passions which govern men occupied in conducting the affairs of nations, war against the cession of a country which the force of the state can possibly retain. The probability is greater, that Britain will be exhausted in a vain and fruitless struggle for

ceeded the act of parliament authorising commissioners to treat with America. The object of this mission was to settle the terms on which the Americans should submit to be subjects of Great Britain. Their claims were various exemptions from the legislative power cf parliament. Parliament necessarily, therefore, became a contracting party, because the crown could not impose limitations on the power of parliament. This case was likewise new. Limitations imposed on the supreme legislature, by stipulations with subjects, have no precedents in our history. The thing itself became necessary, and the forms of our government decided by whom the act must be done. But it may be said, acts of parliament have been made respecting America. Can the crown repeal them? Acts of parliament have also been made respecting Grenada, St. Vincent's, &c. yet let these islands be ceded in a treaty with France made by the crown, these acts must fall, because the subject of legislation will no longer exist. The reasoning applies equally to America, when a cession of America shall be made by the proper authority. I think, from the analogy of our government, that authority resides in the crown. The sovereign cannot by any stipulations vary the rule of internal government, because he is a monarch limited by laws, or by rules of conduct prescribed by the legislature. The external power (where the internal government is not affected) seems to me incapable of such previous laws; in fact, none are given. This, therefore, in the language of Mr. Locke, is "a discretionary power of acting for the public good where the positive laws are silent;" for the abuse of which, if not directed to the public good, ministers are responsible. The acts of this power are in their nature momentary, for the most part incapable of recall, always dependent on circumstances known at the time only to those entrusted with the other parts of executive government. To transfer this power to parliament, to make the treaty their act, can answer no good purpose, will operate as an indemnity to ministers, and remove the single constitutional controul of which the subject is capablethe punishment of those who abuse it.

The question being put, that the orders of the day be now read; the House divided:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

"AN ACT for quieting the Troubles now reigning in the British colonies in America, and for enabling his Majesty to appoint Commissioners, with full powers to treat and conclude upon terms of conciliation with the said Colonies.

"Whereas a ruinous and unnatural war has for some years raged between Great Britain and the several British colonies in America, destructive at once of that harmony and mutual affection which had so long made the happiness and strength of both countries, and thereby giving every advantage to the known enemies of the British empire in all its parts; the first union of which had, by their cordial and effectual efforts, raised the name of Britain to the highest pitch of human renown and felicity, and had, during the course of many glorious reigns, served as a barrier to the liberties of Europe, and as the strongest support of the Protestant religion against the baneful schemes of popery and despotism. And whereas, in the heat of a contention, hastily begun, many pernicious maxims have been adopted, and many false and dangerous measures pursued on both sides. Now, in order to heal the said fatal dissentions, and to stop the farther effusion of fellow subjects' blood: be it hereby declared and enacted, by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual, temporal, &c.

"That immediately upon the conclusion of any treaty of conciliation between Great Britain and America, all those rights, privileges, and immunities, which were demanded by the several associated colonies in their petitions and memorials to the King, and to the two Houses of Parliament [and particularly in the petition of the Congress to the King, in the memorial of the colony of New York to the House of Lords, of the 25th of March, 1775, and in the representation and remonstrance of the general assembly of the said colony of New York, to the House of Commons of the same date]

« PrejšnjaNaprej »