Slike strani

greatest indignation at the idea of giving up the dependency of America on this country, although he was not a friend to American taxation. He observed that earl Cornwallis was not a soldier of fortune, or under any temptation to seek in war the advancement of his interest. He had left the comforts of a liberal fortune to risk his life, and undergo many toils in war, to serve his country, and perhaps to a view of personal reputation; but a reputation well deserved, being founded on services of the greatest importance to his country. He hoped that the hon. gentleman would be the only man in the House who would oppose the motion.

Mr. Wilkes desired it to be understood, that he had never said lord Cornwallis was a soldier of fortune; he had only said, that after professions of a contrary disposition, he had drawn his sword against the liberties of his countrymen.

Sir Charles Bunbury said, that the hon. gentleman who made the motion had wished ardently for unanimity. He wished that the motion had been conceived in other terms. Earl Cornwallis might be thanked for doing his duty as an officer, without any motion being made of the cause in which his abilities were exerted, in the same manner that an artisan might be applauded for performing his part well, though the design of the architect, of which his work formed a part, might be condemned. Why was not sir H. Clinton thanked immediately after the reduction of Charles-town? It did not seem a great mark of respect to that general officer, tó defer a vote of thanks to him, until he was occasionally taken into the list of meritorious officers, when thanks were moved to others.


tion like the present, because I wish hide the nation's scar, and to forget all deeds of valour, not against the common enemy, but our fellow-subjects, whom 1 desire to save and conciliate. The Romans, undoubtedly the first people in the universe, granted no triumphs for the victories of their generals in civil wars. They wished not to record and perpetuate, but to conceal and deliver to oblivion, the memory of Romans falling by the swords of Romans. They thought it the direct effect of the vengeance of the incensed gods. That example of enlightened polity will, I trust, be adopted by the hon. gen. tleman who made the motion. I am sure that no man feels more than he does for the present calamities of both countries in this cruel civil contest. I know the humanity and tenderness of his nature, and thought it rather surprising that he should chuse to bring himself into the unpleasing, awkward situation of Burrus in Tacitus, et mærens Burrus et laudans. Such a conflict of different passions is highly distressing. I will endeavour to extricate him by the most earnest supplication that he would withdraw a motion, from every part of which I find it my duty to dissent, while I deeply lament that the lustre of such splendid victories is obscured and darkened by the want of a good cause, without which no war, in the eye of truth and reason, before God or man, can be justified.

Lord North regretted that he found himself obliged to deviate somewhat from his intentions, to say nothing concerning the justice or policy of the American war. The hon. gentleman over the way had attempted to sully laurels which he had hoped would be above the power of detraction. Lord Cornwallis was fighting, and fighting not against, but for his country. Nor had his conduct been in any degree inconsistent. He had protested against carrying on coercive measures against America, as long as he conceived the Americans injured by such measures. But as soon as Great Britain gave up the point of taxation, and made other liberal concessions, it was consistent in lord Cornwallis to draw his sword against those whom justice, and more than justice would not satisfy, and who had leagued them selves with the inveterate enemies of this country. He said, he must remind the hon. gentleman of the political sentiments on this subject of the earl of Chatham, who would have been moved with the

Lord Beauchamp moved that, by way of amendment to the motion, the thanks of the House should be given to vice admiral Arbuthnot, at the same time that they should be given to sir Henry Clinton, The admiral had contributed his share towards that conquest, and there were precedents, nay, it was customary to thank the admiral, as well as the general, when any success was owing to the joint opera-` tion of both army and fleet, as in the case of the reduction of Quebec in the last war.

Sir Joseph Marbey. I was not in the House when the hon. gentleman made his motion for thanks to sir Henry Clinton, and the earl Cornwallis, which I am persuaded originated with him from the

purest motives. The noble lord in the blue ribbon, and an hon. gentleman near me, has talked much of the glory and importance of the victory at Camden; if, in any thing I shall say on the subject, I should be thought to depreciate and deny that glory and that importance, I hope no gentleman will believe I have any ill-will to the noble lord, for whose character and abilities I have the highest respect. I think the thanks of the House should never be given but on occasions the most important; when a victory has been obtained, which has been followed by consequences the most considerable and be neficial; they will lose their value when given on light and trivial occasions. The victory of Camden, in my poor opinion, is deserving of no particular attention from this House; and I verily believe, the noble lord himself would not wish to have the thanks of parliament for such a victory. When some hon. friends of mine lately moved the thanks of this House to our late Speaker, sir Fletcher Norton, I did not vote, because they appeared to me to be unprecedented and improper. Can any man believe, that thanks, as in that case, opposed by more than two-fifths of the House, reflect any honour on that gentleman; so far from it, that I am persuaded, that he himself must wish that question had never been agitated. The thanks of parliament should come with unanimity to be valuable. I think with the poet, that "Praise undeserved is censure in disguise." It is impossible the present motion should meet with general concurrence. If we believe the American account of the battle of Camden, their left wing and centre, composed of militia, ran away at the very first fire, and only a few regular continental troops opposed for a short time the whole British army. A victory over troops who did not fight, is not of a sort to call for the thanks of parliament. That at Bunker's-gravely, and with an unembarrassed face, bill was a most gallant business, because assert in this assembly, that he thinks we it was obtained over troops who made a can conquer America, assisted as she now brave resistance, and who were driven from is, by France and Spain? Will either of their various intrenchments, one after the the noble lords over the way assert it? other, with great slaughter. The victory at Will lord Cornwallis come to this House, Camden is not marked by any material con- after his arrival in England, and assert it? sequences. Lord Cornwallis himself says, I have too good an opinion of the good the enemy were upwards of 5,000 in num- sense and honour of the noble lord, to ber, and he makes the killed and prisoners believe that he will. General Grey told not quite 2,000; so that 3,000 men us a contrary story; and an hon. gentleescaped, dispersed, and scattered indeed, man (sir J. Wrottesley) a member of our but which in all probability at this time own, told us, after serving two campaigns compose an army, with considerable re- in America, that it was impossible for this

inforcements, sufficient, under genera Gates, to drive lord Cornwallis back towards Charles Town. If the victory at Camden only affords ministers a pretext for another year's continuance of this unfortunate war, begun in folly and wicked-› ness, and conducted on their part by incapacity, negligence, or treachery, I shiall consider it as a serious calamity: in my poor opinion no victory can be important that is not decisive in America.. Whatever procrastinates a war, which I verily believe must end in the allowance of American independency, must in itself be a serious evil.-From the moment an account arrived of this battle, the ministerial writers were busily employed in fabricating extracts of letters from Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, written all in London, painting discord among the Americans, and insinuating defection, which never existed but in their own imaginations; by such means the deluded people of this country are to be reconciled to the farther prosecution of this calamitous and unfortunate war.-There was a time when ministers might have ended this unfortunate war with credit. The Americans wanted only to be put in the situation they were in before the year 1763. But unconditional submission was then the cry, and governor Penn's petition was rejected with contempt. Commissioners, when it was too late, were sent out, offering terms less advantageous for this country: but it was impossible the Americans could confide in any assurances given by the same ministers, from whom all their calamities originated, more especially after the breach of assurances contained in lord Hillsborough's famous letter.-I have uniformly opposed the American war, and all the steps that led to it, from principle. I thought it unjust in its commencement, and I object to it now on the ground of inexpediency. Is there a man that will

ran through the House; and the Speaker said, that sir Hugh Palliser was not yet a member of the House, and therefore he hoped sir Joseph would not bring his name into debate irregularly.] Sir Jo seph resumed, and said, I am obliged to you, Sir, for your caution and advice. I have said nothing of that gentleman I will not say to his face: I have no prejudice against him, but what has arisen from the facts stated and proved in the printed trials, which every gentleman may have in his power to peruse. But, Sir, he has neglected his duty, and has brought a mălicious and ill-founded charge against his commanding officer; notwithstanding which, he has lately been promoted to the government of Greenwich hospital, a place to which he could have had no pretensions from rank and standing in the service, if his conduct had not been exceptionable, as I think it.-I shall probably be told, that the court-martial, in affixing on his accusation the epithets "malicious and ill-founded," exceeded their jurisdiction, and that he was acquitted by the other court-martial. The latter, indeed, acquitted him, but neither unanimously nor honourably, after finding him guilty of neglect: the other court-martial did not exceed the usage and practice in like cases, which is the law of courts martial, In 1757 or 1758, sir Thomas Frankland, then at Antigua, brought a charge against sir Thomas Pye. [Here the Speaker called sir Joseph to order, as deviating from the question. Mr. Fox supported sir Joseph, and shewed clearly that nothing could be more orderly than to talk of the delinquency of one admiral, when the question related to the thanking of an other. Mr. Rigby supported the Speaker, and called sir Joseph's a dull narrative; which expression immediately called up Mr. Townshend, who, with great warmth and eloquence, attacked Mr. Rigby for his ungentleman-like and illiberal reflection. After the Speaker and Mr. Rigby had again spoken, sir Joseph Mawbey proceeded.] I am inclined, Sir, to doubt at least of my being right, when you tell me I am wrong; and though it would not be difficult to go on in a way perfectly consistent with order, I shall not proceed, as I find it objectionable to one part of the House. As to the hon. gentleman's charge of dullness, it becomes not me to say much on that subject; I know how little qualified I am to entertain, but I speak from principle and genuine opinion,

country to subdue that, even though the 20 or 30,000 Russians that were talked of. had been sent to assist us: and he has, though connected with the heads of administration, voted ever since, very much to his honour, against the continuance of the American war. Why do we carry on the war without any hopes of success? The people of this country are oppressed by the decline of trade, and the enormous taxes laid upon them.. Every year will add to those distresses. The people feel and murmur. The noble lord in the blue ribbon seems insensible of their sufferings. I know there is a general discontent: if the war continues much longer, national bankruptcy will take place, and the consequences must be seriously alarming. If ambition, if avarice, prompt the noble lords over the way to continue in office, would to God that ambition and avarice could be gratified without their country's ruin! Let them have sinecure places and reversions for themselves, their wives, and all their children. Let the crown give them new honours, red ribbons, blue, or green. Let them be assured of this bishopric, and that auditorship, provided we can get rid of them as statesmen. Let them have any thing, let them be any thing, rather than in a situation to complete the ruin of their country.-The hon. gentleman who moved the motion of thanks has said, that he drew it originally in the precise terms used in thanking the duke of Cumberland in 1746. Does he, then, liken the battle of Camden to the duke's victory over the Scotch rebels at Culloden? There never were two actions more dissimilar: the one extinguished a rebellion, the object of which was to overturn the constitution and religion of this country, and to divest the House of Hanover of the throne; the other was in consequence of a war begun in injustice, and the battle has been productive of no material effects. Let me inform the hon. gentleman, that censure on the undeserving, is as necessary as thanks to the meritorious, for the promotion of military discipline, and honourable achievement; and, I hope, he will proceed to enquire into demerit, wherever it may be found in the service. Report says, we are speedily to have among us sir Hugh Palliser, who has been convicted by one court martial of bringing a malicious and ill-founded charge against his commanding officer, and has been found guilty of neglect of duty by another. [Here a cry of Order

The hon. gentleman possesses, in a superior degree, the faculties necessary to afford entertainment; and though I am seldom convinced, I am pleased by his orations, which are always lively and diverting. I oppose the motion of thanks for the reasons I have before stated; and more particularly because I think general Prevost, admiral Barrington, and others, equally entitled to them for their military conduct. You will cast a stigma on those officers, if the thanks of this House be not given to them; perhaps at this late hour it were better to give none, and therefore I hope the honourable gentleman will withdraw his motion.

to view every thing, except what related immediately to his own interest. In his own opinion there were some things too serious for ridicule, and the question before them, if ever any question did, merited a serious and grave discussion. He acknowledgd the hon. gentleman had a fund of drollery and humour, but he liked his ingenuity, his humour, and his counsels, better than his political arguments.

Mr. Courtenay thought that gentlemen on the other side might vote thanks to the gallant officers proposed as objects of their gratitude and praise, without any scruple arising from any opinion concerning the justness or expedience of the American war, when they considered that it was of importance to this country to maintain and even promote the honour of the British name. When they considered that lord Cornwallis had saved the lives of a whole army, ready to be swallowed up by so numerous a foe, by the wisdom of his dispositions, as well as the generous ardor which his noble example inspired into the troops: if among the Romans, he was rewarded with a civic crown who saved the life of a single citizen, how much more does he deserve a tribute of praise who saves the lives of thousands! Besides, the Americans were the allies of France, and every wound that was given to America affected the House of Bourbon. He had not now respect to the origin of the war, but to the present state of it. He considered not what had been, but what in reality was, and what was likely to be. He compared those politicians, who were perpetually murmuring about the beginning of the war, to the ideot who, accustomed to ear at certain hours a village clock, through the mere force of habit and the association of ideas, continued to count the hours, at the proper periodical times, after the clock had gone to decay or was broken in pieces. He touched on the subject of the personal altercation between Mr. Rigby and sir Joseph Mawbey in this manner: dullness, with the best intentions to be brilliant, is often unavoidable. A pig, it is said, never attempts to swim, which is the next thing to soaring, without cutting its throat. Again, it is said, that an eel swims faster in mud, though it has no fins, than fishes that have. He applied to something that a chemist told him, concerning a preHeparation of lead, which though cold, heavy, and soporific, had a poisonous and malignant quality.

Mr. Fox said, that it had been very well

Mr. Rigby thanked the Speaker for the polite manner in which he had conveyed his censure. Henceforward, he said, there will be no such thing to be heard of as dullness in the House of Commons. Dullness had taken her flight for ever from the House, and on a very singular occasion. He was going on in this strain, when sir Joseph Mawbey seemed inclined to rise again to speak. But I am afraid, said Mr. Rigby, that I am growing dull, I will therefore sit down, till the House resumes its brilliancy.

Mr. Sheridan observed, that Mr. Coke had expressed an earnest desire that this motion might pass unanimously, though he knew there were in that House different descriptions of men, who could not assent to a vote that seemed to imply a recognition or approbation of the American war. If so many were to be included in this vote of thanks, why exclude any who had an equal title to the applause of the House, with those particularized in the motion? Why not thank general Prevost, for example, for his victory over the enemy at Savannah? A victory that had laid the foundation of the success at Charles-town, which led the way to that at Camden? He hoped that a motion would not be objected to, to thank general Prevost, that the victory gained by him was a victory only over the French, Mr. Sheridan asked farther, why the thanks of the House had not been voted to sir Henry Clinton, immediately on the arrival of the success at Charles-Town? And what must be the feelings of that general officer, when he reflected that the thanks of the House were voted to him only in consequence of a resolution to thank earl Cornwallis? apologized to Mr. Rigby for not answering some things that had fallen from him, in the same ludicrous strain, in which he chose

his great talents were exerted. Who would have thought of considering the victories at Rosbach by the king of Prussia, and at Minden by prince Ferdinand, as disadvantages to this country, though the German war was considered by many

as ruinous thereto? Was ever such language held by any opposition as was held by the present?

After some further conversation, the motion, with the amendments, was carried without a division.


observed by his hon. friend, that there were some things too serious for buffoonery, and the subject before them he conceived to be of this kind, and had expected that it would have been seriously treated even by those who seldom treated with seriousness any thing else. With regard to the merit of lord Cornwallis, ministers, after all their encomiums, had greatly underrated it for the only fruit of the taking of Charles-Town was to throw that able officer and the troops under his command into a situation of great peril, from which he had extricated them with amazing ability and bravery. On this point he dwelt with great ingenuity, placing it in a variety of lights. He asked what were to be the advantages to be derived from the reduction of Charles-Town, and the victory at Camden? And whether the thanks of the House would have been refused had they been proposed to sir William Howe, after the victory on Long Island, Bunker's-Hill, Brandywine, or on his taking New. York or Philadelphia? Or would they have been refused to another general, on his taking Ticonderoga? Such, he presumed, would be the victories for which the House was to offer thanks. He allowed the merits of the officers now in question, but he made a distinction between thanks and praise. He might admire their valour, but he could not separate the intention from the action; they were united in his mind; there they formed one whole, and he would not attempt to divide them. He would not vote the thanks of the House to any admiral, while the navy of England was in such bad hands. He alleged that ministry, dissatisfied and chagrined with the thanks that had been given to sir Fletcher Norton, had taken this method of depreciating their value. He asked where they were to stop, and why thanks were not voted to the whole navy and army? The same men who had fomented the rebellion in 1745, seemed to be at the bottom of the American war. They wished to subdue the liberties of England by first subduing those of America; and the vote of thanks moved for this day is in this spirit, "You thanked the duke of Cumberland for conquering us in 1745, now we have an opportunity of retaliating the insult, by thanking sir Henry Clinton and lord Corn-guished his conduct. He called therewallis for conquering you." fore upon that noble lord to inform the committee, how it happened that the present half pay list of the navy was so large as it was. In time of war, gentlemen well knew, that in proportion as the public

Mr. T. Townshend declared, he was perfectly conscious how unusual it was for any man to say a great deal in objection to voting the sums necessary for so popular a service as that of the navy of England, in time of war. He did not mean to incur the odium that such a line of conduct, he was aware, would draw down upon him, considering the present situation of the country; but it was from that consideration, from a wish that the country might be done justice to, from a wish that the people might be satisfied as much as possible under the great burthens they sustained, that they were not unnecessarily taxed, and that the large sums voted by committees of supply in that House, were prudently and œconomically expended; that he had risen in order to ask such questions as it became the duty of a member of parliament to ask, and as the best members of that House had at all times thought it right to put, when the question before the committee of supply was a question which went to burthen the subject so much as the present did. He had moved for papers the other day, with a view to make himself sufficiently master of the subject; to be able to know whether his suspicions that the navy was unwisely managed or not, were well or ill founded. The noble lord who had opened the business of the day, had done it with that candour which always distin

Mr. Adam observed, that in the time of the war of the succession, thanks had been voted to the duke of Marlborough, though the war was unpopular, in which

Debate on the Navy Estimates-Sir Hugh Palliser's Defence.] Dec. 4. The House being in a Committee on the Navy Estimates,

Lord Lisburne opened to the Committee the Navy Estimates for the ensuing year.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »