SPEECH OF JOHN WILKES.

229

had so often and grossly abused it, that parliament could recover the confidence of the people. It recommended a searching inquiry into all the misconduct of ministers in regard to them. It said that when parliament had prohibited their trade and their fisheries, it ought to have been expected that the American seamen and fishermen would turn privateers, and wreak their vengeance on the commerce of Great Britain.

The amendment next urged upon parliament a wise and moderate use of the late advantages, which the king had informed them had been gained in the course of the year, as the best means of securing the happy effects which all were supposed to desire from the action of the present meeting of that body; and it assured his majesty that nothing should be wanting to enable him to take advantage of any disposition to reconciliation which might be the consequence of the miseries of war.

This amendment concluded with a few general sentiments, expressing the regret of parliament at the occurrence of any events tending to break the spirit of a large part of the British nation, and its wish that the unhappy breach now apparent between the mother country and her colonies might be speedily healed.

The Marquis of Granby rose and eloquently seconded the amendment. Most of the opposition orators followed, and John Wilkes particularly distinguished himself on the occasion.

"What we call treason and rebellion," said that distinguished orator," the Americans call a just resistance and a glorious revolution—and that revolution has taken deep root, and has spread over almost all America. The loyal colonies are three-the free provinces are thirteen." He proceeded to describe the leaders of the American revolution as persons not very prone to a change of government; but only driven to extremities by an accumulation of neglect, insult, and injury, and by two years of a savage, piratical, and unjust war, carried on by Britain against them. Wilkes ridiculed the half-reliance expressed in the king's speech on the pacific

230

PROGRESS OF THE DEBATE.

declarations of the natural enemies of Britain; and Colonel Barre, positively asserted that England was at that very moment threatened with war, both by France and Spain. In reply to Lord Sandwich, who maintained that France, and more particularly Spain, would think of their colonies, and the effects to be apprehended there, if the insurgents in the British colonies were protected, assisted, and made victorious in their revolt, Charles James Fox denied that it was repugnant to the interests of those two courts to permit the independence of the United States; and he urged that what France and Spain would chiefly keep in view, was the favourable opportunity of splitting and dividing their old and formidable rival- the British Empire.

In the course of the debate, George Washington was lauded as a high-spirited, hospitable, unambitious, country gentleman. The President, Hancock, was described as a plain, honest merchant, of fair character and considerable substance in Boston; and the rest of the leaders in Congress were represented as simple-minded, unspeculative people, who, until very lately, had abhorred levelling and republican principles. It was maintained that the revolutionary leaders had practised no arts, no trickery, no subterfuges, no oppression on any part of their countrymen—that there had been no coercion anywhere- that the revolution had sprung from the spontaneous and universal feeling of the colonies. The Americans were again and again called the most virtuous and most valuable members of the British community; and some of the opposition members even went so far as to describe the address, which was to be an echo of the speech from the throne, as insidious, false, deceptive, and hypocritical.

Lord North and Lord Germaine replied to these speeches in a strain at once laudatory of the king's speech, and vituperative of the Americans and their advocates. They were followed by some others of their party, and, in the end, the amendment was lost by a vote of two hundred and forty-two to eighty-seven. After this vote, the main question was put,

DEBATE IN THE UPPER HOUSE.

231

and the address carried, two hundred and thirty-two votes being given for it, and eighty-three for its rejection.

In the Upper House, the Marquis of Rockingham offered an amendment exactly similar to that of Lord Cavendish. The principal part of the debate was here sustained by the ministerial party. The Duke of Richmond thought that America was gone for ever, and that the British nation had better sit down as quiet and contented as it could under the grievous loss, which had been solely caused by an unjust and weak administration. Lord Shelburne said he could never think that Great Britain could resign her right to control American trade, and force the Americans to pay taxes. The amendment was then negatived, by a majority of ninety-one against twenty-six, and the address passed by about the same vote.

On the 16th of November, Lord Cavendish moved that the House should resolve itself into a committee to consider of the revisal of all laws and acts of Parliament by which the Americans thought themselves aggrieved. Burke seconded this motion in a most eloquent speech. He applauded the great valour of the Americans, and denied the charge which the ministers had made, that that people had attempted to burn New York, to rid it of its enemies. He called the conflagration of that city a direct interposition of Providence to arrest the progress of the British arms. Many other speeches were made, aiming at the conduct of the ministers, who replied in a strain of abuse of the American Congress, and on the question being taken, the motion was lost by a majority of sixty-two.

On the 8th of November, Lord North moved in committee for a supply of forty-five thousand seamen, for the service of the following year. Upon this, Mr. Luttrell asserted that all the British naval affairs had been infamously and corruptly managed, and that the noble lord at the head of the admiralty had been guilty of wilful and dangerous imposition, both on parliament and the public, by putting forth false representations of the state of the navy. Lord North and other members of the admiralty board, vindicated Lord Sandwich's conduct, and after censuring Mr. Luttrell for his attack upon

232

SPEECH OF MR. LUTTRELL.

him, they affirmed that nothing could more redound to the honour of the first lord of the admiralty, than a strict parliamentary inquiry, which would prove that all the charges brought against him proceeded from error or falsehood, ignorance or malice. Luttrell replied to their censures, and stated that as a representative of the people he had a right to investigate the conduct of any public officer, and that, as soon as the house was resumed, he would move for the production of all the late returns of the navy which had been received at the admiralty; and he afterwards did so. Lord North refused to produce them, and upon Luttrell's saying that they were necessary to afford him the proofs he wanted to establish the charge, which he had intended to bring, the matter was dropped.

The number of seamen required by the estimate was granted, and between three and four millions of pounds sterling were voted for the expense of the navy, together with nearly the same sum to the army estimates. These supplies being granted, parliament adjourned on the 13th of December till the 21st of January following.

It will be perceived by the foregoing detail of proceedings in the British parliament, that the king and his ministers, with the party by whom they were supported, were unmoved in their determination to enforce the unconditional submission of the colonies; while the opposition were earnest in their endeavours to procure the adoption of conciliatory measures. With a majority of the British nation the war was popular; and the attempt of an obscure individual called John the Painter, alleged to be a secret emissary of the French or colonial agents, to burn the navy-yards of England, served to increase the popular indignation against the Americans. The misrepresentations of the loyalists in this country served to blind the British nation to the determined and formidable character of the revolt.

HE commencement of hostile operations in the middle states had been deferred until August in the preceding season; but the campaign of 1777 promised to begin with the year. The militia were emboldened by the success of Washington, and respecting themselves, they confided in their persevering efforts to secure the great object of contention, the independence of America.

Without enlisting or joining the regular army under Washington, the insulted and offended people of Jersey, in many instances formed themselves into bands, ready to move at short notice; and these little companies were ever on the alert to surprise a straggling party, or cut off an unwary detachment of foragers of the enemy. So successful were they in this skirmishing kind of warfare, that the British never ventured out for forage, except in very strong parties, and even then, in many cases, they were met and defeated by the raw militia of the country. As an instance, near two thousand of the British on a foraging expedition from Amboy, on the 23d of February, attacked the American guards and drove them five or six miles; but when the latter were rein

IL-30

(233)