After fo many demonftrative proofs of the weak, rath, and ignorant, of the ruinous and difgraceful conduct of the framers of the peace, it was asked whether a coincidence of opinion amongft members, however diftinguished by dif ferent party connections, in their judgment upon it, deferved the name of an unnatural alliance? and whether it was not more to be wondered, how there could poffibly exift two opinions in the Houle concerning it? Was it from the eharacter of the noble lord, who had taken the lead in this bufinefs, that the nation was to be taught to confider it as a mere conteft for power?-a character, which if it had any blemith to foil its eminent virtues, it was that of receding from thofe places where his abilities and integrity might effentially promote the interefts of his country. Was it not neceffary, in order to preferve the reputation and character of the nation from etersal difgrace, that parliament fhould exprefs their utter difapprobation of a treaty, which rather deferved the name of an ignominious capitulation of the glory and effential interests of a powerful country? Was it not their duty to lay before the throne their humble fenfe of the mifconduct of minifters, who had to thamefully abufed his Majetty's confidence? Was it not alfo their duty to fhew thofe very minifters that they had forfeited the confidence of parliament by a criminal abufe of the truft repofed in them? It was not denied that this coincidence of opinion might poflibly lead to fome future permanent conneation. If, as it was reafonable to expect, the difmiflion of his Majefty's prefent minifters fhould be the confequence of the cenfure of that Houfe, it was afked where another adminiftration could be formed, fufficiently poffeffed of the confidence of the people, and of parliament, to undertake the di rection of the affairs of the empire at fo arduous a conjuncture with vigour and effect, without a coalition of parties? Had not the nation already fuffered enough of evil from the weakness and impotence of government? and as it not a flagitious attempt, to endeavour to roufe the prejudices, and inflame the minds of the people against a measure, fo neceffary to heal its divifions, and to enfure the advantages of firm and permanent counfels? Thofe who were at all converfant in the hiftory of this ifland, must know, that fuch coalitions had frequently become neceffary; and that, from the very nature of our conftitution, which giving rife to various political parties, they fometimes became fo equally balanced, as to preclude the poffibility of a permanent administration, except by their union., Such had been the cafe in the year 1757, when the country was as much diftracted by violent parties as it had ever been before or fince. What was done then? Men of all parties faw the necellity of uniting. The feveral factions forgot their animofities, and out of different fets of men an adminiftration was formed that carried this pation to an unrivalled pitch of glory. Sach coalitions did not imply any inconfittency of conduct or defertion of principle. Perfons differing in opinion on ipeculative political fubjects, might yet be honeftly and and firmly united in the executive conduct of government? Private friendship and conformity of fentiment was undoubtedly the best basis of political connection. But where the nature of the cafe required a deviation from this rule, public characters, fo far from being culpable, deferved the highest praise for facrificing private refentments and perfonal animofities at the altar of public fafety. That the very perfons who had fo invidiously brought forward thefe objections, did not give them any credit, was clear, because they themselves had formed a junction in every respect equally liable to the fame exceptions. The only difference was, that the coalition now cenfured confifted of the firft. and principal characters in both parties, and therefore was the most likely to answer the purpose of commanding the confidence of the nation, and putting an end to our divifions, by forming a firm and effective adminiftration; whereas the other, being made out of the fhreds and fragments of all parties, had proved deftitute of every requifite that could entitle it to fupport. Such were the arguments urged on both fides the Houfe in fupport of their respective motions. The debate lafted till near eight o'clock in the morning, when on a divifion there appeared for the amendments 224, against then 208; fo that the minifters loft the question in the House of Commons by a majority ' of fixteen. In the Houfe of Lords, the following address was moved by the Earl of Carlisle, in lieu of that which had been originally propofed by the Earl of Pembroke.—" To "return our thanks to his Majefty "for the communication of the "preliminary articles of peace, and "for having put a ftop to the cala"mities of war by a peace, which "being concluded, we must confi. der as binding, and not to be in"fringed without a violation of the "national faith. "To affure his Majefty, that we "feel in the ftrongest manner the "obligation of affording every re"lief that can alleviate the dif "treffes of those deferving fubjects "who have expofed their lives "and fortunes for the fupport of "Great Britain; and at the fame "time, that we cannot help la menting the neceffity which bids "us fubfcribe to articles, which, "confidering the relative fituation "of the belligerent powers, we "muft regard as inadequate to our "juft expectations, and derogatory "to the honour and dignity of "Great Britain." The original addrefs was fupported by the Marquis of Carmarthen, Lord Hawke, the Dukes of Chandos and Grafton, Lord Grantham, Lord Howe, the Earl of Shelburne, and the lord chancellor. The speakers on the other fide were the Lords Walfingham, Dudley, Townshend, Keppel, King, Stormont, Sackville, and Loughborough, the laft of whom diftin guished himself by a moft brilliant difplay of eloquence. The arguments were nearly the fame with thofe made ufe of in the lower House, and, on the divifion, the amendment was negatived by 72 against 59. On the 21ft, the day fixed for taking into Feb. 21ft. further further confideration the articles of " 3dly. "That his Majefty's ac"knowledgment of the indepen"dence of America was in perfect "compliance with the neceffity of "the times, and in conformity with, "the fenfe of parliament." 4thly." That the conceffions "granted to the adverfaries of "Great Britain were greater than they were entitled to, either from "the actual ftate of their respective "poffeffions, or from their compa"rative ftrength." with the colonies in North America, any law, ftatute, matter, or thing to the contrary notwithstanding, gave him full power to recognize their independence; tho' fuch words had not been inferted in the act, for reafons fufficiently obvious. Other members, who agreed with them in opinion as far as it refpected the acknowledgment of independence, did not think the ftatute in queftion granted him any authority to cede to them any part of the province of Canada and Nova Scotia. With respect to the powers of the prerogative, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Lee maintained that the King could not abdicate a part of his fovereignty, or declare any number of his fubjects free from obedience to the laws in being. The contrary was afferted by the attorney general; and each party pledged himself, if the matter fhould come regularly into difcuffion, to make good his opinion. A challenge to the fame effect had paffed in the Houfe of Peers between Lord Loughborough aud the Luru Chancellor. The two firft refolutions were agreed to without any oppofition.- At length it was propofed to alOn the third a fhort debate took ter the refolution into the followplace, occafioned by doubts having ing form: "That his Majefty, in arifen in the minds of feveral mem-acknowledging the independence bers, refpecting the nature of the "of the United States of America, power vefted in the King, by which " by virtue of the powers vefted in him he had acknowledged the indepen- " by an act of the last feffion of parlia dence of the United States. It was demanded, whether it was done by virtue of his royal prerogative, or by powers granted by ftatute; and, if the latter, by what ftatute? In answer to thefe queftions, the gentlemen of the long robe were unanimously of opinion, that the ftatute paffed last year, to enable the King to make a peace or truce ment, entitled, An act to enable "his Majefty to conclude a peace "or truce, &c. has afted, &c." when it paffed without a division. The fourth refolution occafioned a long and vehement debate, in which the fame ground was gone over as on the 17th, and on a divifion it was carried by a majority of 207 to 190. [4] 4 CHAP With respect to the army, it was faid, that the argument drawn from the depopulated state of the country, did not deferve a fetious anfwer. It was afferted that tranfports might eafily have been procured for carrying the German troops to the Weft Indies; and above all, it was contended, that the American war, the mill-ftone that hung about our necks, being at an end, the nation would have foon emerged from its dejection, and recovered its ufual high tone of thinking and ading. point that was undertaken to be proved. In every negotiation for peace, it is obvious that fome point mufi be fixed for the bafis of the treaty. Two principles are ufually reforted to for this purpofe- either that of leaving each party in the a&tual state of their poffeffions at the time of the treaty, which is commonly called that of uti pidetis; or that of reciprocal and general reftitution. The latter principle directs a negotiation, when the belligerent powers have equal defire and reafon for concluding the war. It is then they find it their intereft to reinftate each other. reciprocally in the poffeffions they have loft. The wii pffidetis is the principle of negotiation, when either of the belligerent powers has obtained a fuperiority in the war over the other. It is then the party worfted is obliged to fubmit to the lofs of its poffeflions; for, not having the power of enforcing, it af fumes not the pretence of demanding reftitution. It had been faid, that peace on any terms, by breaking the alliance confederated against us, and giving us time to breathe, was preferable to the continuance of the war under our prefent circumftances. In answer to that it was obferved, that improvident conceffions could never tend to the fecurity of peace; but by weakening the power that made them, rendered it more liable to future infults. It was further urged, that, if any inability to profecute the war really exifted, it was not likely we fhould reap much benefit from the breathing time, which had been procured at fo great and › certain a lofs. It was not probable that the national debt would be speedily reduced; and it was a doubt whether we could build fhips fafter in time of peace than the courts of France and Spain. On the other hand, a variety of obvious circumftances, and more especially the brilliant fucceffes of the late campaign, ferved to prove, that the prefent was the moment for pufh-, ing our fortune, if peace could not be obtained on equal and honourable terms. That fuch terms have not been obtained, was the next Allowing we were in a situation to treat on the principle of mutual reftitution, to which, from the actual ftate of our poffeffions, and our comparative ftrength, it was contended we had fair pretenfions, the articles of restoration on our part could not have exceeded those contained in the present treaty, the fettlement on the river Gambia alone excepted, for which we had ceded and given up to France the iflands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and the right of fithery on an extenfive part of the coaft of Newfoundland, the island of Tobago, the river Senegal, with its dependencies and forts, and the abrogation of all former articles relative the finances neglected, the military eftablishments unreduced, and the negotiations with foreign powers, which the critical conjuncture of affairs rendered peculiarly important, entirely at a ftand Various caufes were affigned for the extraordinary delay in the appointment of a new adminiftration. Thofe who wished to thift all blame from the court, alledged, that the chief obftacle arofe from the mutual jealoufy which still fubfifted between the newly-allied parties, and the difficulties they found in adjufting their feveral retenfions. Others have fuppofed, that the interval wa employed in private intrigues with the individuals of different parties, and in an attempt to forman adminiftration independent of the great leading connections.Others again did not hesitate to affert, that on the failure of this attempt, the influence poffeffed by the lord high chancellor, whofe difmiffion was a point infifted on by the coalition, was the principal caufe that retarded the new arrangement. Whether any, or which of thefe caufes, really operated, we cannot venture to pronounce. We give them as topics of public converfation at the time, and as matters frequently alluded to in the debates in parliament. On the 6th of March, an addrefs was ordered to be prefented to his Majefty, to befeech his Majefty, that the fame reftrictions might be obferved in respect to "any penfion he might be advised to grant antecedent to the fifth nuously urged on one fide, that though, for reafons which were deemed fufficient at the time, the operation of the act had been poftponed till the 5th April 1783; yet it was generally understood, that the fpirit of the act was binding on the King's minifters from the day on which it was brought into the houfe; and that the noble marquis, under whofe administration it paffed, had declared this to have been his opinion. The chancellor of the exchequer was therefore called on to inform the Houfe whether there was any foundation for the rumour which prevailed, and on which the motion had been grounded, that a great variety of penfions had been lately granted to a very confiderable amount. In anfwer to this queftion, the minifter firft obferved, that he could not fubfcribe to the doctrine he had just heard; that the fpirit of the act was binding on him before the time fixed by the exprefs letter of the law. The object of the act was to take away a power, which the crown had otherwife an undoubted legal right to exercise; but by limiting its reftrictive operation to a future fixed period, the fpirit of the law rather tended to fanction the intermediate exercise of that power. He then entered into a detail and vindication of the different penfions that had been lately, or were then in the course of be ing granted. The firft, he said, was a penfion of 3000l. to the lord chancellor, to whom a grant in reverfion had allo been given of a tellership of the exchequer, in confequence of a former promife given him by the King. The propriety of making a permanent provifion for this great law officer had been at all times fo univer→ |