of subsidiary treaties. To give this bargain the appearance of what it really is not, the whole is stuffed up with pompous expressions of alliance, founded in reciprocal support and common interest, as if these petty states were really concerned in the event of the present contest between this country and America. Now, my lords, I would appeal to any of your lordships, if the whole of this transaction be not a compound of the most solemn mockery, and gross imposition, that was ever attempted to be put on a house of parliament. Is there one of your lordships, who does not perceive most clearly, that the whole is a mere mercenary bargain for the hire of troops on one side, and the sale of human blood on the other; and that the devoted wretches thus purchased for slaughter, are mere mercenaries, in the worst sense of the word. This point once granted, look then on the present treaties in their naked and true light. Consider seriously the consequences which such a conduct on our part may probably be productive of. We not only pay dearer for these hirelings, than was ever known on any former occasion, but instead of availing ourselves of the advantages we might derive from treating with their respective sovereigns, hiring out their troops in the manner now alluded to, we have entered into treaties of alliance offensive and defensive we have, in fact, pledged the faith of the nation, to all the eventual consequences of a continental war. But, my lords, even this measure, hazardous and impolitic as it is, is not what presses most forcibly on my mind, in the conduct of this wanton, cruel, and diabolical war; for if the arguments be true that have been urged by several of your lordships this day in debate, they amount fairly to this; that men are not to be had in this country, sufficient to give efficacy to the necessary powers of the state, nor assert the rights of this legislature; and that, consequently, the present treaties, however exceptionable, are the mere creatures of necessity. I question much the truth of this argument; but supposing it to be a just one, does it not fairly prove, that the salvation of this empire depends upon foreign assistance; and that all our boasted power, wealth, and every advantage derived either from our situation or form of government, are held under that precarious tenure. In short, that we can enjoy no one blessing of external strength, or domestic happiness, longer than our worthy mercenary allies on the continent think proper to permit. Now, for my part, I always was of a dif ferent opinion; for should the time ever arrive, in which our existence as a a nation depended on the assistance of foreign hirelings, from that instant I should deem our consequence as a sovereign state, and our liberties as a free people, no more. The history of all ages and nations prove the fatal effects of calling in foreign auxiliaries, but more particularly mere mercenaries, to fight their battles; and my memory hardly furnishes me with a single instance of conquest over any great state or empire, in which the conquerors were not first introduced into the country as friends and allies. This general truth, my lords, I allow does not directly apply to the present treaties; but the principle, were the national imbecility such as your lordships heard it described to be this day really just, ought to create cause of serious alarm. I cannot better express my disapprobation of employing foreigners, parti cularly to fight our domestic quarrels, than by quoting the opinion of that great man, sir Walter Raleigh. In his History of the World, he says, "that they are seditious, unfaithful, disobedient devourers and destroyers of all places and countries, whither they are drawn, as being held by no other bond than their own commodity. Yea, that which is most fearful among such hirelings is, that they have often, and in time of greatest extremity, not only refused to fight in the defence of those who have entertained them, but revolted to the contrary part, to the utter ruin of those princes and states who have trusted them." My lords, great stress hath been laid on the comparative riches and strength of Great Britain and America, from which a conclusion has been drawn in our favour, and a consequence from that conclusion, that we must in the end prove victorious. I deny the fact. That we possess more of the precious metals than the people of America, I will readily grant; but that the materials for decorating palaces, or that administer to the luxuries or elegancies of life, are so much real riches; or that they constitute the real and efficient strength of a nation, is a doctrine I can never subscribe to. Particularly, when you have a people to contend with, who prefer real liberty to the empty shadow, and who despise those baubles and trinkets, when compared with the substantial and rational benefits of civil society, and domestic hap piness. The native produce and industry of a country, I am bold to affirm, are what constitute its real opulence. The people of America have always been in possession of one, and the present inhuman and oppressive measures you have adopted, will necessarily teach them the other. The policy of former times was to improve the native advantages of the people of America to a twofold purpose; to encourage them to the raising raw materials for our own manufactures, or as objects of foreign commerce; and to render them as dependent as possible on this country, for all the wrought convieniencies of life. This was the inexhaustible mine, from which this country was wont to draw her resources. The immense profits derived from such a commercial intercourse, were the taxes we drew from that country; and those only will ever be, the substantial, constitutional benefits which can or ought to be derived from the legislative authority claimed by this country. What will be the consequence of this mad, bloody war? You will teach America industry and frugality. You will necessitate them to wear their own rough manufactures. You will create an emulation for excellence and improvement; and by shutting them out from your own ports, you will compel them to explore those of foreign nations. In fine, you will point out to them the advantages of a foreign commerce, of a frugal habit of living, but above all, the sweets of industry, directed to the establishment of new manufactures, and the improvement of old ones. present contest, what does that question present to your lordships' consideration? Why, that in the course of the present campaign, you will have run in debt ten millions, which is more than you have been able to discharge in the course of a 13 years peace; and if all your measures of conquest should succeed, that you will probably, at the end of another year or two, be thirty millions worse than when you began, and will be in the absolute possession of a ruined, desolated country, which, so far from being able to contribute to the discharge of your burdens, will become an additional one for a series of years to come. It has been urged, that none of those consequences will happen; that America, when she perceives that we are ultimately determined, will submit, and that of course our expences will cease with the cause which gave them birth. I should think there was something in this argument, if conciliation, not conquest, was intended; if the claims of America were patiently heard, and maturely considered; but is there one of your lordships who seriously believes, that those people will ever consent to lay down their arms, till vanquished, if no terms of conciliation or accommodation are held out to them? The idea is preposterous, and I am certain is not believed or expected by those who urge it. On the whole, my lords, I am heartily for agreeing with the noble duke's motion, because it will afford time for administration to treat; it will give his Majesty an opportunity of putting a stop I would recommend to your lordships to to the further effusion of human blood; it seriously consider the grounds of the pre- will strengthen the hands of government, sent quarrel, and the object meant in the should America refuse such terms as Briend to be attained by it. Has it not ori- tain may consistently offer, and America ginated in taxation? and is it not now reasonably and securely accept; and it gravely asserted, that the tax is virtually will be the means of laying on foundations relinquished, but that a war of conquest, of strength and security, the greatness, or an acknowledgment of an unconditional opulence, and perfect union of the British submission on their part, is the only alter-empire, whether considered as one body, native now left? What, then, is the true or in respect of its several constituent effect of this language, but that the present parts. is a war of conquest? For the noble earl (Talbot) has told you, that this country ought never to recede, till America has consented to an unconditional submission; and consequently that our subjects in that country are to be reduced to a state of ab-ginal cause of all the present disturbances. solute slavery, or to be for ever separated and cut off from the dominion of the British empire. But, my lords, referring back to the old question of taxation, for that I look upon to be the true and efficient ground of the Viscount Weymouth. The noble duke in the blue ribbon, and the noble lord who spoke last, happened to be both in administration at the time the Act was passed, which laid on the duties that were the ori It is somewhat extraordinary that they should now complain of their own acts, and come before your lordships to condemn measures which, for any thing that appears to the contrary, originated from themselves, or at least received their sanction. The Duke of Grafton. I confess I occupied a very high and responsible post in administration when the duties in 1767 were laid upon tea, paper, painters' colours and glass. I am, however, extremely well pleased to have an opportunity of explaining what yet has not been effectually cleared up. In that year, when the extraordinary expences incurred on account of America were laid before the House of Commons, the House rose as one man almost, and insisted that that country should contribute to the burdens brought on by the military establishment there; and a motion was made for bringing in a Bill for that purpose. I strenuously opposed the measure, as big with the consequences it has since unfortunately produced. I spoke to my friends upon the occasion, but they all united in opinion that the tide was too strong to expect to either stem or turn it, so as to prevent whatever might be offered in that shape from passing into a law. Finding that all my efforts would be vain, I was compelled to submit, but was resolved, as far as lay in my power, to prevent the effect; and while I gave way, to do it in such a manner as would cause least harm: I accordingly proposed the tea duty as the most palatable; because, though it answered the main purpose of those with whom taxation was a favourite measure, it was doing America an immediate benefit, for I procured the shilling a pound duty to be taken off, and three-pence to be laid on it in lieu thereof; so that, in fact, it was nine-pence a pound saving to America. However, the attempt was received in America as I expected it would: it immediately caused disturbances, and universal dissatisfaction. In 1769, therefore, I moved in the cabinet for a repeal, and was out-voted (if I recollect right) by a majority of one. This, therefore, was the part I took in this fatal business. When the partial repeal was agreed to in council, I conjured my brethren in office to give up this paltry revenue; but, as I said before, I was over-ruled. Lord Camden. For my part, I was not in council, or did not attend in the cabinet at the time this fatal measure was concerted; and as soon as I was apprized of the tendency of it, I expressed my hearty disapprobation. Viscount Weymouth. The noble duke says, he was out-voted in the cabinet, and that there are some noble lords now present who took an active part on that occasion. The noble duke is very right; I was present, and am free to declare, that I was one of the members of the cabinet who gave my vote for having the tea duty retained. The noble duke forgets there was no majority, or casting voice; the numbers were equal. The other noble lord's apology is the most extraordinary that 1 ever heard: his lordship says, he was not present at the time it happened to be debated in council. Will the noble lord pretend to excuse himself as a cabinet counsellor on that ground? or if he could, can he pretend to defend himself in giving his approbation, and putting the question in every successive stage of the Bill to a measure, sitting on that woolsack as president of this august assembly, which he has asserted in the course of this night's debate, will be the certain destruction of this country? The Duke of Richmond replied to the observations made on his speech; and the question being put, there appeared for the motion: Contents 29, Proxies 3-32. Non-contents 79, Proxies 21-100. "Dissentient'-Abingdon, Ponsonby, King, Fitzwilliam, Archer, Portland, Effingham, Abergavenny, Camden, Richmond." Debate in the Commons on the Scotch Militia Bill.] March 5. On the second reading of the Scotch Militia Bill, Mr. T. Townshend said, he had been al ways averse to any further increase of a perpetual armed force, as it had been uniformly fatal to the liberties of every country where such a destructive policy was permitted to prevail. The liberties of France had been overthrown by a standing military establishment; and so had every free government in Europe. But if he had no fears on that account, he owned he had strong objections on the ground of expence, and the disproportion between the quantum of taxes paid by the people of the southern and northern parts of this island. Mr. Dempster said, the expence would not be so great as some gentlemen imagined, as the whole number meant to be embodied, was no more than 6,000 men; who were to be paid out of the Scotch revenue. In answer to the great disproportion between the taxes, he urged, that ex cept the land tax, all other duties and taxes stood upon an equal footing in both countries; as to the land tax, it was fixed by solemn and national compact at the Treaty of Union. Lord John Cavendish said, that if a mi- | into the hands of the crown than had hilitia for Scotland be at all necessary, it therto been thought consistent with public should be only on the condition of Scot- liberty. In king William's time, when one land bearing the additional expence, and half of the kingdom were attached to their laying that burthen on her own lands, exiled prince, and when one of the most which were very low taxed, and not pay powerful ambitious monarchs that ever sat it out of the customs and excises, the pro- on the French throne, or any throne in duce of which was already appropriated. Europe for several centuries, and who beThe militia was a force raised by the land- sides had a personal enmity to our newlyowners to defend their property; the ex-elected king, even in such a critical season pence was borne by them, and directly as that, 7,000 standing forces were thought paid out of the land tax. The proportion fully sufficient to protect this kingdom which Scotland bore of that tax was hard- against all its open foes and secret enely worth mentioning; one county in Eng-mies; and will any man pretend to tell us, land paying more than the whole king- that a standing force of five times the numdom of Scotland. Besides, the share ber, in times of profound peace, and an Scotland bore in national representation English militia of 32,000 men, are not, was not above the proportion of one to when none of those causes exist, fully eleven; so that taking it in any light, adequate to every purpose of preserving either of taxation or representation, Scot- domestic tranquillity, and of repelling any land was entitled to no militia, unless she attempts of our foreign enemies? accepted of that privilege, and took it with all its consequences; namely, defraying the whole expence, or submitting to pay such a proportion of the land tax, as would entitle her to the favour she seemed so desirous of obtaining. Governor Johnstone allowed, that the land tax paid by Scotland, bore no proportion to the proposed number to be embodied, but that was but one tax; for in every other respect Scotland paid to the extent of her abilities; and though perSir Gilbert Elliot said, a well-ordered haps the other taxes did not rise in promilitia in Scotland would be the means of portion as they had done in England, that giving additional security to the whole proved no more than that the former had island; and contended, if such a body of not increased equally in riches with the men had existed in 1725 and 1745, those latter. The greatest part of the landed rebellions would have been crushed in the income of Scotland was spent in England, commencement. It was the bad policy of therefore in point of material benefit, the those times, that those who were ill affect- difference was very little to this country, ed to the government were provided with whether that was taxed 3d., or 4s. in the the means of disturbing the public tran pound; for the money, the principal as quillity, while those who were loyal sub-well as part of the land tax thus remitted, jects, were left at their mercy, naked and The present defenceless. Mr. Burke said, that in his opinion, Scotland was neither properly taxed, nor fully represented; nor until she was, could she be entitled to the favour now desired. The numbers to be embodied in both kingdoms, was in a proportion of one to five, whereas Scotland did not pay above one-fortieth of the land tax, the very specific tax out of which the money for the pay and clothing the militia was to be drawn. He therefore could not possibly conceive how the people of that country could come to parliament, and expect that at least five-sixths of the expence should be paid by English land-owners. It was an absurdity on the very face of it; it was directly repugnant to the first principles on which a national militia was formed or paid. He had other objections against the Bill; one was, that it threw more power ultimately centered here. Bill was in some respects better than the English Militia Act, because it contained a clause that no man should be permitted to serve twice as a substitute, which would be the means of training a much greater number of men to the use of arms. Sir Adam Fergusson disclaimed all local prejudices: he did not take up the matter as a Scotchman, but as a Briton, because he believed it would be a means of procuring a complete national defence. He was surprised to hear so much said about the disproportion of the revenue of this country, when a moment's impartial consideration would point out, that a revenue could not be raised in two places on the same sum. The greatest part of the landed income arising in Scotland was drawn out of it and spent here. What matter, then, to this country, whether the money was collected in Middlesex or in the shire of Edinburgh? If it made any difference, it was the convenience of collecting the revenues on the spot. But besides the revenues acquired in this manner, how were they increased through the medium of our manufactures? Nay, he had no doubt, if the amount of the revenue, on the English manufactures consumed in Scotland, were properly stated, it would exceed the whole of the revenue, arising from the consumption of all North America. Look at the labouring man's hat, it is English. Look at his coat, it is English. His shoes, stockings, and buckles are all English. Look again at the wives and daughters of every rank, from the duke to the peasant, and their gowns, ribbons, &c. are all English. He observed that several persons of rank, who held offices of great profit in Scotland, resided constantly in England. In short, as the Treaty of Union had abolished the names of Englishman and Scotchman, and united them in that of Briton, he wished all local distinctions to be forgotten. Mr. Byng was of opinion that no necessity existed for a militia in Scotland; and as there did not, he thought it would be only incurring an expence to answer no beneficial purpose whatever. Sir Cecil Wray said he had been always for a militia, as the only sure and safe constitutional defence; that he had acted under the law for several years as deputylieutenant, and experience had convinced him how well suited it was to effect the purposes for which it was first established. The Bill was ordered to be committed. March 14. On the order of the day for going into a committee on the Scotch Militia Bill, Mr. Grenville said, that not having had an opportunity of delivering his sentiments on this Bill, he would take this stage, and move an instruction which would at least obviate one of the many objections he had to it. He could not help thinking it incumbent on its supporters to evince the three subsequent propositions; 1. That the present situation of the kingdom required an extraordinary force of 6,000 men; 2. That this method to be adopted is the cheapest; and 3. That Scotland is the place, where, from local circumstances, these troops should be raised: As he could not agree to either of those three propositions, he said he should certainly combat every stage of the Bill; and proceeded to shew the inexpediency of it on those three grounds. He concluded by stating the expence of the proposed corps; the estimate of which for 28 days he stated to be 34,970l. and if embodied, the pay for 13 months would be 104,440l. to be paid, from a land-tax producing at 4s. in the pound, 47,954. 1s. 2d. In answer to some assertions relative to the revenue of Scotland, he begged leave to produce some original papers, by which he stated the gross revenue of that kingdom to be so reduced by mismanagement of every kind, as to produce on the average of ten years, the very inconsiderable sum of 94,945/. clear of the barons warrants, drawbacks, and charges of management, of which sum the land paid 47,9547. the malt 19,280. the customs and excise 13,555l. the stamps, seizures, crown-rents and other articles 14,156. He next stated the demands even on this trifling sum, before it could be remitted to the Exchequer, for roads, fortifications, ordnance, staff and military establishment, all which were expences immediately incurred for that king. dom. He assured the House, that so far from undervaluing the Scotch revenue, he had in many instances even over-charged it, by taking it at the period at which it was the highest, and stating the land-tax at 4s. in the pound. He concluded by calling on the justice, the honour, and the generosity of that kingdom, to consent to a proposition which would not draw one shilling from their country, and which, if the Bill were to pass, would make the mea sure less obnoxious, and less invidious to England. He moved, "That it be an instruction to the committee, that they do make provision in the said Bill, for di recting and enabling the commissioners to be named under the said Bill, to raise and levy, on their respective counties or places, such sums as shall be sufficient to defray the expences of the militia to be raised within the same, such cess or levy to be made in the same manner, and in the same proportion, as the land-tax has usually been levied in such county or place." Mr. T. Townshend said, the words of the motion contained almost every thing necessary to convince every person who had considered the subject. If Scotland is to be put on a footing with England, in respect of constitutional defence, why not take the institution with all its conse quences of pay, as well as establishment? The English surely would deserve to be both pitied and contemned, should they |