Mr. Dunning apologized for the mistake he had been under, respecting the address from the Devonshire militia. Mr. T. Townshend called on the ministers to know where the Russian troops were to be sent, as it was asserted in the other House not to America; and now, by Mr. Rigby, not to England. He supposed to Ireland. He said that innovations in the militia were dangerous, because every standing oppressive force in Europe, began with a harmless militia. He detested the politics of administration while he compassionated the unhappy Americans, who had been provoked to resistance by the late Acts. In his opinion, the necessity of embodying the militia of any part of the kingdom could only be justified by local causes; that if there was a rebellion in Scotland, or in Wales, he should vote for the embodying of the Scotch or Welch militia, but not otherwise; and that he differed in opinion from an hon. member (Mr. Rigby) who had asserted he knew but of one kind of rebellion. He instanced the rebellion of 1745, when the town of Manchester (who had now sent up an address, flattering the ministry, and abusing the gentlemen in opposition) took an ostensible part against the present family. withdrew my weak support from adminis- | procured by courtiers, contained nothing tration, I should the next year have a characteristic of them but the most ignoright to accuse administration for the ill ble servility, and the most unmerciful ensuccess of measures, when I had done couragement of barbarous, blood-thirsty every thing in my power by my opposition measures. There were two other adto prevent their execution. dresses which called loudly for the censure of that House; the address from the first battalion of the Devonshire militia, and the address from the University of Oxford. These he termed the addresses military and ecclesiastic; addresses from persons who, at all times, and on all occasions, were debarred constitutionally from meddling with the politics of the country. He descanted largely on the first, shewing the impropriety of the militia, or any armed body, soliciting to be employed against their fellow subjects. With regard to the latter, he almost charged lord North with having not only seen it before it was presented to the King, but with having altered the composition of it; and if the noble lord avowed the propriety of the University of Oxford (a body of learned and religious men) interfering with politics, advising a civil war, and calling those that opposed it rebels and traitors, the freedom of this country was dead, her liberty was no more, He painted in strong colours the situation of the heads of an University, who he declared ought by no means to instil political principles into the minds of those who were not sufficiently matured, who knew too little of the world to be able to judge of their propriety, and to distinguish between sound policy and destructive expedients. Every man, he observed, must feel the violent error of such conduct; he had himself a son at the University, and he could not approve of that son's being told by grave men that his father was an abettor of rebels. He concluded with declaring, that the noble lord ought not only to have abstained from taking part in the formation of that address, but that he ought to have rejected it when it was sent to him, and prevented it from being presented. Sir Thomas Egerton defended the town of Manchester; said he had signed their address, which did not contain any abuse upon the gentlemen in opposition. Mr. Burke observed, that the Manchester Address was not singular in the indecency of its language, but that all the ministerial addresses spoke of those who had endeavoured to prevent the civil war in which this country was unhappily now plunged through the ruinous and destructive measures pursued by administration, in the most scurrilous and illiberal manner: that the gentleman who defended Manchester stood in the same predicament with many others who had signed what they never read, and therefore were astonished when they afterwards heard the language of the addresses; language, he said, which disgraced the name of Britons; in which the good nature of Englishmen and the manners of gentlemen were totally forgotten; and which, though Sir W. Bagot related the origin of the Stafford address; he had seen the address from London to the electors of Great Britain, and as he was not willing that the county should be seduced by it, he supported at the sessions an address, containing very different sentiments, only one person, whom the House well knew (Mr. Wooldridge) objecting to it. Captain Luttrell. When the last votes in favour of the Address passed this House, I thought we might take leave of every ray of hope, that peace and good fellowship would again subsist between our colonies and this country; I, however, felt this consolation, that I had discharged my duty agreeably to my conscience, and the best of my abilities; and as I could not prevent, I had only to lament the future progress of this unnatural war. But, Sir, in consequence of what fell from the noble lord, I hold it incumbent on me to offer to the House such intelligence as I have received from America, that I may not be comprehended among the number of those gentlemen the noble lord supposes to be inclined to conceal from him, or the public, what they have reason to believe is the true and general sentiments of the Americans. Sir, a noble lord has communicated to us the private information he has received from a general officer at Boston: a right hon. member in my eye acknowledged the receipt of a letter from an ever memorable colonel, the substance of which amounted to little more than this, that he lamented they had been mistaken in their ideas of the provincial army. Sir, my information comes not from a military man, but from a friend of mine, whose family remains in this country, and who went to America for the recovery of his health. Sir, he is of a nation that will hardly be suspected of taking part in this rebellion; he is a man of good sense, sound judgment, quick discernment, some philosophy, and much candour; he is known to many members, having been a candidate for a seat in parliament. I value his information, because I believe it authentic; and that I may not be supposed to state it partially, I will, with leave of the House, read them. [Here captain Luttrell read a letter from New York, dated the beginning of September, which affirms, "That the people there aim not at independence, but are generally determined to die, rather than to submit to the arbitrary claim of taxation, though they are informed the French, their natural enemies, have offered assistance against them."] Now, Sir, if the information conveyed to America be true, France is the foreign power that has offered us assistance. What, Sir, is likely to be the state of your army then? 30,000 British troops, perhaps one half that number French, some thousands of your Canadian subjects and Irish Roman Catholic marines. Then, Sir, when America is conquered, and the flower of your army cut off, your new allies will be prepared to dispute the conquest with you. Is there a man, Sir, in this House, that doubts but every Roman Catholic of either army, or in that country, of any name, description, or situation, will not be ready again to assert the right of France to the colonies of America, in opposition to the Protestant army; or that they will not be supported by the northern Indians, who are bigots to the Roman Catholic religion, and immediately under the influence of the Popish priests and jesuits which abound in that country. Still, Sir, I am at a loss to tell, whether I should prefer an alliance with France or Russia. It is time we should look to the enterprizing genius rising in that empire; to a people eager in the pursuit of fresh possessions, in climes less inhospitable than those they now inhabit, already become (thanks to Great Britain for it) the first maritime power in the north, the third great maritime power in the world, extending her manufactures and commerce. I fear the balance of trade is already against us; but it must inevitably be so soon; and then you will send your specie to Russia, to purchase the vast quantity of hemp, turpentine, tar, and other naval stores, necessary to supply the present great naval establishments. Sir, should Russia insist upon sending these naval stores to your arsenals in America in her own bottoms, dare you refuse it? What may be matter of necessity now, was ig norance, or something worse, ten years ago. One noble lord tells us, we cannot raise an army of Britons sufficient to subdue the present rebellion in America; but must call in the aid of foreign troops, which we must purchase with our wealth, in like manner with any other commodity. Some gentlemen of great abilities and equal authority, hold the direct contrary doctrines, calling up to our recollection the numerous army of British troops supplied in the late war. From some of these benches we learn, that great part of Ame rica is still in our possession; from others, that we have not a foot of it. One minute it is asserted, the Americans are still ready to submit; the next, that they unite the men with their measures, and execrate both. Some say they contend only for taxation; others for independence; with a variety of different accounts, as to the numbers, situation, and opposition of the provincial army. And the most mate [858 rial question of the whole still remains un- in this country, and every other extensive decided, whether England is, or is not, dominion, there would always, in some desirous of pursuing coercive measures part or other, be a riot, which the minister against the Americans? Sir, his Majesty might call a rebellion. There might be a can certainly do no wrong; but are his disturbance among the negroes in Jamaica, ministers therefore above reprehension? in Bengal, or any other distant place, And if the King has been deceived by their which might serve as a pretext for emmisrepresentations, is it not more dutiful bodying the militia. That many gentleand loyal, humbly to point them out, than to men would frequently be embarrassed who let the people ascribe a share of blame to served in it, by being put upon disagreehim, while they take shelter under the sa- able duty; and that at present, if he was cred name of majesty. The King wishes a militia officer, he would resign. He confor peace and reconciliation with Ame- cluded with declaring, that administration rica, and I believe the noble lord opposite, were taking advantage of the present situaand a part of his associates, do so too, as tion of affairs, to put the people under well as the generality of the people of martial law, and to add that law to the England; and that these blood-thirsty prerogative. That all the late American measures can only be pleasing to such Acts tended to increase the power of the slaves to a part of government, who the crown, and to demolish the rights of the very last year told us, they shuddered at people; and that as the present Bill evithe plan of operations, and would not sup-dently would do so, he should oppose it. port them, because they thought them cruel; yet now they can adopt them, because they are ten times more so; and to a set of unprincipled, arbitrary, and avaricious men, who I wish to God were transferred to a government like New Zealand (where they devour their fellow-creatures) from that of a civilized nation. Mr. Fox observed, it had been well said that the addresses would cause ill blood here; but he would add something more; they would cause much ill blood in America. The address from the Devonshire militia he reprobated as one of the most unconstitutional acts that ever had fallen within his knowledge. After which he declared he did not think so meanly of the understandings of the present ministry, as to suppose they would leave this country without an army of some kind. He approved of a militia as a succedaneum to an army, but by the present Bill they were evidently to serve as a part of the army itself. He then entered into a definition of the original meaning and intention of the English militia, and laid it down as a doctrine, that formerly a militia-man was merely armed and disciplined, that he might, when danger was at his door and pressed upon him, defend himself. He said he should certainly be against the introduction of foreign troops, and he was also against a standing army; that the purpose of the present Bill was to create a standing army, and to increase the power of the crown; that he saw no difference between a standing army of regulars, and a standing army of militia, whom the King could call out when he pleased; for that Lord North observed, that although there were so many different opinions held, and objections thrown out in the present debate, it was impossible for him to reply to all of them, yet he thought it incumbent on him to speak to two matters which had been urged by the gentlemen in opposition: one was, the charge made against him respecting the Oxford address; and the other, the idea which had been alleged to prevail with administration of introducing foreign troops into this kingdom: with regard to the latter, he declared there was no such idea entertained, and he appealed to the Bill before the House as a confirmation of what he said; for it was obvious, if ministry had such an intention they never would have introduced the Bill, but moved for the introduction of foreign troops, on the plea of the insufficiency of the present Militia Act. He declared he was himself averse to the employment of foreign troops, but where a great constitutional point was to be carried, and which could not be carried without them, he saw no objection to their being made use of. He thought they might be applied to as a resource, though it would be impolitic to use them in the first instance; that as we had more money than men, it was a natural and a justifiable resource in cases of necessity; but that at present administration meant to leave the defence of this country to the gentlemen of it, which was surely the measure most likely to prove agreeable to every Englishman; and that so far was he from wishing to embarrass any gentlemen in the militia, that he had no objection to the insertion of a clause, giving them power to resign if they disliked the service. His lordship treated what had fallen from Mr. Fox, respecting the dangerous use that might be made, at any future period, of the power granted by this Act, as a chimera, never likely to be realized; observing upon the hazard a minister would run in making a riot in the Indies, or a disturbance in any distant quarter of the King's dominions, a pretext for calling out the militia of England; and adding, that if any minister should be so hardy, he sincerely hoped he would be impeached at the bar of the House of Lords. With regard to the Oxford address, his lordship declared, that it came to him as a part of the university, as one of the firm of it; in fact, it was sent as a compliment to their chancellor; that he did not alter the language; that he both then and now thought it contained such sentiments as were proper to come from the university; that it did not encourage the plunging this country into a civil war; that it only expressed a disgust at rebellion, and teemed with professions of loyalty which were an honour to those from whom it came; and that therefore he did not prevent it from being presented: but he solemnly protested that he saw no other address in its way to the throne, and he defied gentlemen, after the most exact enquiry, to prove that administration interfered in procuring any. The question being put, That the Bill be read a second time; the House divided. The Noes went forth. it would convince him that his suspicions were well-founded, which were, that the present Bill was no more than a mere colourable pretext for arming the crown with power hitherto unknown to the constitution. Sir George Savile said the very point meant to be covertly carried by this Bill, was what no king of England, even the most despotic, was ever able to gain; that on this was grounded the leading contest between Charles 1 and his parliament, long before that assembly was charged with any views of faction, or of overthrowing the constitution. Hitherto, he said, no man in this country could be armed without the consent of parliament; the army were armed by parliament; so were the militia: but if this Bill should pass, the military might be armed by the king, without the consent of parliament. Many things might be urged on the ground that the militia were the great constitutional force of the kingdom; that nothing of course can be feared from them, for they will act in a double capacity, of defenders of their country and its constitution. The argument was plausible, and therefore the better calculated to deceive; but he begged leave to draw a very different conclusion. There were always two parties in this country; no matter as to their principles: the prince would have it in his power, by this Bill, to put the militia under the command of which of those he thought fit, and to call them out into actual service when he pleased; for as to the condition of a rebellion being within the dominions of the crown of Great Britain, he looked upon that as nothing; as means might be easily devised to furnish a pretence sufficient to justify the embodying the militia. What, then, may be the consequence, but that an ambitious or weak prince, supported or urged by a revengeful perse cuting faction, may create a civil war in some distant part of the empire, in order at length to give them an opportunity of exterminating or triumphing over their adversaries at home, and destroying the liberties of their country. Mr. Herbert said, the liberties of no free country could be preserved, on the supposition that the people were in a state like that described by the hon. gentleman; that the parliament must pay the militia, consequently the ministry would be cau tious to assemble them without a just cause; and while the present constitution continued, it would be absurd to guard against parliament, in whom we must continue to repose a confidence. Mr. Serjeant Adair entered into several legal definitions of treason and rebellion. He adverted to a law passed in the reign of Edward 1, in order to shew the true ancient ground on which the militia of this kingdom rested, and so traced the subject down to the present times. He insisted that if the friends of the Bill meant what they asserted, they would be amply content to have a temporary one. When they said the Bill meant no more than it expressed, why did they not define and specify the sort of rebellion, the extent of it, and its locality? No; any thing the governing powers thought proper to call rebellion, would soon be deemed so. He instanced the various cases, or acts of violence, which in law are deemed levying war, such as levelling inclosures, pulling down meeting-houses, bawdy-houses, &c. He mentioned particularly the cases of the Oxford-rioters, and the pulling down bawdy-houses in the reign of Charles 2, and Burgess's meeting-house, in the reign of queen Anne, when some persons were tried and condemned for high-treason, for being concerned in that riot.* He observed finally, that the British empire extended to the four quarters of the globe; that if any illegal or riotous act, of the nature now alluded to, should happen, no matter whether at Patna, Senegambia, or Boston, the minister might construe it into rebellion, and call out the militia. Sir Grey Cooper contended, that the minister could not call out the militia, without assigning his reasons for so doing, and submitting them to parliament for their approbation, whenever they met, if not sitting at the time. Mr. T. Townshend did not much approve of the Bill, but would give his assent to its passing, because if it should not pass, Germans would certainly be brought over; yet he hoped the Bill would be properly limited. He never knew or read of a standing army which did not originate in a militia. Several free governments had been overturned by a militia; particularly one near home. It was well known that Louis 11 of France overturned, and completely destroyed the liberties of his country by a militia. Mr. Dempster was for the Bill. He observed that the right hon. gentleman who said See Howell's State Trials, vol. 6, p. 879, and vol. 15, p, 521. that all the free governments of Europe had been destroyed by a militia, was mistaken, for history would furnish many more instances in which they had been overthrown by standing armies; and hoped that a militia would be established in the north part, as well as the south part of the island, for the defence of the nation in general. The Amendment was rejected, by a majority of 140 to 55. November 22. The Bill being read a third time, sir G. Savile offered a rider, to limit its duration to seven years; which was agreed to. Mr. For attacked the Bill, the framers, the advisers, and in short, every single object which it held out, particularly as it would be the means of increasing and extending the prerogative of the crown. In the course of his speech he mentioned the address from the first battalion of the Devonshire militia. He supposed, they wanted to alienate the king from the people, to imbrue their hands in the blood of their fellow-subjects: such men, he thought, ought not to be trusted with arms. The Attorney General might be ordered to prosecute the persons complained of in the address, and if wanted, they might come in to assist the law; that was their station. Mr. Acland, who presented the address, said, he thought the hon. gentleman pointed at him. He was no adventurer or place-hunter; he was a gentleman of independent fortune, who voted purely in conformity with his sentiments, without any sinister views whatever. Men of property who had much at stake, who could have no interest but the public interest, were surely the fittest persons to be trusted with arms, not those of reduced fortunes, &c. [Interrupted by Mr. Burke.] Mr. Fox replied, that he had a qualification which was sufficient, and that it was the first time he ever heard any man take liberties in that House on account of his fortune, whether real or ideal; standing as he did, he supposed he had as good a right to speak as any man in that House, and would not be interrupted. [Here the House interposed, and the altercation went no further.] Lord North said, the militia being a constitutional body, might with great propriety, as a military body, at any time, address the throne upon the state of public affairs, to express their loyal dispositions to his Majesty, and promise any exertions in support of the crown. |