PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES Of the FOURTH SESSION of the HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE Fourteenth Parliament of Great-Britain ; Appointed to be held at Westminster, on Thursday the 18th day of November 1777. February 5. THE report of the committee of fupply for the new levies. Mr. Popham opposed the bringing up the report, contending upon the law argument, that the manner in which the troops had been raised was unconftitutional and illegal. Mr. Turner spoke next, declaring that his life and fortune fhould ever be devoted to his Majefty's perfon and government, because he thought it impoffible that a prince of the Houfe of Hanover fhould ever become hoftile to liberty, or violate the laws and conftitution in any fhape whatever. Mr. Rous thought the subscriptions illegal, but that the rebellion ought to be quelled by any means whatever; he should therefore vote for the fupply of the levies, though raised against law. Mr. Wallace faid, that though, to be fure, it was against law for the King to levy money, yet it was perfectly confonant to law for his Majefty to get money levied for him. Lord Frederick Campbell maintained, that the principles of his family were always thofe of whigiẩm; and he thought subfcriptions for quelling the American rebellion perfectly confifted with whigifh principles. Mr. Moyfey declared himself satisfied of the legality of fuch fubfcriptions, being, as they were, purely voluntary; that Lord Coke's opinion was clearly in their favour, as appears by his reading upon the ftatute of Rich. III. where he makes the diftinction between voluntary and involuntary contributions, in his chapter of Benevolences, which had not been taken notice of. That the commiffion authorised by the ftatute of Cha. II. VOL. VIII. B fo fo much relied on by the other fide, was compulsory in its nature, as appears by the proceedings under fuch commiffions in the time of Charles I. and in particular by the description given of them by Sir John Elliot, in his famous petition to the King from the Gatehouse, in 1626; that the terms of the act of Charles II. prove compulfion, for the words, "supplies hereby granted," are irreconcileable to any other conftruction, and are of themselves decifive of the question; for if the money thereby raifed was purely fpontaneous on the part of the people, the Commons in Parliament, in fuch cafe, granted nothing; nor was the King fure of receiving a single farthing under fuch act of parliament. Governor Johnstone contended for the illegality of the subfcription; expatiated on the injuftice the old officers must sustain by having fo many young ones put over their heads; and that in the fame proportion as the new levies were raised the recruiting fervice, as to the old regiments, must be prejudiced. He particularly lamented that fo vaft a proportion of thefe new levies was to be raised in Scotland, becaufe the country must be stripped of its most useful hands for agriculture and for commerce. Lord North contended, that the prefent fubfcriptions were no more than had been practised in all times of public emergency, particularly in 1745, and in 1759, in Mr. Pitt's administration, when the new levies were raifed by private fubfcription; and the fubfcribers, inftead of being treated as violators of the law, were publicly and folemnly thanked by the then minifter, Lord Chatham, and applauded by the public. He averred, that no influence whatsoever had been ufed, but that the offers all came as the fpontaneous and generous effufions of love and loyalty to the King, and as a teftimony of their zeal to fupport the legislature of Great Britain against the rebellion in America. Sir William Meredith replied to Lord North, that it was unjuft to give any fanction to his own administration at the expence of the reputation of another; that Lord Chatham's conduct, which he reprefented to be the fame as his own, was nothing like it; that the fubfcriptions then were to raise recruits for old regiments which had fuffered in the wars, which had been raised under the authority of Parliament, approved, voted, and for a long time paid by Parliament; whereas, in the prefent cafe, both the money had been levied, and the troops raised, during the fitting of Parliament, without the confent, knowledge, or any communication with Parliament whatever; that the precedent for his Lordship's conduct might be drawn 3 with 3 with more correctnefs from that of James the Second, who, on the Duke of Monmouth's landing in the Weft, had adjourned the Parliament for the very purpose of levying the troops himself, without the interference of Parliament, in order to choose fuch as were most attached to his person, and most likely to ferve his purposes. He then went through the history of all benevolences, from the reign of Edward the Fourth, when they began, to the prefent time; that they had been fuppreffed by two acts of Parliament, which are now in force, and had been treated as unconstitutional always, particularly in the reign of James the Firft, when the King attempted to raise a fubfcription in a manner exactly fimilar to the prefent; namely, by fending certain of his confidential fervants to different parts of the kingdom to raise spontaneous and voluntary fubfcriptions, unaccompanied with any circumftance of force whatever. Mr. St. John, who was efteemed the best conftitutional lawyer in the kingdom, and afterwards Lord Chief Juftice, opposed thofe fubscriptions with great vehemence, and declared that the attempt to get money for the King's ufe in that way was a breach of his Majefty's coronation oath, and an abetting of perjury in all those who fubfcribed. He faid it was a mark for a Bolingbroke, and a match for Richard the Second. Mr. St. John was profecuted in the Star Chamber, and acquitted; fo that there is the judgment of the Star Chamber itself, the moft arbitrary and the moft tyrannous court that ever existed, that resistance to fuch fubfcriptions, by any means, or in any language, is not reprehenfible; which opinion they could never have entertained, had they judged the fubfcriptions themselves to have been legal. Mr. Gafcoigne was entering into fome perfonal invective against Sir William Meredith, but the Speaker stopped him, which Sir William Meredith, in reply, faid, he was forry for, because the more that honourable gentleman abused him, the better he thought of himself; that the effusions of his eloquence were incapable of the guilt of flander; they were, on the contrary, fatisfactory and reputable. The queftion was called for, and the Houfe divided; for agreeing with the report 223, against it 130 *. February 6. Mr. Burke moved, "That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give direc *So large a minority upon a question of supply was thought extraordinary, it having been commonly obferved, that questions of fupply are ufually carried unanimoufly, or but weakly refifted. B 2 tions, A. 1778. tions, that there be laid before this House copies of all papers that have passed between any of his Majesty's ministers and the generals of his armies in America, or any person acting for government in Indian affairs, relative to the military employment of the Indians of America, in the prefent civil war, from the firft of March 1774 to the firft of January 1778." Mr. Burke began by oblerving, that one of the grand objects in the inquiry into the ftate of the nation was, the condition and quality of the troops employed in America. That an account of the King's regular forces, and those of his European allies, were upon the table. That hitherto no account had appeared of his irregular forces, thofe in particular of his favage allies; although there had been great dependence upon them, and that they were obtained at a great expence. That it was neceffary to examine into this point; becaufe an extenfion of their mode of making war had been lately ftrenuously recommended. The prevailing idea was, that in the next campaign, the plans hitherto purfued were to be abandoned, and a war of distress and intimidation was to take place of a war of conqueft, which had been found impracticable. He obferved, that this mode of war had been hitherto tried upon a large fcale; and the fuccefs which hitherto had attended it would beft prove how far it would be proper to extend it to all our troops, and all our operations; that if it did not promise to be very decifive, as a plan merely military, it could be attended with no collateral advantages to our reputation as a civilifed people, or to our policy in reconciling the minds of the colonies to his Majefty's government. He then ftated what a war by Indians was. That the fault of employing them did not confift in their being of one colour or another; in their using one kind of weapon or another; but in their way of making war, which was fo horrible that it fhocked not only the manners of all civilifed people, but far exceeded the ferocity of all barbarians mentioned in history. That the Indians in North America never have but two principal objects for going to war: the glory of deftroying, or, when opportunity offered, of exterminating their enemies; the other, which always depended on the former, the glory of procuring the greatest number of fcalps, which they hung up in their huts as trophies of victory, conqueft, and perfonal prowess, much in the fame manner that ftandards, kettle-drums, and colours, are depofited in public places in civilifed nations, in token of fome fignal overthrow of a powerful and dangerous enemy. The Indians of America had no titles, finecure places, lucrative governments, penfions, or red ribbons, to be ftow stow on those who fignalised themselves in the field; their rewards were generally received in human fcalps, in human flesh, and the gratifications arifing from torturing, mangling, fcalping, and fometimes eating, their captives in war. He then repeated feveral inftances of this diabolical mode of war fcarcely credible, and, if true, improper to be repeated. He went largely into the proofs of this their mode of making war in all times. He proved, that they had not altered that mode of making war; and that no poffible means could prevail on them to alter it. He then took a view of the employment of thefe favages in the wars between France and England, and fhewed, that it had been the inevitable confequence of the connexion of the two nations with the feveral Indian tribes, who, on the firft European fettlements, were, comparatively, great and powerful ftates; that alliances had been formed with them, and all our affairs became neceflarily entangled with theirs. But now no European nation but the English colonies remained in North America; and the favages were fo reduced in number, that there was no neceffity of any connexion with them as nations. They were only formidable from their cruelty; and to employ them was merely to be cruel ourfelves in their perfons, and to become chargeable with all the odious and impotent barbarities which they would certainly commit whenever they were called into action. On all these points he dwelt a long time, explaining and illuftrating every particular with great clearness and precifion. He then confidered the apologies which had been made for employing them; fuch as, ift, "That if his Majefty had not employed them the rebels would; 2d, and that great care had been taken to prevent the indifcriminate murder of men, women, and children, according to their favage cuftom; 3d, That they were never employed but in the company of duciplined troops, in order to prevent their irregularities.' To the first he answered, that no proof whatever had been given of the Americans having attempted an offentive alliance with any one tribe of favage Indians; whereas, the imperfect papers already before that Houfe demonftrated that the King's minifters had negotiated and obtained fach alliances from one end of the continent of America to the other. That the Americans had actually made a treaty on the footing of neutrality with the famous Five Nations, which the King's minifters had bribed them to violate, and to act offenfively against the colonies. That no attempt had been mede, in a single inftarice on the part of the King's minifters, to |