newspapers. We know, indeed, that the Americans were dutiful and contented till the Stamp Act was passed, for the purpose of internal taxation. At this they murmured; this they opposed; but as soon as it was repealed they cheerfully returned to their duty, and so would they do now if the same expedient was used. To take a part against America would be contrary to prudence; for if we assist to punish them for resisting against being taxed by the British Parliament, we furnish a precedent against ourselves, if ever the like occasion should happen. It would be also imprudent to admit these foreign troops; they are not freemen, but subjects to arbitrary Government, and will not regard us as their master if we do not pay them, for soldiers always look up to the hand that pays them. As this measure is contrary to justice and prudence, so is it also to humanity; for what can be more inhuman than to send our friends, our relations, men we have conversed and eat and drank with, to expose them to the dangers of sea and battle, whilst foreigners live here at ease and safety; and he asked, was it not inhumanity to make widows and orphans of our countrywomen and children, only to spare those of strangers?

Mr. John Fitzgibbons said, before we took any part in a war, we should examine whether it was just. He then entered into a recapitulation of all that had passed between Great Britain and her Colonies, from the last war to the present time, and concluded that the war was unjust, and Ireland had no reason to be a party therein. Some may say, added he, if we refuse these troops to His Majesty’s request, it may be of evil consequences; but he thought differently. It would make the King look into the affair, and when he sees we are not inclined to assist in an unjust war, it may be a means of inducing him to put an end to it.

Sir John Blaquiere replied, the resolution before the Committee tended to verify and realize the professions of loyalty made by the House. To this gentlemen might consent, without agreeing to the other, if they thought fit to submit to a short temporary inconveniency, rather than receive foreign troops, which would only be sent at the desire of the House.

Sir Edward Newenham said, as he had given his negative to the address, which denounced vengeance against his fellow-subjects, he could not agree to the sending of more troops, to butcher men who were fighting for their liberty. He said, that we might bid farewell to such as we sent to America; for that if America was conquered, the troops would be kept there to preserve that conquest; for though it might be conquered, the spirit of liberty would not be ever subdued. He was violently against the introduction of foreign mercenaries, and argued that the introduction of them had occasioned the fall of many great Empires and States. He instanced the danger of having foreign troops in any Kingdom where they would not be amenable to the laws, by mentioning the case of a Hessian soldier, who committed a robbery, and was confined by the civil magistrates, but was released and given up to the military. That Hanoverian, Hessian, and Brunswick troops were more dangerous than any others; for that German connections were always fatal to the true interests of Old-England. He entered largely into the present system of affairs in Europe. He insisted upon it, that German influence was so powerful in the Cabinet of Great Britain, that the most valuable interests of these Kingdoms would be given to save the paltry Electorate of Hanover. That he was convinced the destruction of the Elector’s Managery at Herenhausen, or the much-admired stud of cream-coloured nags in the stables of Hanover or Zell, would appear, in the eyes of the present Ministry, as a greater misfortune than the desolation of those three once happy, but now distracted sinking nations. He advised the Minister in the House to consider what riots and disorders would be committed in the City of Dublin, if foreign mercenaries were quartered in it. That the sending of our troops to the butchery of our fellow-subjects in America, or bringing over foreign mercenaries, equally militated against true reason and sound policy.

Mr. Gardiner considered the question in a twofold light; first, in regard to the relation in which we stand to Great Britain and America; and secondly, in regard to ourselves. In respect to the first, the question is not whether America resisted first, or whether she was oppressed first; but, at present, it stands only whether America should be forever lost to Great Britain, or not. He heartily wished a reconciliation might take place; but that could only be effected by having a power to enforce it. Men, whose very existence in their offices depend on war, will never be sincere advocates for peace. The greater force sent to America, the less sanguinary will be the measure; and he was clearly of opinion, had there been as many troops in America last spring as there will be the next, not a sword would now have been unsheathed. It is our duty and interest to assist Great Britain, if we can; but we cannot spare so many men from the defence of this country, if they are not somewhere replaced. The dispositions of the nations around us forbid us to leave Ireland defenceless. In his late tour, he had an opportunity of conversing with intelligent persons in divers Courts of Europe, and, by what he could gather, he was assured, they looked upon the contest with America as a means of weakening us; and when our neighbours thought us sufficiently weakened, then they would not fail to attack us in our most defenceless part. The Spaniards had a greater force than ever they had since the time of the Armada, commanded by an Irishman, who would omit no opportunity to invade that country, against which he was embittered by being banished from it. If these troops went away without being replaced, we should be defenceless. By the most accurate accounts, there were but eight thousand five hundred real fighting men in Ireland; and if a fourth part of them were sent abroad, he would ask the right honourable gentleman, (Sir John Blaquiere,) or he would ask the Commander-in-Chief, if he were in the House, whether either would undertake the defence of this Kingdom with the remainder, without any addition. He did not conceive there could be more danger from foreign troops than from natives; they were unacquainted with our language, and unconnected with our people, and therefore less liable to desertion. He also thought the saving from this measure was of great importance; nevertheless, before he would give his assent to the resolution, he must be assured of two things—one, that the men sent abroad will certainly be replaced; the other, that the saving of the four thousand men’s pay will not remain a surplus in the Treasury, exposed to the grasp of a Minister, but be deducted from the total of the supplies in the present money bill.

Mr. Carleton spoke a long time, to prove there could be no danger of a precedent making against us; and he enlarged on the evil consequences that would ensue from irritating Great Britain, by refusing this request.

Mr. Warden Flood espoused the measure, as it was not any augmentation, but a lessening of the national expense.

Mr. George Ogle said, he was not to be intimidated by any threats of ill consequences arising from a refusal. He was averse to send men, with swords in their hands, to cut the throats of their American brethren. That the ample supplies given by this exhausted and struggling country were sufficient testimonies of our loyalty; and it was highly improper to send men to punish in others what they would do in the same case. This measure was doubtless determined on the very first day of the session; and that was the cause why the compact of keeping twelve thousand men here was so strictly observed. The foreign troops cannot be called our own troops, if we do not pay them; they will fight for those only who do. A land tax will probably be attempted here; and if it does not succeed, (as certainly it cannot,) then it will be laid on by the British Parliament, and the foreign troops will be left here to enforce obedience. Whilst Parliament here will do all that is absurd, we shall, no doubt, have a Parliament, just as the Romans had a Senate in the times of the Emperors, but only to give a sanction to the Emperor’s dictates. He was, he said, alarmed by the manner in which the two resolutions were treated by Administration. The first was the measure of Government, and as such was supported; the last was the measure of Parliament, and as such was slighted by Administration: just as if they said, “grant us the four thousand more, and then take care for your own defence as you please.” If men must be sent to America, send these foreign mercenaries, not the brave sons of Ireland, Gentlemen have said, Ministers must have power to enforce conciliation; but we know few Ministers who have power to enforce will attend to the voice of justice;