low-creature, I should wish to indulge you as far as is consistent with my own exigencies. Something I must have, and something considerable; but I will leave it to yourself to offer what you can spare in your present circumstances. I will require no particular sum, but, notwithstanding, I must advise you to be liberal; for, let me tell you, it is my business to judge whether your offers are reasonable or not, and I will compel you to give me what I think you ought.”

From the internal structure of the motion, I proceed to its exterior appendages; and from Lord North’s own declarations on the occasion, I infer his real design with infallible certainty. In the course of the debate he asserts, that it is no conceding proposition, nor any diminution of the authority of Parliament, but rather a confirmation of it: That the taxing power is still retained in the hands of that body, and to be exercised entirely at its own discretion: That we are only to be indulged in the mode, which, provided a substantial supply be obtained, ought to be left with us, upon motives of mutual convenience: That this is, at length, placing the matter upon a solid foundation—a dispute for revenue—not an idle punctilious controversy on principles of abstract right: That the benefits of commerce between Britain and the Colonies are reciprocal, and so nearly upon a par as to leave us little claim of exemption from an equal portion of taxes with the people at home, on account of the confinement of our trade; consequently, after a trifling allowance for the balance that may be against us, reason and equity require that we should contribute full as much in taxes as they: That no relaxation is to take place in the coercive operations, either by restrictive statutes or military chastisement; and that our submission to the terms here presented is to be the condition on which our allegiance shall be accepted.*

This his Lordship affirms is the ultimatum, the utmost favour we are to expect, though he confesses himself sensible that the proposition will not be relished by the Americans in general; but if only one Colony should submit, his purpose would be answered, because, one link of the chain; being broken, the whole must necessarily fall into pieces. This separation, he says, would restore the Empire; and divide et impera is a maxim never held unfair or unwise in Government. He takes occasion to encourage the people to patience and resignation under their temporary sufferings, from the sudden interruption and decay of trade and the infelicities of war, by holding out the flattering prospect of a large revenue, to be raised upon us, for the relief of their burdens; and at the same time to animate the soldiery to a full exertion of their native valour and intrepidity, by informing them that they are not to draw their swords and imbrue their hands in blood, for a vain phantom, or empty point of honour, but for a substantial and durable benefit to their Country.

Without waiting to see the success of his experiment, scarce allowing us time to receive the intelligence of his proposal, with a precipitant temerity that marks the savage inhumanity of his heart, he gives the fatal word to open the dismal theatre of war, and begin the horrid tragedy; as if in haste to evince the sincerity of his professed resolution to compel us to be slaves.

What shall we think of such a motion, attended with such dark circumstances? Considered in itself, examined in conjunction with the Minister’s own explications, and with his desperate conduct since, does this uncomely progeny of his possess a single feature or lineament of peace and reconciliation? Does it not rather wear the aspect of treachery, insult, and tyrannick violence, and call for our resentment much more than our countenance or approbation?

It frequently excites both my laughter and spleen to hear men gravely calling this a conciliatory proposition, a fair ground for negotiation, and the like. If his good Lordship intended it so, he certainly took a most ungracious method to recommend it to us; and if we are credulous enough to believe it such, we must take our opinion upon hypothesis and trust. We may, indeed, discover the facility and extent of our faith, but not the acuteness or depth of our penetration. For my part, as I have not so much credulity in my composition as may incline me to credit the vague suggestions of any man in opposition to the natural appearances of things, I must opine that there is nothing conciliatory in this motion, except it be in the name. I can view no proposal as tending to accommodate and reconcile, unless it possess these two characteristicks— a considerable approach towards those terms we may, with justice to ourselves, accept; and an intermission of all coercive, compulsory proceedings. These alone can testify a serious design of pacification in our enemies, and can make it honourable or politick in us to regard their overtures. The resolution in question is at such an infinite distance from any thing we can embrace, and is clothed in such a menacing hostile garb, that it clearly evinces the most unfriendly disposition, and claims nothing from us but the most contemptuous inattention.

THE MONITOR, NO. VII.

In publick exigencies there is hardly any thing more prejudicial than excessive caution, timidity, and dilatoriness; as there is nothing more beneficial than vigour, enterprise, and expedition. When the former qualities prevail in the conduct of affairs, during the tempest of State, we sea none but weak and irresolute counsels, productive of plans and measures slow in their execution, and insignificant in their consequences. Every proposal, whether trivial or important, is perplexed with endless debates; however obvious its propriety, still it must be examined in every light, must undergo the nicest dissection, and each member of it be viewed with the most scrupulous precision. If it may be attended with difficulties, these, though little more than mole hills in themselves, appear, through the microscopic medium of fear, to be inaccessible mountains. The creative eye of coward caution multiplies difficulties, and fancies it sees a thousand obstacles and inconveniences which have no real existence. Undertakings the most necessary and likely to succeed, are rejected for the bare possibility of failure, and of some mischievous effects which may chance to result from them. The attention, engrossed with a multitude of immediate minute objects, is incapable of extending to any comprehensive views, and the mind is too feeble to embrace any lofty or hazardous projects, notwithstanding the prosperity of publick concerns may absolutely require them. In a word, nothing wise, provident, manly, or decisive, is to be expected; a scandalous remissness, imbecility, and inaction, characterize the general current of affairs.

When the latter ingredients preponderate, we see bold designs concerted with becoming resolution, and executed with answerable firmness and success. We behold active counsels, seconded by a promptitude in execution. Deliberation is indulged within proper bounds, and proportioned to the nature of the business. Danger is encountered, obstacles are levelled, resources provided, remote perils are foreseen with calm intrepidity, and prepared against with a proper degree of self-possession, which is ever fruitful of expedients; they are not regarded with indecent terror and despondency, nor vainly avoided by an unavailing flight. Activity and fortitude are the very life of great exploits, and can alone produce security in perilous and stormy times.

I would not be understood to censure a due degree of prudent calmness and circumspection, nor to recommend precipitancy and rashness. I am sensible of the necessity of the former, and of the destructive tendency of the latter; but I would wish to explode that strange perversion of ideas and terms by which men are led to make the name of prudence a sanction for cowardice, or something worse. I would desire to impress this sentiment, that supineness and indolence, when war thunders at our gates, is inconsistent with prudence, which dictates the use of the means best adapted to every occasion; that it is one thing to fold our arms and slumber, while the lawless robber is plundering our habitations, and another to take those discreet, and, at the same time, resolute methods which are best adapted to resist his attempts. In a state of hostility, I esteem it the truest wisdom to be diligent, prompt, and enterprising; to strain every sinew in warlike preparations; to search out every expedient, and seize every opportunity of strengthening ourselves, and materially weakening the enemy.

* The reader will find all that is here mentioned, without the least exaggeration, in the New-York. Journal of the 20th of April, 1775, in an account of the debates on the motion, taken from the London Evening Post.