said, that the keeping up eighty-nine thousand men in peace had crippled us. But there was a great difference between the present division of the empire and a war with its natural enemies; those enemies are quiet, but ready to attack us on a sudden whenever they see an opportunity.

Mr. William Innes Sir, the present state of our American affairs flows from natural causes. The prosperity of a people depends on a form of Government suited to their situations and circumstances. That which was calculated for the infant state of our Colonies, is evidently defective now that they are grown great and populous. In every civilized nation in the known world, at this period of time, whether monarchy or republick, you will not find the subjects governed merely by the love and affection which they bare to their rulers. A well regulated Government maintains its authority by a proper force, to restrain and correct the bad humours of discontented individuals. Is it possible in the nature of things that amongst a numerous race of people, all of them can be sober and sensible? In every large society, there is a restless and turbulent set of men, fond of power, and envious of those in rank and station above them. Have you hitherto kept a force sufficient to maintain the authority of this country, over even a few individuals in North-America? No, sir, you have not. You laid on the Stamp Act, without power to enforce it; you were so weak as to repeal it, without giving time to try what effect it might have in the ordinary course of things, owing to your own unsteady and factious pursuits at home.

What has been the real cause of discontent in America? It has arisen chiefly from a thirst after independency, and from the great encouragement which the Colonists found on this side the water. A seditious spirit soon spreads its contagion; and, in the present case, it has grown to an enormous height. Is this to be wondered at, when you consider that both here and in America, there are to be found men of abandoned principles, ready to engage in any outrage? The more sensible, who are disposed to peace, will not interfere in proper time, thinking it the business of Government, under whose protection they live, to defend them from insult. You are told, with confidence, that the North-Americans are all of them united. It is not true. I have letters, on the veracity of which I can depend, informing me of the contrary. Ask the gentlemen I lately come from North-America: they will tell you they have been forced away, because they would not join in the general riot and disturbance.

On the great question of the natural rights of mankind, and the right of taxation, I beg leave to make a few observations. When the first settlers went out, they were content to go under certain restrictions and regulations. What were those regulations? Were not the Colonists confined within certain bounds, and subjected to certain terms by charter grants? Were they not then satisfied and happy to accept the terms granted them, and to be under the protection of the mother country? Did the first settlers in the Colonies, to whom the charters were granted, presume to say to the mother county, we will abide by your laws and regulations so long as we shall think fit, but no longer? Have not the Colonists all along enjoyed every encouragement and support which the first settlers could possibly have expected? Was it not then understood that they were to be subject to the laws of this country? Will any man say that either the original or any of the late emigrants ever went out with any other views than those of interest? Did the original settlers presume to talk about representatives in Parliament, and of a refusal to be taxed without their own consent? Has a man, whom I have indulged to possess a share of my house at an easy rate, but subject to my rules, right, when I am grown old, thinking he is stronger than me, to say, I will submit to your rules no longer; the house is mine, and I will turn you out? Is it because the Colonies have arrived to a flourishing condition, under the wing of the parent State, that they have a right to rebel? It has been asserted that the Colonists are the offspring of Englishmen, and, as such, entitled to the privileges of Britons. Sir, I am bold to deny it; for it is well known that they not only consist of English, Scots, and Irish, but also of French, Dutch, Germans, innumerable Indians, Africans, and a multitude of felons from this country. Is it possible to tell which are the most turbulent amongst such a mixture of people? To which of them is England to give up her original right over an estate belonging to herself? I leave it to the learned and ingenious honourable gentlemen to define the true sense and meaning of the different charters granted to the Colonies; but I am afraid their nice distinctions and definitions will throw little light upon the subject, and serve only to perplex and confound men of ordinary understanding.

The grand claim of the Americans is liberty; but it appears to me absurd to say that a people who import slaves, and are despotick over them—nay, many of whom draw their sustenance from the very bosom of slavery—have a right to the freedom which the inhabitants of this country enjoy. The North-American spirit and practice, in this respect, have surely nothing in them similar to what prevails in Great Britain. Would it not, then, be a strange piece of policy, if not a subversion of all order in the mother country, to countenance this dangerous spirit, which evidently aims at independency, and might speedily degenerate into tyranny, over their present constitutional superiors? What claim can those persons have to an increase of liberty, who do not grant the smallest exercise of it to their neighbours? Or if their claim were to be admitted, in what manner is such liberty to be dispensed—partially or impartially? Is the grandchild to be free, and the grandfather to remain a slave? Is the brother to enjoy liberty, and the sister to be excluded from it? The question concerning the natural rights of mankind cannot, with propriety, come under consideration in the present dispute between us and our Colonies. Liberty, genuine liberty, if it exist at all, is confined to this and our sister kingdom. If our forefathers have been so negligent as not to give stability to the authority of this country over her Colonies, it is high time that we should do it.

I cannot reconcile it to the duty I owe to my country in general, and to my constituents in particular, to be silent on this great occasion. Things are got to such a height that it behoves every man to give all the assistance in his power. Sir, the method hitherto pursued, to quell the rebellion in North-America, has proved ineffectual, because it was mild and gentle. We are not, however, to despair. More vigorous and better planned measures will have a different effect. Your troops received a severe check on the 19th of April. What else could be expected? The Provincials were provoked at being represented as cowards. They were determined to convince you of the contrary? They fought, indeed; but how did they fight? They attacked your troops from windows of houses and from behind walls, at a time the soldiers were fatigued with a long march. Neither has the lamentable affair at Bunker’s Hill, on the 17th of June, anything surprising in it. The Provincials were strongly intrenched on an eminence—a situation which inspired courage, in confidence of safety; yet our troops fought and conquered under the greatest disadvantages. Boston is; a place badly situated for defence, surrounded by hills, and liable to be attacked in various ways; it is, therefore, entirely improper to keep an army at a place so circumstanced, and for this reason your troops ought to be removed from thence.

There has not, as yet, been any regular engagement, nor a fair trial of military skill and courage, between his Majesty’s forces and the Rebels. The numbers of the latter are undoubtedly great, and it will be difficult, if not impossible, to conquer them, if attacked when so securely intrenched. The people of Massachusetts-Bay appear to be obstinate and enthusiastick to the last degree; they ought, therefore, to be treated like madmen, whom it were folly to contend with. I would, on this consideration, advise to shut them up with frigates and sloops-of-war, and leave them.

A noble Lord may remember I took the liberty to propose this measure to him in the month of February last, before the reinforcement went out; and, from a full persuasion of the propriety of it, recommended to his Lordship to send all the army to New-York and Philadelphia. I wish that plan had been adopted; it would have prevented much bloodshed and other ill consequences. But it must be admitted that no human foresight can determine in what manner the best concerted plans will operate.

You are losing, to all appearance, a complete year, by your army being kept at Boston. The enemies of Administration exult and reproach you with the ignominious situation of British soldiers, cooped up in a state of inaction. But let not this discourage us. If it were not for the