them relief from their afflicting fears and jealousies, and having, in the most earnest terms, declared their attachment to his person, family, and Government, with all the devotion that principle and affection can inspire; and having solemnly assured his Majesty that, connected with Great Britain by the strongest ties that can unite societies, and deploring every event that tends in any degree to weaken them, they not only most ardently desire that the former harmony may be restored between them, but that a concord may be established upon so firm a basis as to perpetuate its blessings, uninterrupted by any future dissensions, to succeeding generations in both countries; and having further assured his Majesty that, notwithstanding their sufferings during the course of the present controversy, their breasts retain too tender a regard for the kingdom from which they derive their origin, to request such a reconciliation as might in any manner be inconsistent with her dignity or her welfare; and that the apprehensions which now oppress their hearts with unspeakable grief being once removed, his Majesty will find his faithful subjects in America ready and willing at all times, as they ever have been, with their lives and fortunes, to assert and maintain the rights and interests of his Majesty, and of their mother country; and having, with all humility, submitted to his Majesty’s wise consideration, whether it may not be expedient that his Majesty be pleased to direct some mode by which the united application of his Colonists may be improved into a happy and permanent reconciliation, his faithful Commons humbly beg leave to represent, that however well disposed his Majesty’s subjects in America may be, according to their most earnest professions, to return to their former obedience and constitutional dependance, yet that the horrours of war and bloodshed raging in their country must drive them to distraction and despair; and further, his faithful Commons beg leave to recommend it to his Majesty’s parental consideration, that a return to their duty, of their own free mind and voluntary compliance, would insure a more cordial and permanent reconciliation than any reluctant submission, which, through much bloodshed of his Majesty’s subjects, could be enforced by the sword; therefore his faithful Commons most humbly beseech his Majesty that he will be graciously pleased to give orders for putting a stop to the further prosecution of hostilities in America, thereby to prevent the further destruction of the lives of his Majesty’s subjects, and to afford the wished-for opportunity to his Colonists of evincing the sincerity of their professions, by every testimony of devotion becoming the most dutiful subjects, and the most affectionate Colonists.”

Sir George Savile. I rise, sir, under difficulties common to me, and to all who speak from this side the House; but then they are collateral and adventitious difficulties. If we urge that we have been unjust: we are answered that that matter has been long since decided. If we state that nothing is to be got even by victory: we have the same answer. If we argue that our measures are impracticable, and that success is beyond our power: the House will not endure to hear the power of this country called in question. He is a friend to rebellion who dares hesitate concerning the comparative force of the contending parties. Or, if I should touch on the topick of lightening the chains of slavery in America, recommended by my honourable friend, a learned gentleman will perhaps tell me that I am not a Whig, for that Whigs were ever fond of despotism. But I spoke guardedly when I said that these were collateral and adventitious difficulties only; for, on the naked matter itself, were a bystander to judge, it should seem that the harder task would be to point out or create the difficulties. For what is the case? I ask the gentlemen on the other side of the House, what are their wishes? I am answered, “Would to God we were in the situation of 1763.” I ask the Colonies: I am answered, “Would to God we were in the situation of 1763.” I know well that there are various senses in which this phrase may be understood. Oh! sir, there is indeed one sense in which, God knows, we cannot be restored to the situation of 1763. Who will restore to this country the blood that has been shed? Who will restore those gallant men to their country, whose lives have been lavished and spent, and misspent in the fatal contest? Who will make good to me my share in a Howe, a Clinton, a Burgoyne, whose fate is now standing on a die? These sentiments, sir, have long pressed upon my mind, but I did not feel the weight of them till this day: four hours ago I felt not half their force. Men’s value is not known till they are lost; four hours ago this country had a man’; his country has him no more; one of your members, sir. A member is perhaps soon replaced. But where shall we find his fellow, who, having in his vigour carried your anus in glory to the extent of your empire, (that empire the ocean,) when called upon by his country in the dregs of life, with a constitution worn down in your service, urged on and goaded his tottering limbs, with hobbling haste and feeble alacrity, to climb the well-known steps of the ship’s side to meet your enemy? I trust, sir, the House will not think me guilty of an uncomely tautology if I have said a word or two on a subject already touched by my honourable friend. No, sir; let it rather be an order of your House that for one day at least, while the memory and the gratitude yet remain, none shall speak without paying his just tribute to that respectable, that gallant, that honest publick man. But, sir, I beg your pardon, and I return to state that I am constrained to allow, that the repealing of bills, recalling troops, undoing every act, is not virtually and effectually bringing things back into the same situation as if they had never been done; and I acknowledge, too, that some test may now be wanted on the part of the Colonies to balance our acts of generous conciliation. Shall this test be in words? Their words you will not take. You are sure they aim at independence, because they disavow it. You are sure they will not give on requisition, for they say they will. Oh! but you have better proofs. You have a certainty they will not, for they always have. They have always done it; they have overdone it. And, in truth, this is the kind of proof we have been used to; we are well broke in, and we bear it. The satisfactory earnest this House accepted of our future success, was, that we had hitherto miscarried. The proof that we are now sure to direct our force wisely was, that we have hitherto blundered most egregiously. The House has paid due regard to these arguments, and we have voted as we were desired. We have adopted the logick, and the precedent applies to the case before us. Well, then, it is allowed, their words are not to be taken. Their former loyalty to this country shall not pass for anything but proof of their future disobedience. Allowed; my friend’s propositions meet you then on that ground. He looks for an actual, fresh test of living obedience; an enrolling a British act of Parliament; to which I hope it will not be a capital objection that it is not oppressive, that it is not unreasonable, and has morality, humanity, and the rights of a part of mankind, for its object and foundation. I second the motion of my honourable friend.

Lord North said a few words relative to the unseason-ableness of the motion, till a bill of such vast extent as the Prohibitory Bill going through the House, was first tried.

Mr. Burke said, that the very reason assigned why the present motion should not be agreed to, was the best reason for agreeing to it; for if the bill, and the measures and principles which gave birth to it, had not made their way into Parliament, there would be no occasion for the present motion.

Lord John Cavendish spoke in favour of the motion, but said he despaired of success, as the Ministry, supported by a majority, were determined to push matters to the utmost extremity.

Mr. Sawbridge said, it had been very fashionable, both within and without doors, to stigmatize the Americans as cowards and poltrons, but he believed the truth would be found on the other side; for he was well informed that the King’s troops at the action of Bunker’s Hill consisted of two thousand five hundred men, and the Provincials not quite one thousand five hundred, and even those one thousand five hundred would have completely defeated the King’s troops, if their ammunition had not been totally spent.

Lord North said, he was but an indifferent judge of military operations; but by the best accounts he could obtain, the Provincials were at least three to one, and were, besides, very strongly intrenched. Even by a Gazette published under their own immediate authority, in the list of the killed and wounded, it appeared that nineteen regiments had suffered, which was a proof that go many were present, and that, computing them at five hundred men a regiment, and making the usual allowances, there could not be less than eight thousand Provincials that day defending the lines at Bunker’s Hill.