composed them. No two of the confidential servants of the Crown who spoke, agreed in a single sentiment. Some allowed the message to import what was stated in the complaint; others acceded to a part; while a third was so modest as to contend, in defiance of every rule of rational and obvious construction, that the message meant the reverse of what, in the very face of it, it manifestly intended. But in this diversity of opinion, there was one thing too curious to pass unnoticed, that was the language used by two or three members of Administration, which was, describing the Minister of the House of Commons in Ireland and the Speaker, under the undefined terms of one Edmund Sexton Perry, and one Sir John Blaquiere.

Mr. Attorney-General said, the motion was a party squib, not worth attending to; and that the preamble to an Irish act of Parliament did not bind the Parliament of Great Britain.

Governour Johnstone said, the Ministers here threw all the blame upon the Ministers in Ireland.

Lord North passed a great encomium on the Administration of Ireland since the appointment of the present Lord-Lieutenant; observing, that no better proof could be given of it, than that it was attended with uncommon success.

Mr. Conolly observed, it was no wonder the Government of that kingdom should be attended with success, when two hundred and sixty-five thousand pounds had been raised on a ruined impoverished country. [Here he was proceeding to show how unable the Irish were to bear such a burden; and to give a detail of the pensions that had been lately granted, the places newly created, and the various means employed to influence and corrupt the representatives of the people; when he was interrupted by Lord North, as applying to matters not at all relating to the subject of the present debate.]

Mr. Fox insisted, that the matter stated by his honourable relation was perfectly within order; that it grew directly out of the subject of debate; and that if his Lordship appealed to the success of Administration in Ireland, as a proof of the wisdom or mildness of the Government there, it was no less fair in argument than consonant to order, to show the true causes of this boasted success.

The question being put for a Committee, the House divided:

So it passed in the negative.

Mr. Townshend also moved, That the Votes of the House of Commons of Ireland, printed by the order of the Speaker of that House, of the dates of the 23d, 28th, and 29th of November, and the 25th of December last, be delivered in at the table, and read.

It passed in the negative.

Mr. Townshend then moved, That it is highly derogatory to the honour, and a violent breach of the privileges of this House, and a dangerous infringement of the Constitution, for any person whatever to presume to pledge his Majesty’s Royal word to the House of Commons of the Parliament of Ireland, “that any part of the Troops upon the establishment of that kingdom shall, upon their being sent out of that kingdom, become a charge upon Great Britain,” without the consent of this House; or for any person to presume to offer to the House of Commons of the Parliament of Ireland, without the consent of this House, “that such national Troops, so sent out of Ireland, shall be replaced by foreign Troops, at the expense of Great Britain.”

And the previous question being put, That that question be now put,

It passed in the negative.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Tuesday, February 20, 1776.

Mr. Fox said, he should not trespass on the patience and good sense of the House, by recapitulating the cause of the present unhappy disputes with America. He should not develope that system, whence the measures now carrying on were supposed to originate. He should forbear to animadvert upon a system that, in its principles, complexion, and every constituent part, gave the fullest and most unequivocal proofs that its ultimate design was the total destruction of the Constitution of this free form of Government. These were assertions that might be disputed. People who had, or perhaps had not, the best opinion of the abilities of those in power, might have a confidence that they intended nothing ill. Others, though they disapproved of their general conduct, might rather think them the dupes of their secret supporters; and even such as thought the most indifferently of them would be disposed to look upon them rather as tools, than arraign them as principals in so unnatural and horrid a conspiracy against the liberties of their country. But what might be the secret designs of a junto, or the venal alacrity of the despicable cyphers they employed to effect their traitorous purposes, was, he said, to be no part of the subject of inquiry this day. He did not mean to teaze or insult the House with idle surmises, with floating vague suspicions, leading to partial deductions or speculative charges, conceived and spun out of his own brain; but wished to draw their attention to certain well-known, indisputable, incontrovertible facts. His proposed inquiry would not be directed to ascertain the rights of Great Britain, or the subordinate claims of America; to explain the constitutional connection between taxation and representation; what was rebellion, or what legal resistance; whether all America ought to have been punished and proscribed for the intemperate zeal or disobedience of a Boston mob. He did not even mean to dispute or controvert the expediency, nor, in short, a single Ministerial ground, on which the present measures respecting America were taken up, pursued, and defended. Those were all, for this day at least, to be absolutely laid aside. For argument sake, he would allow that Administration had acted perfectly right; but while he granted this, he would take up the matter from the very instant Administration had agreed upon a plan of coercion. This era he fixed at the time the Minister first proposed certain resolutions to the House in February 1774, as a ground of complaint, and followed it with the famous Boston Port Bill. He then entered into a historical detail of the means employed to carry this plan of coercion into effect; in which he painted in the strongest colours, and held to view in the most striking lights, such a scene of folly in the Cabinet, servile acquiescence in Parliament, and misconduct and ignorance in office and the field, as never before, he said, disgraced this nation, or indeed any other. He added, that our Ministers wanted both wisdom and integrity, our Parliaments publick spirit and discernment; and that our commanders, by sea and land, were either deficient in abilities, or, (which was the most probable,) had acted under orders that prevented them from executing the great objects of their command. No man could say but there had been mismanagement and misconduct somewhere. It was the chief object of his intended motion, to gain that species of information which might be the means of discovering the true causes of both. Publick justice demanded such an inquiry. The individuals on whom the obloquy rested, were entitled to be heard in their own defence. To withhold the information necessary to their justification, would be an insult to the nation, as well as an act of private injustice. None but the guilty could wish to evade it. No man, as a soldier or sailor, be his rank ever so high, was sure of his honour a single minute, if he was to be buried under publick disgrace, in order to shield, protect, or palliate the blunders and incapacity of others. If the Ministers had planned with wisdom, and proportioned the force to the service; if the great officers in the several efficient departments had done all that depended on them, ably and faithfully; then it was plain, that the whole of the miscarriages that had happened might be deservedly imputed to our naval and military commanders. If, on the other hand, the latter acquitted themselves according to their instructions, and carried on their operations in proportion to the force, it was no less plain, that the cause of all the disgraces the British arms had suffered arose from ignorance in those who planned, and incapacity and want of integrity in those to whom the carrying them into execution was in the first instance entrusted. He then recapitulated a variety of circumstances to prove his general allegations, and entered into the conduct of Administration respecting Canada, and repeated several arguments used at the time of passing the Quebeck