shall satisfy the demands of Administration. I desire that the copy of Lord Hillsborough’s letter may be read, and after that I shall desire that the conciliatory proposition may be read, that the argument may stand upon record in your Journals, that a formal demand has been made to Ministry in Parliament on the part of America, claiming the performance of the solemn promise, and the support of the national faith plighted to the Colonies in Lord Hillsborough’s letter. The Conciliatory proposition being brought into the same page of your Journals with that letter, will perpetually remain in contrast, to convict Administration of having broken the publick faith thus solemnly plighted; next in order will stand, of course, the proposition offered to you this day by the worthy magistrate of the City of London. If Ministry refuse their assent to that proposition, which they are now called upon to accept as conformable to the spirit and substance of Lord Hillsborough’s letter, it will be a formal declaration to America that they must never trust to Ministerial promises, but look to themselves for safety.

Every proposition for reconciliation has so constantly and uniformly been crushed by Administration, that I think they seem not even to wish for the appearance of justice. The law of force is that which they appeal to. Let me, then, at least, suggest to their consideration whether there can be the least prospect of accomplishing by force what they have undertaken. At land, the cause is acknowledged desperate. 1 told you last year that the Congress would turn out an army of fifty thousand men, before the then ensuing midsummer. That suggestion was treated at that time as being in the highest degree ridiculous; yet it has proved true. You thought that two regiments would conquer all North-America; but you have found ten times that number foiled at the single town of Boston. You have lost the whole Province of Canada, except Quebeck; and your utmost expectations this year will be to retake what was once your own. So much for your success at land. What can you expect at sea? I fear I should make myself ridiculous to you once more, if I were to predict to you what, however, I confess I fear on that head. Consider, sir, ship building is the manufacture of America. Two-thirds of the British commerce is carried on upon American bottoms. That shipping, then, which was once for your service, will be turned into ships of force, to be employed against your trade and transports. They have begun already. You have supplied them with seamen by the stoppage of their trade and fisheries. You have thrown upon their hands forty or fifty thousand seamen, who can find no other employment but in the destruction of your marine. Remember their skill and courage at sea against our common enemies in the last war. Your ships will be three thousand miles from home, a long while out of port, foul, and under every disadvantage. Their ships will be at home, to take every advantage towards the latter end of the year that wind and weather may give them; when, if you do not quit the coast, you will be at the hazard of wreck or destruction, upon every wind that may blow. It is in vain to suggest these points of prudence; they are treated as the suggestions of pusillanimity and ill-will, till fatal experience brings conviction too late. Disgrace has been the fate, of our armaments at land; I fear it will be the same at sea. We are in a dreadful dilemma. Success or defeat are equal ruin.

We are now got nearly to the end of the session. All our propositions for reconciliation have failed. Ministry are determined upon the trial of force. I am sensible, sir, that I have been very importunate with you in this session, by reiterated applications. My object has been, not peace with America, but reconciliation, which is more than peace. We may have a federal peace with France or Spain, or with any foreign Power; but reconciliation is the wished-for object between those who are connected by every tie of consanguinity and friendship. It is for this reason that I so much regret and deprecate the measures of force which are undertaken. Even if it were possible to make a conquest of America, we should only be torn so much the further from a reunion of affection and good will. By persisting so obstinately in every measure of force, and by rejecting every proposition of reconciliation, whatever quarter it comes from, or in whatever shape it is offered, you have left no alternative to America but unconditional submission or independence. I can easily foresee that the ground of the question will be totally changed before we meet again. Unless you can effect the conquest of America, (which I think it equal madness either to attempt or to wish for,) instead of reconciliation, you must come to a federal treaty, with a people driven by yourselves to despair. As long as reconciliation, and a return to our former happy connection, continues the object, so far I can see my way before me; but when reconciliation is out of sight, we have lost our compass. The die is now cast for conquest or independence. We have bid an everlasting farewell to America. Whatever may be the event of the war, this, at least, is certain—reconciliation never comes by the sword.

The question having been repeatedly called for, was put. The House divided : Ayes 33; noes 115.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Wednesday, May 22, 1776.

General Conway. I am to apologize to the House for the introduction of a motion at this late period of the session; but the alarming and dreadful situation of this country compels me to trouble you. The House knows I am not professedly a motion-maker, but content myself with that line of humble duty in which my abilities, situation, and temper, necessarily limit my conduct. What shall I say, sir? There is but one moment between this great country and destruction ! I wish to seize it; the urgencies of this crisis will be my apology to the House. I am no partisan, nor indiscriminate opposer of Government, except in this point.

The Gazette informs me that Commissioners (Lord Howe and his brother) are to be delegated with powers to treat with America for peace. I am not to learn that, with enemies in general, the King is the sole arbiter of peace and war; but with our fellow-subjects, where privileges are to be granted or concessions made, I doubt whether it can be done without the previous consent of Parliament.

It may be objected that the King may treat and you afterwards ratify what is done; but are you certain that America will trust you? Why not adopt the surer road? Specify the terms upon which you will treat; if they are fair and constitutional, and the Americans refuse to accommodate differences, you will thereby dissolve every legal combination, by putting yourselves in the right. Besides, methinks there is somewhat due to this House, some information, some attention usual in those cases.

Will you give up taxation entirely? One noble Lord in the Cabinet says yes; another, no. Is this House agreed upon it? If you are, specify it fairly and openly; if not, if you cannot agree upon that fundamental point, in God’s name, how can Lord Howe treat upon that essential point, where, from the disunion of Ministers, and differences of opinion in this House, nothing certain can be offered? Why, sir, was not the Earl of Hillsborough’s letter a solemn renunciation of the right of taxation? Was not his Majesty’s name pledged for the performance? Yes. Was it ratified on their part? Did not all the Governours of America, did not Lord Botetourt say that the Ministers were not immortal, but that, to his dying day he should consider Great Britain as pledged to relinquish it? And this to the; Assembly of Virginia; and the same language held also to all the other Assemblies in America?

I know it has been said that those who spoke and wrote against taxation in America were a faction, consisting of such persons as were disaffected to Government; but I have sufficient reason to convince me that they gave the sentiments of the people of America in general. I remember particularly to have seen, about that time, a manuscript written by the late Governour of Massachusetts-Bay, Governour Hutchinson I mean, who, I believe, will not be suspected of being unfriendly to Government, containing very sensible and unanswerable arguments against passing the Stamp Act, and which showed, to his honour, that he was a friend to his country as well as to Government.

But the Earl of Hillsborough’s letter has been read in the House of Lords; I will read it here:

“Circular to all the Governours on the Continent and Islands.

“Whitehall, May 13, 1769.

“MY LORD (OR SIR) : Enclosed I send you the gracious Speech made by the King to his Parliament at the close of the session, on Tuesday last.