been armed with sufficient powers, the Americans would have been fully justified in declaring themselves independent, from the most obvious motives of selfpreservation. The language applied by the speech to the colonists was, he said, indecent; if it were not, then not only the colonists, but the Whigs of 1688 also, were rank rebels and guilty of treason. He was not going to alter his sentiments because of the recent success of the royal arms: they were unaltered. He then proceeded to ridicule the reliance placed by the Ministers on the pacific intentions of France. He said he had recently been in that country, and had seen their preparations, which were notorious to everybody, except to the English Ambassador in Paris; not only France, but Spain also, had been arming for months; a formidable fleet was fitting out at Brest; the French and Spanish ports, both in Europe and the West Indies, were so many asylums for the American privateers; warlike stores were openly transported from almost every harbour in France; the French Court had positively refused to prohibit American trading vessels or ships of war from entering their ports; and to complete the whole, a person sent from the Congress, if not two or three, was now in a public character at the court of Versailles, not perhaps received by M. de Vergennes with the formalities of an Envoy Extraordinary, but most certainly armed with all the efficient powers of a person treating on the part of an independent state. The concluding paragraph of the speech he declared to be a compound of the most glaring hypocrisies, unless attempting to rob the people or America of their property, by laying taxes on them without their consent and stripping them of their charters, was a proof "that no people ever enjoyed more happiness under a milder government," or unless sending over an army of foreign mercenaries was the first step "to restore to them the blessings of law and liberty, equally enjoyed by every British subject."[1]
- ↑ Parliamentary History, xviii. 1385-1391. The treaties with the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel and the Duke of Brunswick for the "cession of a body of troops" will be found in the Parliamentary History, xviii. 1156-1167.
