ferred to the Committee of Supply.[1] He said that the
troops were wanted as the best and most speedy means
of reducing America to a proper constitutional state
of obedience, because men could be readier had and
upon much cheaper terms in this way than they could
possibly be recruited at home; that the troops hired
would cost less than could have been expected, referring
to former times and taking all the circumstances
together; and, lastly, that the force which this measure
would enable them to send to America would be
such as, in all human probability, must compel that
country to agree to terms of submission, perhaps without
further effusion of blood.
Lord North was supported by Mr. Cornwall, who assured the House that he had a better opportunity of knowing the means of treating with German princes and procuring troops than any man in it; that his situation for many years (as clerk in the German pay office during the last war) gave him this opportunity; and that he was astonished to hear any gentleman conversant with German connections call the present terms disadvantageous. He contended that the two months' previous pay allowed to the Duke of Brunswick was no more than a douceur; and insisted that the troops were all had on better terms than was ever known before, especially if the business should be effected within the year, of which he had no reason to doubt.
Lord George Germaine defended the measure on the ground of necessity. He quoted a number of precedents to show that in every war, or rebellion, England had had recourse to foreigners to fight her battles
- ↑ “Parliamentary Register,” 1st series, vol. iii. pp. 341-360.
